[phoenix_004]

We need the patriot act and this is the reason why...In the words of the president:-

We need to renew the Patriot Act because it strengthens our national security in four important ways. First, we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act authorize better sharing of information between law enforcement and intelligence. Before the Patriot Act, criminal investigators were separated from intelligence officers by a legal and bureaucratic wall. A federal prosecutor who investigated Osama bin Laden in the 1990s explained the challenge this way: "We could talk to citizens, local police officers, foreign police officers -- we could even talk to al Qaeda members. But there was one group of people we were not permitted to talk to -- the FBI agents across the street from us assigned to parallel intelligence investigations of Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda. That was a wall."

Finding our enemies in the war on terror is tough enough --law enforcement officers should not be denied vital information their own colleagues already have. The Patriot Act helped tear down this wall, and now law enforcement and intelligence officers are sharing information and working together, and bringing terrorists to justice.

In many terrorism cases, information-sharing has made the difference between success and failure -- and you have an example right here in Columbus, Ohio. Two years ago, a truck driver was charged with providing support to al Qaeda. His capture came after an investigation that relied on the Patriot Act, and on contributions from more than a dozen agencies in the Southern Ohio Joint Terrorism Task Force. And members of that task force are with us today. I want to thank you for your contribution to the safety of America, and you'll understand this story I'm about to tell.

For several years, Iman Faris posed as a law-abiding resident of Columbus. But in 2000, he traveled to Afghanistan and met Osama bin Laden at an al Qaeda training camp. Faris helped the terrorists research airplanes and handle cash and purchase supplies. In 2002, he met Khalid Shaykh Muhammad -- the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks -- and he agreed to take part in an al Qaeda plot to destroy a New York City bridge.

After Faris returned to the United States, federal investigators used the Patriot Act to follow his trail. They used new information-sharing provisions to piece together details about his time in Afghanistan, and his plan to launch an attack on the United States. They used the Patriot Act to discover that Faris had cased possible targets in New York, and that he'd reported his findings to al Qaeda. In the spring of 2003, the FBI confronted Faris, and presented the case they had built against him. The case against him was so strong that Faris chose to cooperate, and he spent the next several weeks telling authorities about his al Qaeda association. Faris pled guilty to the charges against him. And today, instead of planning terror attacks against the American people, Iman Faris is sitting in an American prison.

The agents and prosecutors who used the Patriot Act to put Faris behind bars did superb work, and they know what a difference information-sharing made. Here is what one FBI agent said -- he said, "The Faris case would not have happened without sharing information." That information-sharing was made possible by the Patriot Act. Another investigator on the case said, "We never would have had the lead to begin with." You have proved that good teamwork is critical in protecting America. For the sake of our national security, Congress must not rebuild a wall between law enforcement and intelligence.

Second, we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act that allow investigators to use the same tools against terrorists that they already use against other criminals. Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to track the phone contacts of a drug dealer than the phone contacts of an enemy operative. Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to get the credit card receipts of a tax cheat than an al Qaeda bank-roller. Before the Patriot Act, agents could use wiretaps to investigate a person committing mail fraud, but not to investigate a foreign terrorist. The Patriot Act corrected all these pointless double standards -- and America is safer as a result.

One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap. That means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism investigators to use the same wiretaps that were already being using against drug kingpins and mob bosses. The theory here is straightforward: If we have good tools to fight street crime and fraud, law enforcement should have the same tools to fight terrorism.

Third, we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act that updated the law to meet high-tech threats like computer espionage and cyberterrorism. Before the Patriot Act, Internet providers who notified federal authorities about threatening e-mails ran the risk of getting sued. The Patriot Act modernized the law to protect Internet companies who voluntarily disclose information to save lives.

