czar wrote: Originally Posted by Accountable
The danger isn't necessarily false accusations. Rather, it's a badly written law that allows the abuse of citizens' rights without due process. In short, it's unconstitutional, imo.
If you are a terrorist, you have no constitutional rights.That's the point. There's no real definition of "terrorist". The "Patriot" Act can be used against anyone.
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
czar wrote: Have you lost any freedom since this has been in place, I don't think so.
Absolutely! You think I don't watch very carefully which books I check out from the library now? Freedom to read anything I wanted used to be one of my freedoms.
Absolutely! You think I don't watch very carefully which books I check out from the library now? Freedom to read anything I wanted used to be one of my freedoms.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
Jives wrote: Absolutely! You think I don't watch very carefully which books I check out from the library now? Freedom to read anything I wanted used to be one of my freedoms.
You can let that bother you but most of us won't, there are worst things to worry about than what I check out of the library. That would be like not buying meat at the grocery store because Peta may be watching.
You can let that bother you but most of us won't, there are worst things to worry about than what I check out of the library. That would be like not buying meat at the grocery store because Peta may be watching.
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
There seems to be a certain amount of paranoia re: the monitoring of emails, phone calls, library books checked out etc. With all the hundreds of millions of transactions there is insufficient man/woman power, other than on a selective basis, to peruse all these transactions. Joe Lunch Bucket is hardly the one to be selected. Activist Leaders? Foreign Nationals? Known Subversives?
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
I just can't believe what extremes some take things to. We are not a police state, we are not on the verge of ripping up the constitution, and we are not going to be a communist country. Even today the senate decided to let the patriot act go for 6 more months for the same reason I stated in another post that this is the best solution we have right now until we figure out something better. The government has been watching what we are doing since they came up with the technology to do so.It just took them this long to tell us, they probably have been reading this post. Does that bother me....NO! I don't care, I would rather them do it without me knowing cause ignorance is bliss. You can quote Ben Fanklin all you want and think that his 200+yr old sayings are ment to combat what is going on now, but I highly don't think even he could forsee what has happened. I see all these posts against the patriot act but yet noone in here has come up with a better mousetrap. Anyone wanna try?
_________________________________________________________________
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate leaders reached a bipartisan agreement on Wednesday to extend for six months key provisions of the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act set to expire in 10 days.
The accord, to be voted on later on Wednesday, would provide time for Congress to try to resolve differences over safeguards for civil liberties before making most of the provisions the Bush administration deems necessary for its war on terror permanent.
Democrats and Republicans who helped negotiate the deal voiced confidence that the White House and House of Representatives would give needed approvals.
Initially passed after the September 11, 2001, attacks, the Patriot Act expanded the authority of the federal government to conduct secret searches, obtain private records, intercept telephone calls and take other action in the effort to track down suspected terrorists.
Earlier on Wednesday, 52 of the 100 senators, including eight Republicans, signed a letter in support of a Democratic-led bid to extend expiring provisions for just three months to provide time to resolve differences.
Senate leaders, who had earlier opposed any such short-term deal, agreed to the six-month extension following talks during much of the day.
The battle has been complicated by the recent disclosure that shortly after the September 11 attacks Bush authorized spying on communications by Americans with suspected terrorist ties without a warrant.
Bush brushed aside criticism of his aggressive tactics and, earlier on Wednesday, accused Senate Democrats of putting the United States at risk by blocking renewal of the Patriot Act.
Bush made no mention of the four senators in his Republican Party -- Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Larry Craig of Idaho, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- who joined most Democrats last week to block the bill with a procedural hurdle.
(Additional reporting Caroline Drees, Paul Eckert, Jim Wolf and Jim Vicini)
_________________________________________________________________
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate leaders reached a bipartisan agreement on Wednesday to extend for six months key provisions of the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act set to expire in 10 days.
The accord, to be voted on later on Wednesday, would provide time for Congress to try to resolve differences over safeguards for civil liberties before making most of the provisions the Bush administration deems necessary for its war on terror permanent.
Democrats and Republicans who helped negotiate the deal voiced confidence that the White House and House of Representatives would give needed approvals.
Initially passed after the September 11, 2001, attacks, the Patriot Act expanded the authority of the federal government to conduct secret searches, obtain private records, intercept telephone calls and take other action in the effort to track down suspected terrorists.
Earlier on Wednesday, 52 of the 100 senators, including eight Republicans, signed a letter in support of a Democratic-led bid to extend expiring provisions for just three months to provide time to resolve differences.
Senate leaders, who had earlier opposed any such short-term deal, agreed to the six-month extension following talks during much of the day.
