Posted on 05/31/2015 5:29:06 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Rand Paul’s presidential campaign wants to portray his fight to block any Patriot Act extension as a faceoff against President Barack Obama. But the Kentucky senator is waging an increasingly lonely battle.
Some of his usual tea party allies are abandoning him. House Republican leaders are not pleased with his antics. And then there’s Paul’s feud with the senior senator from Kentucky and the most prominent Republican to endorse his presidential campaign, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Put it this way — there aren’t many times that Obama, Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, Speaker John A. Boehner, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid all agree on something.
But this weekend, at least, they are singing off the same song sheet: Rand Paul is wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.rollcall.com ...
Well, the offspring of the imported foreigners the Know Nothings protested assassinated President McKinley, just as an imported foreigner killed Robert Kennedy. Then there’s 9/11.
We should have called it the International Anti-Terrorism act. That would have stopped a lot of the opposition, and it might help us focus on what it is for instead of going after Americans.
Your observations are much, much too logical and reasonable.
I suspect they would been most strongly embraced by the some 3000 souls slain in the space of two hours by Islamic terrorists using weapons of mass destruction—commercial aircraft filled with fuel—on 9/11.
Odd that that far-away and long-ago “incident” isn’t mentioned on this thread. Nor by Sen. Rand.
Section 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.
Summary: Allows law enforcement to use the existing electronic-surveillance authorities to investigate certain crimes that terrorists are likely to commit.
Myth: "Because the government already had substantial authority under FISA to obtain a wiretap of a suspected terrorist, the real effect of this amendment is to permit wiretapping of a United States person suspected of domestic terrorism." [Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Mar. 19, 2003]
Reality:
Before the PATRIOT Act, law enforcement had the authority to conduct electronic surveillance - by petitioning a court for a wiretap order - when investigating many ordinary, non-terrorism crimes. Agents also could use wiretaps to investigate some, but not all, of the crimes that terrorists often commit.
The non-terrorism offenses for which wiretaps were available included: drug crimes, mail fraud, and passport fraud.
Section 201 enabled investigators to gather information when looking into the full range of terrorism-related crimes, including: chemical-weapons offenses, the use of weapons of mass destruction, killing Americans abroad, and terrorism financing.
Section 201 preserved all of the pre-existing standards in the wiretap statute. For example, law enforcement still must: (1) apply for and receive a court order; (2) establish probable cause that criminal activity is afoot; and (3) first have tried to use "normal investigative procedures."
Section 201 has proven to be extremely useful to law enforcement officials, as several recent wiretap orders have been based on this expanded list of terrorism offenses.
http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/subs/add_myths.htm
Much of the Patriot Act's provisions were already legal and were in use for drug dealers, criminal syndicates, things of that nature. Sure, it's a delayed warrant. You will not know when the government is searching you until later-- but then if you're part of a criminal conspiracy, you don't want to let them all to know you're under surveillance. Again-- this was already legal. If the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, why hasn't Rand Paul or any of his retard followers bothered to go to court about it?
The only complaint people can really have is that the government stores all the phone records. But if they can't even look at it without a warrant, then you have to rely on the idea that the government is violating the law in order to see how many girlfriends you have on the side besides your wife.
It's the hysteria from Rand Paul and his ilk that is largely driving this. During the Bush years it was the Democrats. Do a google search and you will see that the majority of complaints about the Patriot Act come from... guess who... far left politicians and newspapers, even stupid foreign press like the Guardian.
Why does Obama want the Patriot act? Because he knows his party would lose the election if there is a significant terror attack under his watch.
I can’t be naive yet, as I said earlier I have not seen anything explaining why the House alternative will not fix the problems. Alas you contributed nothing to that missing information.
If you get with in...Oh say 10 miles of a point, let me know
“Strangely, Paul is the only one standing up for our liberties in a big bold way.”
I’m impressed with him as well. And disappointed with the rest.
They’re all in agreement on many things. For instance, they all have the same views regarding signing up for military service.
[ Screw the Patriot Act. If they cared about security, they would stop importing foreigners. ]
ESPECIALLY FOREIGNERS FROM COUNTRIES THAT FRICKIN HATE US!!!
I am pleased as punch with Rand Paul.
Since they cannot even look at the data but by a warrant, it does not violate that clause.
You would think that Republicans were all very concerned about border security or something.
So you think it would be ok for the bank to send every copy of your statements and checks to the NSA? They are not gonna look at them without a warrant. They just want them close by. Just in case (wink wink.)
Nope, the process hasn’t helped stop any terrorism acts. Not one.
Get a warrant.
If the could point to a terrorist act prevented by the act,I’m would feel better. The FBI, the agency responsible, indicated that it had not. Why keep operating a questionable process that clearly doesn’t work for the intended goal. I am sure it works for drug and RICO cases, but those are not terrorist cases.
To expand a lil. Didn't our leadership on both sides of the aisle create an economic/military superpower that is now coming back and threatening our national security in communist China?
How bout creating a federal behemoth that threatens our very survival as a free nation in the NSA, DHS and TSA? Was this not in part to republican leadership?
I don't believe republicans purposefully create bad situations, but I do believe our policies over decades don't always work out the way we'd planned. Then years later we have to adjust our policy and clean up a bit. It's geopolitics at it's finest.
Prior to the Patriot Act, Law Enforcement had to knock on your door and present you with a search warrant before searching your home. Now Law Enforcement can wait for you to leave your home/business sneak in and search it, plant a bug or do what ever and then not even inform you that you were the target of a search. Now maybe you feel that it is ok for the government to have the power to do secret searches. I however do not feel “secure” in my home when government has such power. I also have a problem with no knock and assess forfeiture laws. Eminent domain is another problem.
The “Patriot Act” is being replaced by the “Freedom Act”. This is a joke. Why don’t they call it the, “If you don’t for it you want your mother to die Act”?
Yeah.... I’m with him on this one too.
Well, if they would use it to recover Louis Learner’s and Hillarie’s e-mails, I would cut them some slack.
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.