It's common sense reform, and it's delivered results. In April 2004, a man sent an e-mail to an Islamic center in El Paso, and threatened to burn the mosque to the ground in three days. Before the Patriot Act, the FBI could have spent a week or more waiting for the information they needed. Thanks to the Patriot Act, an Internet provider was able to provide the information quickly and without fear of a lawsuit -- and the FBI arrested the man before he could fulfill his -- fulfill his threat.

Terrorists are using every advantage they can to inflict harm. Terrorists are using every advantage of 21st century technology, and Congress needs to ensure that our law enforcement can use that same advantage, as well.

Finally, we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act that protect our civil liberties. The Patriot Act was written with clear safeguards to ensure the law is applied fairly. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role. Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.

Congress also oversees the application of the Patriot Act. Congress has recently created a federal board to ensure that the Patriot Act and other laws respect privacy and civil liberties. And I'll soon name five talented Americans to serve on that board. Attorney General Gonzales delivers regular reports on the Patriot Act to the House and the Senate, and the Department of Justice has answered hundreds of questions from members of Congress. One Senator, Dianne Feinstein of California, has worked with civil rights groups to monitor my administration's use of the Patriot Act. Here's what she said: "We've scrubbed the area, and I have no reported abuses." Remember that the next time you hear someone make an unfair criticism of this important, good law. The Patriot Act has not diminished American liberties; the Patriot Act has helped to defend American liberties.

Every day the men and women of law enforcement use the Patriot Act to keep America safe. It's the nature of your job that many of your most important achievements must remain secret. Americans will always be grateful for the risks you take, and for the determination you bring to this high calling. You have done your job. Now those of us in Washington have to do our job. The House and Senate are moving forward with the process to renew the Patriot Act. My message to Congress is clear: The terrorist threats against us will not expire at the end of the year, and neither should the protections of the Patriot Act.


Source :- whitehouse.gov


And finally if you have nothing to hide then you got nothing to fear!!!

[inquest]

And finally if you have nothing to hide then you got nothing to fear!!!

Except that I just might have a number of things I'd want to hide - from the government, that is. Wouldn't mean I'm an enemy of the U.S., however.

[Lazamataz]

Because Bush endorses it does not make it right.

He's also for open borders and a total lack of enforcement vis-a-vis illegal immigration, and that is ALSO not right.

And finally if you have nothing to hide then you got nothing to fear!!!

I absolutely despise this line of reasoning.

With it, I can say: "And finally if you have nothing to hide then you got nothing to fear from warrantless searches!!!"

With it, I can say: "And finally if you have nothing to hide then you got nothing to fear from 24/7 automated surveillance!!!"

With it, I can say: "And finally if you have nothing to hide then you got nothing to fear from a total lack of financial privacy!!!"

Your take on it is the antithesis of what this country should -- and used to -- stand for.

[dakine]

"nothing to hide then you got nothing to fear!!!"

Please provide your full name, account number, date of birth, and mother's maiden name...

Just as loony....

[pageonetoo]

And finally if you have nothing to hide then you got nothing to fear!!!

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.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

habeas corpus (hay-bee-uhs kawr-puhs)

A legal term meaning that an accused person must be presented physically before the court with a statement demonstrating sufficient cause for arrest. Thus, no accuser may imprison someone indefinitely without bringing that person and the charges against him or her into a courtroom. In Latin, habeas corpus literally means “you shall have the body.”

* September, 1999: Denver SWAT team members shoot and kill 45-year-old Ismael Mena, a father of nine, after he attempted to defend himself and his family from the unannounced, masked intruders who broke down his bedroom door as he slept. The SWAT team was carrying out a no-knock raid, but had the wrong address on their search warrant. Mena was shot eight times and died on the spot after he fired one shot from a .22 caliber pistol. No drugs were found at the house. The city of Denver paid $400,000 to settle a lawsuit with the Mena family. The officer in charge of the raid pled guilty this month to a perjury charge pertaining to his affidavit seeking the search warrant. In February, a Denver grand jury cleared that officer and two other police shooters of any other wrongdoing.