The battle has been complicated by the recent disclosure that shortly after the September 11 attacks Bush authorized spying on communications by Americans with suspected terrorist ties without a warrant.
Bush brushed aside criticism of his aggressive tactics and, earlier on Wednesday, accused Senate Democrats of putting the United States at risk by blocking renewal of the Patriot Act.
Bush made no mention of the four senators in his Republican Party -- Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Larry Craig of Idaho, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- who joined most Democrats last week to block the bill with a procedural hurdle.
(Additional reporting Caroline Drees, Paul Eckert, Jim Wolf and Jim Vicini)
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
Dispelling Some of the Major Myths about the USA PATRIOT Act
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act "expands terrorism laws to include 'domestic terrorism' which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy." They also claim that it includes a "provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as 'domestic terrorism.'" (ACLU, February 11, 2003; ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor in "UnPATRIOTic," National Journal, August 4, 2003)
Reality: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. "Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy" without breaking laws cannot be targeted. Peaceful political discourse and dissent is one of America's most cherished freedoms, and is not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of "domestic terrorism" is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Therefore, peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy will obviously not come under this definition. (Patriot Act, Section 802)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The ACLU has claimed that "Many [people] are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the 'thought police' can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit." (ACLU, July 22, 2003)
Reality: The Patriot Act specifically protects Americans' First Amendment rights, and terrorism investigators have no interest in the library habits of ordinary Americans. Historically, terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. If terrorists or spies use libraries, we should not allow them to become safe havens for their terrorist or clandestine activities. The Patriot Act ensures that business records - whether from a library or any other business - can be obtained in national security investigations with the permission of a federal judge.
Examining business records often provides the key that investigators are looking for to solve a wide range of crimes. Investigators might seek select records from hardware stores or chemical plants, for example, to find out who bought materials to make a bomb, or bank records to see who's sending money to terrorists. Law enforcement authorities have always been able to obtain business records in criminal cases through grand jury subpoenas, and continue to do so in national security cases where appropriate. In a recent domestic terrorism case, for example, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that a suspect had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying the suspect as the bomber.
In national security cases where use of the grand jury process was not appropriate, investigators previously had limited tools at their disposal to obtain certain business records. Under the Patriot Act, the government can now ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), if needed to aid an investigation, to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas. This federal court, however, can issue these orders only after the government demonstrates the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a U.S. person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment.
Congress reviews the government's use of business records under the Act. Every six months, the Attorney General must "fully inform" Congress on how it has been implemented. On October 17, 2002, the House Judiciary Committee issued a press release indicating it is satisfied with the Department's use of section 215: "The Committee's review of classified information related to FISA orders for tangible records, such as library records, has not given rise to any concern that the authority is being misused or abused."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act provision about delayed notification search warrants "would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. . . . This provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States." (ACLU, October 23, 2001)
Reality: Delayed notification search warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography. The Patriot Act simply codified the authority law enforcement had already had for decades. This tool is a vital aspect of our strategy of prevention - detecting and incapacitating terrorists before they are able to strike.
In some cases if criminals are tipped off too early to an investigation, they might flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses, cut off contact with associates, or take other action to evade arrest. Therefore, federal courts in narrow circumstances long have allowed law enforcement to delay for a limited time when the subject is told that a judicially-approved search warrant has been executed. This tool can be used only with a court order, in extremely narrow circumstances when immediate notification may result in death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or serious jeopardy to an investigation. The reasonable delay gives law enforcement time to identify the criminal's associates, eliminate immediate threats to our communities, and coordinate the arrests of multiple individuals without tipping them off beforehand. In all cases, law enforcement must give notice that property has been searched or seized.
The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant." In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous." Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979)
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act "expands terrorism laws to include 'domestic terrorism' which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy." They also claim that it includes a "provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as 'domestic terrorism.'" (ACLU, February 11, 2003; ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor in "UnPATRIOTic," National Journal, August 4, 2003)
Reality: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. "Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy" without breaking laws cannot be targeted. Peaceful political discourse and dissent is one of America's most cherished freedoms, and is not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of "domestic terrorism" is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Therefore, peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy will obviously not come under this definition. (Patriot Act, Section 802)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The ACLU has claimed that "Many [people] are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the 'thought police' can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit." (ACLU, July 22, 2003)
Reality: The Patriot Act specifically protects Americans' First Amendment rights, and terrorism investigators have no interest in the library habits of ordinary Americans. Historically, terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. If terrorists or spies use libraries, we should not allow them to become safe havens for their terrorist or clandestine activities. The Patriot Act ensures that business records - whether from a library or any other business - can be obtained in national security investigations with the permission of a federal judge.
