Posted on 02/14/2005 8:59:15 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
Bush Urges Renewal of Patriot Act
44 minutes ago White House - AP
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) on Monday urged Congress to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, the Justice Department (news - web sites)'s widely criticized anti-terrorism law.
AP Photo
Reuters Slideshow: President Bush
"We must not allow the passage of time or the illusion of safety to weaken our resolve in this new war" on terrorism, Bush said at a swearing-in ceremony for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the Justice Department.
The president also argued that the Senate must give his nominees for the federal bench up-or-down votes without delay to fill vacancies in the courts.
The Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, bolstered FBI (news - web sites) surveillance and law-enforcement powers in terror cases, increased use of material witness warrants to hold suspects incommunicado for months, and allowed secret proceedings in immigration cases.
Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates lambasted the law because they said it undermines freedom. But Bush said the act "has been vital to our success in tracking terrorists and disrupting their plans." He noted that many key elements of the law are set to expire at the end of the year and said Congress must act quickly to renew it.
The Patriot Act was pushed by Gonzales' predecessor, John Ashcroft (news - web sites), who was in the audience as Gonzales took his oath from Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites). Bush lauded Ashcroft's tireless efforts to make America safer as he oversaw a drop in violent crime besides his counterterrorism work.
Gonzales, who served as White House counsel during the last four years, said he would be a part of Bush's team but his first allegiance will be to the Constitution.
"I am confident that in the days and years ahead we in the department will work together tirelessly to address terrorism and other threats to our nation and to confront injustice with integrity and devotion to our highest ideals," Gonzales said.
It reads, in full:
In addition to the grounds for issuing a warrant in section 3103 of this title, a warrant may be issued to search for and seize any property that constitutes evidence of criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States.
(Added Pub.L 90-351, Title IX S 1401(a), June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 238.)
The 2001 Amendment added section (b) on Delay ("any notice may required be delayed if": there's an adverse effect, the warrant prohibits seizure, AND the warrant provides for such notice which the court may extend)
Conservatives support the forth amendment. You aren't a conservative, so it's ok.
I mentioned three provisions I have no problem with.
Or any others it seems.
You had a problem with each apparently.
I told you the ones I had a problem with.
What else do you have a problem with?
I told you that too.
Do we scrap the entire act?
Yes. Start over with something that might work. And "nothing" would work as well as the "patriot act".
Should we fight terrorism with fewer tools that we've fought organized crime?
That brings us back to the success or lack thereof of your favorite law. How many terrorists have been caught in exchange for the forth amendment?
How many of these searches have been turned down by the FISA court in the last 15 years? One that I'm aware of and that was just to protect Bill and Hill. Can you cite any others? If not, then the "judicial review" if little more than a rubber stamp, and not acual judicial oversight.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
_________________________________________
You make the assumption that the Patriot Act dismisses the "probable cause" and "unreasonable searches" requirement of the 4th Amendment. It does not, never has, and will not do so when it passes again with 80% congressional approval.
"Know your Customer Rule"
Anyway, since you can't answer any of the questions, particularly, How many terrorists have been caught,,,,,,,this is getting boring.
One can only hope that poetic justice prevails and you or a loved one is screwed royally in some way by this total abdication of your rights.
Back to posting with normal people now. Ta ta Froggy.
What the hell is your question? Per your request, I listed 3 "controversial" components of the PA that I agree with. I can't think of any other items that are controversial. Point them out if you want my commentary. There is NOTHING IN THE 4TH AMENDMENT THAT IS BEING VIOLATED.
Fifth time at least I posted it.
Point them out if you want my commentary.
Your commentary is not wanted.
What the hell is your question?
How many terrorists have been caught using the "Patriot Act"? Sixth time asking.
NOTHING IN THE 4TH AMENDMENT THAT IS BEING VIOLATED.
Most of the act violates it. Just because you are so busy quivering under your desk or licking the boots of your "defenders" that you can't figure it out doesn't mean it's not so.
Now fade back under your masters boot, froggy.
What section is the Know Your Customer in? I missed it. You kept typing it but I did not recognize the words as something associated with the PA.
Since I do not keep in contact with Ashcroft or his successor, I'll have to rely on other experts to determine how many terror-scum have been swept up due to the PA.
Looks like 179 as of July, 2004. This according to that non-conservative, ostrich-like, french loving rag Human Events. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4507
Add that to the list.
