Posted on 04/05/2005 6:28:38 PM PDT by tomball
WASHINGTON - FBI Director Robert Mueller on Tuesday asked lawmakers to expand the bureau’s ability to obtain records without first asking a judge, and he joined Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in seeking that every temporary provision of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act be renewed.
He also asked Congress to expand the FBI’s administrative subpoena powers, which allow the bureau to obtain records without approval or a judge or grand jury.
"For many years, the FBI has had administrative subpoena authority for investigations of crimes ranging from drug trafficking to health care fraud to child exploitation," he stated. "Yet, when it comes to terrorism investigations, the FBI has no such authority."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I have to agree. Without a unified and comprehensive strategy to keep terrorists out of the country, then identifying those already here is useless. This plan begins to look like a Clintonesque plot to supress the liberties of the American people.
Your probably not too far off, the definition of terrorism and terrorist seems to get broader as each day passes. Something as simple as pointing a toy laser into the air or writing a negative post on the net could bring these new laws straight to our door steps.
Perhaps you should read the Actual Patriot Act!
I have NOT read it but I know some bits...
for example .. this whole "library" thing is just plain silly.
Atty. G. Gonzales stated that there had been 37 ?
(I claim CRS disease on the #
instances in which the article 230 #something) been used since it's enactment, he was rather forthcoming regarding the results.
Maybe Sandy Berger can come over to your house for dinner next week?
For crying out loud, how the heck are we supposed to be safe
(this is not a "border" thought) from the people who threaten us financially, internally, security wise, personally.. when we are no longer a weapon owning Society!
THAT 2nd Ammendment right has been emasculated in most urban areas.. also an issue for another day!
I am a supporter of the Constitution and it's Importance..
but I am unsure THAT WE HAVE SPENT ENOUGH CONSIDERATION ON the Safety of our beloved land and the technology with which we are faced!
Big brother will be watching you.
U.S. Citizens Will Soon Need Passports to Travel Back From Mexico
Those of you who travel to Mexico will now need a passport to return back to the states.
"Carrying a passport is easier for the government to track them and know where they are and where they've been. It's definitely safer, and I think it's a positive for U.S. citizens," said Miller.
Steven Hatfill.
yes, but if you listend to Napolitano - he clearly said that the judges should have this power. since he is a former judge, he wants these powers to reside with the judiciary. that's the real choice here - someone in government has to be trusted in the domestic war on terror. do you trust the courts to run it?
BTW, how would you know? The victims are forbidden to talk about it.
"someone in government has to be trusted in the domestic war on terror. do you trust the courts to run it?"
Why not have two checks, the FBI and the courts.
Just like the Founders intended.
To the globalists, "terrorist" is any one who opposes them, putting al queda and american nationalists in the same bed.
P.S. judge Napolitano was full of crap!
He did not back up any statements as facts, just rendered his holy decision!
I thought his comments rather "telling"1
But ...Whaadooiknow?
I was making dinner and trying to respond to several at once!
and of course our civil rights were better when the FBI had to get individual wiretap warrants for each and every phone someone might be on, as opposed to a blanket wiretap. so while the AQ suspect is picking up a new phone every couple of hours at best buy, the FBI has to run to a judge to get a new wiretap for it. yeah, those were the good old days when we were safe.
how do you do that? once you place any check into the hands of judiciary, they reign supreme - the Schiavo case certainly taught us that.
"the Schiavo case certainly taught us that."
No it didn't.
So you're saying it's okay to give unconstitutional powers to law enforcement because I don't know anyone who has been screwed by these poweres at this time. Excellent arguement...
I agree with you on the nature of the judiciary. In fact, the judges enable and legally codify the illegal law writing by the bureaucracy.
The bureaucracy won't be reined or controlled by the legislature. The abuse by the executive of using the bureaucracy to illegally write law is monumental (see Clinton, et al), while the history of the legislature reining in this executive abuse is completely defeaning.
We are still allowing people from the middle eastern terrorist states to immigrate here. Now, do you really think the fact that the FBI can't search anything they want inside our borders is the real problem? Hell no it isn't. The government should get it's house in order, and then if needs be, we'll address reasoned powers. These aren't.
Just call me old fashioned.....
Amendment IV
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.
In this case, what are the courts doing wrong? They are, properly, asserting their authority over searches. Do you object to that? Do you think previous violations of court authority over searches makes it permissible now?
if we can't trust anyone in our own government - we lose. so its all about figuring out who to trust and finding the right balance. tipping it to far towards the judiciary doesn't work - law enforcement would be hamstrung, as in the example with the wiretaps. and when you have people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg sitting on the highest court in the land, that's all I need to know to form an opinion.
Hasn't happened to me or mine.
But, I am a blonde, blue-eyed Aryan. Hitler would have given me a pass.....but airport security will not.
I also cut off the tags from pillows that say "do not remove under penalty of law"....and I do not always "close cover before striking" (matches). Sometimes I have even been known to "crosswalk".....Heaven forfend!
I travel internationally several times a year. I am one of those 60+ grannies that seems to be targeted for the "pat down" nearly every trip. (I'm beginning to enjoy it.....and that really worries me)....while the dark swarthy types walk right through. I am totally in favor of racial profiling in the airports. PC be damned! All the 9/11 terrorists fit the profile......and it should be pursued.
Law abiding citizens should have no fear of the Patriot Act.
Just MHO.
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.