Examining business records often provides the key that investigators are looking for to solve a wide range of crimes. Investigators might seek select records from hardware stores or chemical plants, for example, to find out who bought materials to make a bomb, or bank records to see who's sending money to terrorists. Law enforcement authorities have always been able to obtain business records in criminal cases through grand jury subpoenas, and continue to do so in national security cases where appropriate. In a recent domestic terrorism case, for example, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that a suspect had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying the suspect as the bomber.
In national security cases where use of the grand jury process was not appropriate, investigators previously had limited tools at their disposal to obtain certain business records. Under the Patriot Act, the government can now ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), if needed to aid an investigation, to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas. This federal court, however, can issue these orders only after the government demonstrates the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a U.S. person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment.
Congress reviews the government's use of business records under the Act. Every six months, the Attorney General must "fully inform" Congress on how it has been implemented. On October 17, 2002, the House Judiciary Committee issued a press release indicating it is satisfied with the Department's use of section 215: "The Committee's review of classified information related to FISA orders for tangible records, such as library records, has not given rise to any concern that the authority is being misused or abused."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act provision about delayed notification search warrants "would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. . . . This provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States." (ACLU, October 23, 2001)
Reality: Delayed notification search warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography. The Patriot Act simply codified the authority law enforcement had already had for decades. This tool is a vital aspect of our strategy of prevention - detecting and incapacitating terrorists before they are able to strike.
In some cases if criminals are tipped off too early to an investigation, they might flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses, cut off contact with associates, or take other action to evade arrest. Therefore, federal courts in narrow circumstances long have allowed law enforcement to delay for a limited time when the subject is told that a judicially-approved search warrant has been executed. This tool can be used only with a court order, in extremely narrow circumstances when immediate notification may result in death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or serious jeopardy to an investigation. The reasonable delay gives law enforcement time to identify the criminal's associates, eliminate immediate threats to our communities, and coordinate the arrests of multiple individuals without tipping them off beforehand. In all cases, law enforcement must give notice that property has been searched or seized.
The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant." In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous." Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979)
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
A quick thanks. I have to read it then respond.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
jimmyjude wrote: Oh yeah.
Yes.
Absolutely.
The Patriot Act has already saved many American Lives.Not a good enough reason. Sorry.
Yes.
Absolutely.
The Patriot Act has already saved many American Lives.Not a good enough reason. Sorry.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
Here's my problem with the PATRIOT Act:
1. It's called the PATRIOT Act. Call me cynical, but they wouldn't have gone to so much trouble with the name if it weren't to hide something they shouldn't be doing.
2. It's 300 pages long. Call me cynical, but they wouldn't have gone to so much trouble putting so many different laws into one document if it weren't to hide something they shouldn't be doing.
Supporters say that without the Act we go back to the wall preventing communication between the FBI, CIA, etc. So change the policy!
Supporters say that the Act allows to tap cell phones and track individuals rather than just single phone numbers, something that wasn't possible under previous law. So change the wiretapping law! We don't need a new overlapping law.
I don't really care if we violate the rights of non-citizens, even though my wife is not a US citizen, but our citizenry MUST be given a higher standard. I don't care about the weak argument that OK City was bombed by domestic terrorists. I don't care if our current enemy start using citizens to do their dirty work. The law enforcement agencies must pay a higher respect to our citizenry than it does to non-citizens. They must go through the red tape to make sure that it is important enough to violate their rights.
I agree with Azrayel that 300 pages is too much to read. Take the cumbersome Act and break it down into its parts so we can see what the politicians are trying to hide.
1. It's called the PATRIOT Act. Call me cynical, but they wouldn't have gone to so much trouble with the name if it weren't to hide something they shouldn't be doing.
2. It's 300 pages long. Call me cynical, but they wouldn't have gone to so much trouble putting so many different laws into one document if it weren't to hide something they shouldn't be doing.
Supporters say that without the Act we go back to the wall preventing communication between the FBI, CIA, etc. So change the policy!
Supporters say that the Act allows to tap cell phones and track individuals rather than just single phone numbers, something that wasn't possible under previous law. So change the wiretapping law! We don't need a new overlapping law.
I don't really care if we violate the rights of non-citizens, even though my wife is not a US citizen, but our citizenry MUST be given a higher standard. I don't care about the weak argument that OK City was bombed by domestic terrorists. I don't care if our current enemy start using citizens to do their dirty work. The law enforcement agencies must pay a higher respect to our citizenry than it does to non-citizens. They must go through the red tape to make sure that it is important enough to violate their rights.
I agree with Azrayel that 300 pages is too much to read. Take the cumbersome Act and break it down into its parts so we can see what the politicians are trying to hide.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
jimmyjude wrote: Haha. Saving American lives isn't a good enough reason?