I'll have to rely on other experts to determine how many terror-scum have been swept up due to the PA.
I'll save you time. Zero
And your source for the Zero convictions? And the section of the PA regarding Know Your Customer??
I'm willing to look at and evaluate your sources. I assumed you looked at the Human Events article I posted and rejected its premise. Anyhow, you accused me of being wimpish (french) and ducking the argument. Just need to see the sources underpinning your confident statements.
Where would I find this info?
That's pretty broad in itself, prior to the PATRIOT Act.
I just want some more facts and information on this subject that is vaguely regarded to by many liberals and conservatives so I can make my own decisions before I start donning the tinfoil...
Thanks!
1. The FBI can secretly enter someone's home or office, search the premises, and leave without notifying the owner. In theory, this would be supervised by a court. However, the notification of the secret search "may be delayed" indefinitely (Section 213). This is, of course, a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "fishing expeditions" and guarantees the right of the people to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." All the federal government must do to suspend your Fourth Amendment rights is accuse you of terrorism.
2. Any U.S. attorney or state attorney general can order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system. As reported before, this system records all e-mail correspondence and the addresses of Web pages visited by a specific target. Previously, there were legal restrictions on Carnivore and other Internet surveillance techniques (Section 216). Even more troubling, Fox News has reported that the FBI plans to go beyond the authorization of the new bill and change the very architecture of the Internet. The FBI wants to route all net traffic through central servers for monitoring. While this will require the voluntary compliance of the major ISPs, most experts agree that they will quickly cave into these demands for fear of appearing uncooperative or unpatriotic.
3. An accused terrorist who is a foreign citizen can be held for an unspecified series of "periods of up to six months" with the attorney general's approval. He doesn't have to be charged and he may be denied access to an attorney (Section 412). In effect, this provision suspends any due process provisions of the Constitution, especially the Fifth Amendment which states that "no person … [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." While the provision of this bill only applies to foreigners, it sets a dangerous precedent and could easily be used in the future against U.S. citizens accused of domestic terrorism.
4. Foreigners who enter the U.S. on a visa will be subjected to biometric technology, such as fingerprint readers or iris scanners. This will become part of an "integrated entry and exit data system" (Section 414). My fear is that eventually all Americans will be forced to submit to this technology. This bill will put the infrastructure in place. In will then be a simple step to require all citizens to participate in this system. Failure to do so may result in the inability to travel or even to buy and sell merchandise or property.
5. Without a court order, the FBI can require telephone companies and Internet service providers to turn over customer records. All they have to do is claim that the "records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism." Worse, the company contacted may not "disclose to any person" that the FBI is doing an investigation (Section 505). The bill of rights was written to protect citizens from exactly this kind of abuse. This provision of the new law completely throws out the presumption of innocence doctrine that is central to our system of justice. Now anyone can be treated as a criminal if they are merely accused of a crime.
6. Without a court order, credit reporting agencies must disclose to the FBI any information that agents request in connection with a terrorist investigation. The agencies may not disclose to the subject that the FBI is snooping in their file (Section 505). Again, there is no presumption of innocence and the suspect is denied his due process rights. This gives government agents the authority to spy on anyone's financial activities. All they have to do is make the accusation of terrorism and the door swings wide open.
7. The current definition of terrorism is expanded to include biochemical attacks and computer hacking. Some current computer crimes — such as hacking a U.S. government system or breaking into and damaging any Internet-connected computer — are also covered (Section 808). While these are no doubt crimes and should be prosecuted, by classifying them as "terrorist activities," suspects are subject to having their rights radically curtailed, as I have outlined above. If convicted, they are subjected to extremely stiff penalties. Prison terms range between five and 20 years (Section 814.
My comments are inline for section 1.
1. The FBI can secretly (I assume you mean without notice) enter someone's home or office, search the premises, and leave without notifying the owner. In theory,(It not a theory, the court must supervise this activity according to Section 213(2)B1) this would be supervised by a court. However, the notification of the secret search "may be delayed" indefinitely (Section 213)(If certain conditions are met as set forth in Section 213. This is, of course, a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "fishing expeditions" and guarantees the right of the people to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." All the federal government must do to suspend your Fourth Amendment rights is accuse you of terrorism.And meet the requirements set forth in section 213
Section 213
may be delayed if--
`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705); `(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and `(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.
Picky, picky, picky.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.