* January, 2000: An Arlington, Texas police officer shoots and kills 48-year-old Raymond J. Sanchez during a methamphetamine bust. Police alleged that Sanchez tried to run them over while fleeing after his passenger was arrested. The father of four died in a Kwik Wash parking lot after being shot one time. In May, an Arlington grand jury cleared the police shooter of any wrongdoing.

* March, 2000: A New York City police officer shoots and kills Patrick Dorismond, the fourth unarmed black man killed by the city's police in little more than a year. Undercover police accosted Dorismond, a 24-year-old security guard, as he and a friend hailed a cab. In what police described as a "buy and bust" operation in which they approach strangers on the steet and ask them for drugs, Dorismond angrily rejected the undercover agents' request and the dispute escalated into a scuffle. Dorismond was shot once in the chest and died within minutes. In a sign of intense community anger at Dorismond's and other killings, 23 officers and five civilians were injured in a melee at his funeral. In July, a New York grand jury cleared the police shooter of any wrongdoing.

* June, 2000: A suburban St. Louis detective and a DEA agent, acting as members of a multi-agency drug task force, shoot and kill two 36-year-old black men, Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley, in their vehicle in the parking lot of a busy suburban Jack in the Box restaurant. The police were attempting to arrest Murray for allegedly selling rocks of crack cocaine to undercover officers on two previous occasions. Police said they shot the two after Murray, the driver, attempted to flee. Police said they feared that Murray would run them down. No weapons were found in the vehicle. Beasley, the passenger, was not a target of the bust. Police described his death as "unintended, but not a mistake." In August, a St. Louis County grand jury cleared the police shooters of any wrongdoing.

* October, 2000: Two Lebanon, Tennessee police officers executing a search warrant for the wrong house shoot and kill John Adams, 64, in his living room. According to Adams' wife, Loriane, police repeatedly refused to identify themselves as they banged on the door, then broke the door down, handcuffed her, and shot her husband several times. Police claim he shot at them with a sawed off shotgun. Loraine Adams says this is not so. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is investigating.

[Dan from Michigan]

My problems with the Patriot Act are as follows.

1. Sneak and peak without warrant.
2. Judge shopping.
3. Asset forfeiture without conviction(My biggest problem). "Affirmative Defense" needed to get property back. That means guilty till proven innocent.
4. No clear definition on what a 'terrorist' is.
5. Someone like Klinton with these powers.

I notice that President Bush dodges anything to do with that.

And finally if you have nothing to hide then you got nothing to fear!!!

I have a helluva lot to hide from the next Bill Klinton or mid level bureaucratic pukes who would like to make themselves look good bucking for a promotion. Planting evidence for one.

[Rate_Determining_Step]

I will concede that some aspects of the current Act are necessary. The ones dealing with law enforcement being able to share information with intelligence. There are some egregious examples that need to remain fixed.

That said, there are a number of bad things that run contrary to the Constitution. Remember, the beauty of our system of government is that it protects the people FROM government. Government doesn't like unknown variables, from anonymity of it's citizens to it's loss of control of it's citizens. This is the nature of government.

Sure, certain members are outstanding patriots, but it is the institution of concentrated power over our lives which seeks to maintain and extend that power. Your favorite Congressman may come and go, but the institution remains. That is what the Framers knew and carefully guarded against. We should not be so willing to pitch it out.

I understand W wants to extend it and on certain key elements, I agree, but the majority was and is a bad idea that we will live to regret if it's made permanent.

Remember Franklin: Those who seek liberty at the expense of freedom deserve neither.

[null and void]

And finally if you have nothing to hide then you got nothing to fear!!!

Riiiiight!

I was sued recently because a drugged up woman came over to my house and tried to grab a less than one day old puppy from it's momma. She was bitten. (DUH!)

I wasn't home.

It's not my dog.

I did nothing wrong.

She won $75,000.00

No man's Life, Liberty, or Property are safe as long as court is in session.