Well, glad that you aren't in charge.
Thank god for President Bush.Locking everyone away in solitary saves lives, too.
Before I go further with you, I need to know you know what you're talking about. I've slammed some people that really didn't deserve it because they didn't know better.
Are you old enough to have made the decision if or how to be of service to our country? Not sure how else I can phrase it.
Well, glad that you aren't in charge.
Thank god for President Bush.Locking everyone away in solitary saves lives, too.
Before I go further with you, I need to know you know what you're talking about. I've slammed some people that really didn't deserve it because they didn't know better.
Are you old enough to have made the decision if or how to be of service to our country? Not sure how else I can phrase it.
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
Jives wrote: Absolutely! You think I don't watch very carefully which books I check out from the library now? Freedom to read anything I wanted used to be one of my freedoms.
Is this what worries you?
I t worries ME!!!!!!!!!
USA PATRIOT Act Page
SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and `(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. `(b) Each application under this section--`(1) shall be made to-- `(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or `(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and `(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. `(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section. `(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
Is this what worries you?
I t worries ME!!!!!!!!!
USA PATRIOT Act Page
SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and `(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. `(b) Each application under this section--`(1) shall be made to-- `(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or `(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and `(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. `(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section. `(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
BTS wrote: Is this what worries you?
I t worries ME!!!!!!!!!
USA PATRIOT Act Page
SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and `(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. `(b) Each application under this section--`(1) shall be made to-- `(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or `(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and `(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. `(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section. `(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.I'm okay as long as a judge is involved for checks and balances. We have to trust the system to work. I am definitely against cutting the judge out of the process. The delay is not significant, and the oversight of a disinterested party is vital.
I t worries ME!!!!!!!!!
USA PATRIOT Act Page
SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and `(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. `(b) Each application under this section--`(1) shall be made to-- `(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or `(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and `(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. `(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section. `(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.I'm okay as long as a judge is involved for checks and balances. We have to trust the system to work. I am definitely against cutting the judge out of the process. The delay is not significant, and the oversight of a disinterested party is vital.
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
wow accountable....the more we post on the patriot act the more you seem to agree. Are you ready to come to the dark side yet? lol
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
Azrayel wrote: wow accountable....the more we post on the patriot act the more you seem to agree. Are you ready to come to the dark side yet? lol :wah: Keep pluggin away. You never know.
The system is the thing. We complain about lenient judges then take all judges discretion away through mandatory minimums and 3 strikes. Then we complain that the wrong people are being imprisoned while we let others walk. :yh_questn Now we hear of taking judges out of the loop for searches & seizures because it might take too long to explain to a judge why it's important to spy on this guy or search his stuff (or maybe it's just too "complicated" for a judge to grasp). We have checks and balances for a reason.
As long as a judge has to validate a search or surveilance before the act, I will trust the system. My understanding had been different.
...
Stop gloating!
The system is the thing. We complain about lenient judges then take all judges discretion away through mandatory minimums and 3 strikes. Then we complain that the wrong people are being imprisoned while we let others walk. :yh_questn Now we hear of taking judges out of the loop for searches & seizures because it might take too long to explain to a judge why it's important to spy on this guy or search his stuff (or maybe it's just too "complicated" for a judge to grasp). We have checks and balances for a reason.
As long as a judge has to validate a search or surveilance before the act, I will trust the system. My understanding had been different.
...
Stop gloating!
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
jimmyjude wrote: THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO TRIED TO LOCK AMERICANS AWAY WAS fdr.
YOUR QUESTION IS NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS.I meant it in a friendly way. Your response says alot.
My point was winning at all costs is not acceptable. You disagree?
YOUR QUESTION IS NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS.I meant it in a friendly way. Your response says alot.
My point was winning at all costs is not acceptable. You disagree?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
jimmyjude wrote: ARE YOU A DEMOCRAT?no.
Should we renew the Patriot Act?
jimmyjude wrote: THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO TRIED TO LOCK AMERICANS AWAY WAS fdr.
YOUR QUESTION IS NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS.
temper, temper jimmy!! Life is too short to get all worked up over another persons response in here. Go pour yourself a nice cup of warm milk and get a couple cookies out of the cookie jar, and when you calm down we'll talk about this again. I mean look your cheeks!They are getting all red from all this yelling. BTW I'm a democrat in case you had somethng to say.
YOUR QUESTION IS NONE OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS.
temper, temper jimmy!! Life is too short to get all worked up over another persons response in here. Go pour yourself a nice cup of warm milk and get a couple cookies out of the cookie jar, and when you calm down we'll talk about this again. I mean look your cheeks!They are getting all red from all this yelling. BTW I'm a democrat in case you had somethng to say.