Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/09/2003 4:52:07 AM PST by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: OESY

2 posted on 12/09/2003 4:54:41 AM PST by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY; Byron_the_Aussie; *bang_list; *TRT
When anti-gun, anti-RKBA, big-government liberals such as Feinstein and Biden support the so-called Patriot Act, then we know that our freedoms are in danger.
3 posted on 12/09/2003 5:53:37 AM PST by VasilyZaitsev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
History shows that new security policies usually last only as long as the war or emergency. The president and Congress usually voluntarily give up their emergency powers; when they do not, courts step in.

Yep, that's why (for example) income tax withholding did not survive the emergency (World War Two) that provided the impetus for its adoption.

4 posted on 12/09/2003 6:24:22 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
Given that al Qaeda terrorists have used libraries to conduct research and to communicate, and that their activities can be traced through credit-card receipts and travel reservations, this expansion of FISA is eminently reasonable.

Testimony from Oct 2003, Senate Judiciary Committee:

As you know, several groups including the ACLU, have claimed that Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the government to investigate the library habits of ordinary citizens. This misinformation has apparently led a number of librarians to warn patrons needlessly of possible government monitoring. This overreaction has only led to further public confusion and misunderstanding about the scope of the Patriot Act.

The suggestion that federal agents are snooping on innocent citizens’ reading habits is inflammatory and simply untrue. First, the Patriot Act explicitly protects Americans’ First Amendment rights by providing that an investigation may 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.” Second, terrorism investigators have no interest in the reading habits of ordinary Americans. As the Attorney General pointed out recently, as of September 18, 2003, this provision had never been used. The House Judiciary Committee also concluded in its October 17, 2002, press release that its “review of classified information related to FISA orders for tangible records, such as library records, has not given rise to any concern that the [government’s] authority is being misused or abused.”

But historically, terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. For example, Brian Patrick Regan, who was convicted last February of offering to sell U.S. intelligence information to Iraq and China, used a computer at a local public library to look up addresses for Iraqi and Libyan embassies overseas. Similarly, in a recent domestic terrorism criminal case, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that a suspect had bought 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. We should not allow libraries or any other businesses to become safe havens for terrorist planning, financing, or communication. The Patriot Act ensures that business records can be obtained in a national security investigation with the approval of a federal judge. Under the Patriot Act, the government can now ask a federal court to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas, but only after the government shows that the records are sought for an authorized foreign intelligence investigation or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Moreover, Congress also exercises careful and ongoing oversight: Every six months, the Attorney General must “fully inform” Congress of how Section 215 has been used.

Testimony of Christopher Wray, Chief of the Criminal Division United States Department of Justice

On FISA (from same website):

Critics have also attacked Section 218 of the Act, which allows the use of surveillance under FISA whenever a significant purpose of the investigation is foreign intelligence collection. Critics have suggested that pursuant to Section 218, the FBI may now conduct a secret search or secretly record telephone conversations without a showing of probable cause. This characterization of the Act is misleading.

Section 218 was passed to ensure an integrated investigation of terrorist activity by intelligence and law enforcement agents. As I described earlier, before the Patriot Act, a perceived “wall” inhibited information sharing and coordination between the two groups. Intelligence investigators were afraid that consultation with law enforcement investigators would mean that they would be unable to obtain or continue intelligence-related surveillance. Section 218 recognizes the need for, and legality of, full coordination between the two groups by permitting the use of FISA whenever foreign intelligence is a “significant purpose” of a national security investigation. And Section 504 of the Patriot Act specifically permits intelligence investigators to consult with federal law enforcement officers to coordinate efforts to investigate or to protect against threats from foreign powers and their agents.

As with other Patriot Act provisions, safeguards exist to ensure that Section 218 is not abused, most notably the fact that a surveillance or search under FISA can be ordered only if the government demonstrates, to the satisfaction of a federal court, that there is probable cause to believe that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Last November, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review upheld the constitutionality of Section 218 and the Department’s procedures implementing it. The court held that “FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable.”

In general:

The various misconceptions that have been perpetuated about the Patriot Act are disturbing and simply wrong. The Department is very aware of its responsibility to protect civil rights while protecting the country from future terrorist attacks, and we want to ensure that the American people understand the safeguards embedded in the Patriot Act. As you know, the Attorney General and the U.S. Attorneys have spoken about these concerns recently in communities across the country, and the Department has set up a Web site to address the issue as well. We encourage the members of the Committee and all Americans to review the site, lifeandliberty.gov, to learn more about how the Patriot Act protects our nation’s security while protecting the personal liberties we so dearly cherish.[My note: So do I, knowledge is power.]


6 posted on 12/09/2003 6:57:58 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
Here is a sober, conservative, liberty-oriented view of the Act.

http://federalist.com/papers/03-41_paper.asp
7 posted on 12/09/2003 7:39:30 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Police officials view armed citizens like teachers union bosses view homeschoolers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: OESY
If the Act marginally reduces peacetime liberties, this is a reasonable price to pay

BUT,,we can't be sure it will stop at that. Give em an inch,,,,you know the rest. I can't see giving up any more of our Liberties!! We have lost too much already!

13 posted on 12/09/2003 12:25:01 PM PST by SCDogPapa (In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson