You keep saying "our electronic activities"; well not mine. What is it that you are doing that would make anyone suspicious of your "activities"?
You ignore that most of the expansion of the "broad powers" relate to "domestic terrorism" investigations.
And yes, why would you object to adding "the use or development of chemical weapons, crimes of violence against Americans overseas, development of weapons of mass destruction, multinational terrorism, financial transactions with a country designated as a sponsor of terrorism, and providing material support to terrorists or terror organizations to" the list of offenses that can be used to justify a federal wiretap (Sec 201). Are you saying that such offenses should not be ablt to warrant a federal wiretap, and why not?
In this age of both identity theft and the use of Internet communications between terrorists, why do you object to computer crimes being able to justify a federal wiretap warrant? (Sec 202) Should such crimes go uninvestigated?.
Why should "foreign intelligence" gathered through wiretaps on criminals not be shared with a wide array of federal agencies, including defense and intelligence agencies.(Sec 203) Is it your position that if a court authorized wiretap reveals a conversation between two terrrorists that includes discussion of plans for an activity against an American defense facility, here or abroad, that the DOD should not be told about that information?
Why, in a "foreign intelligence investigation" should authorities be required to get separate warrants from a court every time the suspect changes from one cell phone to another. (Sec 206) Is it really your complaint that as we investigate that suspect your rights are invaded just because he borrows your cell phone for a few minutes?
What exactly is your problem with federal authorities being able to "expand the duration of foreign intelligence surveilance of non-U.S. citizens"? (Sec 207) Are you a non-U.S. citizen to whom such surveilance may apply? How so?
What is your problem with the techical clarification allowing law enforcement to get a search warrant instead of a wiretap order, "in order to seize a voice mail message"?(Sec 209) Whether a wiretap order (monitor your telephone as they could before the patriot act, and as they still can), or a warrant for your telephone system's voice mail messages for you (as they can now), the level of "intrusion" does not seem to have changed and has not changed at all for anyone not suspected of domestic terrorism activities.
Most states now require schools, hospitals, doctors and many others to report "suspicious" statements to police "if there's immediate danger of physical injury" to someone. They, the schools, hospitals and doctors make that determination - do the statements, in their mind, constitute an an immediate dange of physical injury to someone. So, how is it such a great expansion of that concept that now "communications service providers" can "disclose suspicious e-mail messages to police if there's immediate danger of physical injury"? (Sec 212) The Justice Department says that prior to the Patriot Act, the FBI could not take emergency calls from Internet service providers (ISPs) who had knowledge of an ongoing crime. Now, the FBI can respond when an ISP suspects that an online conversation reveals an emergency. Were you somehow under the mistaken notion that your Internet communications , like these, were "private"? There is nothing more "public" than the Internet.
Why, during "a foreign intelligence investigation" should "investigators" not be able "to use rap and trace or pen register" devices? (214) When they have a warrant to wiretap convesations in a "foreign intelligence investigations", why should they not be able to register "the numbers of the people on either end of the call", just as they have done for criminal investigations? Why should terrorists and spys have advantages that criminals don't even get?
Why should libraries and bookstores be exempt from investigatory powers from warrants for "tangible things" that businesses like hotels and car rental outfits had always previously not been exempt from? (Sec 214). Is the terrorist's "vacation" and "business trip" information less "private and personal" than a book? This provision has been invoked all of 35 times and never for a library or bookstore.
And yes, if someone is hacking into my computer system or my telephone I should not have to get a court order to seek government assistance in helping to trace the source of the invasion of my property (Sec 217).
What is your problem with warrants for wiretaps when the "intelligence" purpose of the tap may only be "significant" with a "primary" purpose being a criminal investigation. (Sec 218) This key amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is also seen as key to removing the "wall" between intelligence and criminal investigations.
What is your problem with allowing "nationwide search warrants for electronic communications". (Se 220) Without them, when tracing the Internet communication of single terrorist, the government had to seek time consuming multiple warrants, for each jurisdiction through which the terrorist's interent messages passed. Put that terrorist on a lap-top and checking in and out of libraries and Starbucks across the country and you could never get the multiple warrants fast enough to keep up with his movements.
As I said in an answer to a pevious question on this thread, you seem to be willing to ignore the nature of the war we are in. It is the nature of that war that brings the increased security requirements to fight it. The analogy would be as if during the "cold war" the Soviets had been able to plant operational units of the Red Army into hiding, here among our civilian population. They'd be using our phone systems, our mail systems, our computer networks, our libraries, our businesses, our financial systems and everything else - just as though they were citizens. Do you really think we would have ignore there presence and not take steps to locate them and stop them before they could act? And, given that everything they would do would be inter-mingled with the legitimate activities of citizens, do you not think we would let that stop us from trying to find and stop them?
If you do, you're nuts, because that is the situation the terrorists have given us. They are here, living and working among us. They are using all the things and all the systems we use, yet they must be found and they must be stopped. So, we must peer into the "normal" activity of the nation in order to locate them. Or, like you, we can ignore how intermixed there activity is in between all the "legitimate" activity, make everything off limits and just bury our heads in the sand.
Sorry, we will not commit suicide just so that you can go to be at night with the warm and fuzzy good feeling about your "rights".
You have none if your dead.
You keep saying "our electronic activities"; well not mine.
Yes, and then you asked me if I ought to be investigated. Have you ever read 1984 Mr. "Wuli?" You appear to believe that America the Beautiful is incapable of turning into a Nanny State. I have news for you: it's already starting to happen.
By asking me such questions, you're implying that you'd never resist if the government became tyranical. A powerful Socialist or Communist could take office and circumvent the Constitution in any way imaginable, and you would never take any secret steps to organize political dissent, let alone prepare for armed resistance. What ever the government could manage to collect on you personally could never endanger you, your livelihood, or the security of your family. You'd have a spotless record of quiet compliance. In fact, assuming that you would never do such things, you would not even fear the possibility that someone could accumulate information about you that was false or mistaken.
Perhaps you'd defend your inaction by saying that you were "following orders."
You've revealed yourself as a statist. A powerful, authoritarian government with permission to snoop and archive information about its citizens doesn't bother you in the least. It appears to give you comfort.
To arrive at that pleasant and naive point of view, you've forgotten the lessons of our own history. The British empire had these kinds of powers over its subjects, and used them effectively to entrap citizens and relieve them of their wealth, liberty, and their very lives. This is why we have the fourth amendment, protecting us from "unreasonable searches and seizures." This is why we have the sixth amendment promising us the "right to a speedy and public trial." It is also why we have the second amendment. The entire point of our representative system is extensive and independent checks on the power of government.
Yet you don't mind stripping back these checks so that you can presume to have a few extra feelings of security.
And yes, why would you object to adding "the use or development of chemical weapons,...
You've taken the liberty of distorting what I said. I only object to limited aspects of the Patriot Act. If you truly believe that any legislation is acceptable if most of it is, then you have further revealed yourself as a fool. I do not object to foreign surveillance, or surveillance of interactions between Americans and foreigners. The Patriot Act as written goes much further than that, however. If you could stick to the point in a rational argument, we might have something to discuss. However, you've revealed that you can't by accusing me of restraining such obviously necessary means to defend Americans as those.
You have none if your dead.
Besides being grammatically incorrect, you're just touting someone else's arguments. I think Rush Limbaugh made them recently, in fact. I often agree with him; this time I don't. But that's what you do: parrot the party's points. I think your simplistic attacks on my position speak for themselves. If the Patriot Act as written is best supported by people like you, it's further evidence that it's dangerous to our liberties.
Have a nice day. There really isn't much more to say between us, so do enjoy it on your own.