Conservatives, liberals align against Patriot Act

The Washington Times ^ | June 14, 2005 | James G. Lakely

[neverdem]

---

The Washington Timeswww.washingtontimes.com

---

Conservatives, liberals align against Patriot Act

By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published June 14, 2005

---

Conservative groups have found common ground with the liberal American Civil Liberties Union in their opposition to the USA Patriot Act and pledge to wage a high-profile fight against it, claiming even its renewal is shrouded in secrecy.

    Former Rep. Bob Barr, who led conservative efforts to impeach President Clinton, is leading a group called "Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances" that is focused exclusively on opposing the renewal of the Patriot Act.

    The effort also has the enthusiastic support of three of the most influential conservatives in Washington, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, David Keene of the American Conservative Union and Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum.

    "They support this effort because the true conservatives understand the Constitution and understand when it is threatened," Mr. Barr said. "They are not your neo-cons and typical Washington insiders. This is a broad array of conservative groups."

    Brad Jansen, an adjunct scholar at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, has also joined Mr. Barr's effort, and said he will prove today that opposition to the Patriot Act is a political winner.

    Mr. Jansen is working for the congressional campaign of Tom Brinkman Jr., a state senator in Ohio who is among 11 candidates running in a Republican primary to fill the seat of former Rep. Rob Portman, who was tapped by President Bush as the U.S. trade representative.

[TKDietz]

"Untied States of America"

Should say:

"United States of America"

[mysterio]

Here's a link to the act.

link

Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment. The "patriot" act effectively removes probable cause if the government states to a judge that the warrant is needed in connection to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. In other words, the FBI goes to a judge, asks for a warrant, the judge asks for the probable cause. FBI says "terrorism," and the judge is compelled to issue the warrant. So while there is still a warrant being issued, the judge has no choice but to issue the warrant. In effect, judicial oversight is eliminated.

[Robert_Paulson2]

of course they will SAY it is.
and that they need a little more power to do an even better job.

some of these islamic folks in Lodi, I understand, had expired visas and one or two of them was an imam.

no patriot act necessary to figure out the facts.
Islam is death.
IT and its pratitioners ONLY should be targetted, NOT american citizens.

[kesg]

Look, I'd rather there be ten more 9/11's than to morph into the Soviet Union.

I don't want either one. And it doesn't have to be one or the other.

And I'd gladly PERSONALLY sit in the first building waiting for the attack if you could guarantee me that America would remain (or actually, become) free.

Uh, why, if you are no longer around to enjoy it? I definitely prefer living in a free country and tracking down terrorists at the same time. But maybe that's just me.

[Robert_Paulson2]

For all you know, something you do everyday, may be labeled as criminal tomorrow.

---

yes.
like posting on freerepublic.
and in an "ex poste facto" manner. (as an after the fact illegality, when it WAS actually legal to do so at the time of the action.)

[kesg]

Isn't Jose Padilla the wannabe jihadist who was plotting to detonate a dirty bomb? Didn't the Supreme Court just reject his claim that the government had violated his civil rights?

[processing please hold]

18. Does FISA authorize surveillance without a court order?

Yes.

Comfortable with that as well are you?

[Robert_Paulson2]

Here, we are fighting the CONCEPT of terrorism, not a finite enemy that is named.

---

Which is why we have wars against concepts.
They are a source of emergency derived powers not allowed by a strict reading of our nation's founding documents.

in other words, a way to grab power that is NOT yours by using 'emergencies' real or imagined.... and preserving that emergency status power, for ever.

[kesg]

It is amazing that posters on FR thinks it is fine if LE does a secret warrentless search of your home and personal effects.

What provision of the Patriot Act allows that? And do you really want to hamstring law enforcement from tracking down the next Mohammed Atta before he flies the next jet into the next building? I don't.

[Robert_Paulson2]

roflmao...

[VRing]

So can you tell me who makes up the FISA court or are you going to continue to make my point by telling me how bad it is?

[Robert_Paulson2]

they used it to shut down illegal copying of movies on the internet...

A new law not what it was hyped up to be eh?
why are WE not surprised?

These folks are nothing but janet renos with a bible instead of dyke haircuts and waco style 'burn em out' weapons.

... that comes later.

[VRing]

"And I'd gladly PERSONALLY sit in the first building waiting for the attack if you could guarantee me that America would remain (or actually, become) free."

"Uh, why, if you are no longer around to enjoy it? I definitely prefer living in a free country and tracking down terrorists at the same time. But maybe that's just me"

Have you ever heard the saying "give me Liberty or give me death"? I believe Laz is trying to make the point that he would gladly give his life for a free America. He is not alone.

[kesg]

I was simply pointing out that the Bill of Rights actually does draw a line, which obviously limits the effectiveness of law enforcement, since it would be much easier to stop crime without limits on searches, or due process for the accused. And it was done quite intentionally, as the founding fathers had personally experienced the abuse of authority.

Well, no one disputes that the Bill of Rights draws lines. But implicit in most of the anti-Patriot Act arguments is that the Act somehow crosses these lines. And no one has made any persuasive case that it does.

[processing please hold]

Apparently you didn't read post #80

You're skirting the issue. The judges are temporary...the laws will not be.

You are tooting the wrong horn.

[Robert_Paulson2]

And it was done quite intentionally, as the founding fathers had personally experienced the abuse of authority.

---

as we are experiencing NOW too.
wanna get on a plane and go to nyc for a convention this weekend?

your papers please.
and I hope you don't mind the body cavity search.
since you are not a muslim... after all, it shouldn't matter that we are sticking a plastic glove up your ...

sorry granny, the imam can't be inspected, but you can... now bend over.

[processing please hold]

The PA needs to be destroyed.

[kesg]

Have you ever heard the saying "give me Liberty or give me death"? I believe Laz is trying to make the point that he would gladly give his life for a free America. He is not alone.

But he acts like it must be one or the other. That's just plain wrong.

[processing please hold]

The FISC

The court consists of seven federal judges chosen from the federal district courts by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; each serves a non-renewable seven-year term. Membership of the court is staggered so that a new member is brought in each year. Members are chosen from different federal districts, however, at least one member must come from a district court in the Washington D.C. area. Judge Royce Lamberth, who is a member of the US District Court for Washington DC, currently serves as the FISC Chief Judge.

Judges are a moot point. Please answer my questions.

[Robert_Paulson2]

But he acts like it must be one or the other. that is just plain wrong.

---

"liberty or death."
It's just plain right.
That is because sometimes it's thw only decision that is left we can make that is morally right.

liberty and complete safety were never compatible.
never have been.