Are you nuts or a plant?
Dan From Michigan is one of the most pro 2nd Amemdment people on FR. I think you knew that..didn't you?
Southack IS Big Brother
Posted on 11/26/2002 2:29:50 PM PST by Sparta
WASHINGTON — The government agreed to tell the American Civil Liberties Union by Jan. 15 which documents it would release about increased surveillance in the United States under a law passed in response to the terrorist attacks.
In response to a suit brought by the ACLU and other groups, the Justice Department also said it would supply a list of documents that it would keep confidential, citing national security concerns. The ACLU could challenge the decision to withhold any documents.
The agreement was reached Tuesday before U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, who is hearing the case growing out of an Aug. 21 request filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The civil liberties group wants to know how the government is carrying out the USA PATRIOT Act, passed in response to Sept. 11. The new law gives the government new powers to obtain personal information about U.S. citizens in an attempt to stop future terrorist attacks.
ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer asked for a specific date for the Justice Department to provide the information, saying that another federal judge set a deadline for the Energy Department to release documents and e-mails concerning Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force. "It's reasonable to ask for a fixed date," he said.
Justice Department lawyer Anthony J. Coppolino said the government needed until mid-January because the ACLU request was being reviewed by several agencies. He said the government had produced 163 pages of information, but needed to check with the various agencies, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service, intelligence and the criminal division to see if the information could be released.
Huvelle said the government was working toward meeting the ACLU's request.
"This is a matter of great public interest," Huvelle said. "I am not unimpressed by the efforts of the government to comply. The government is moving heaven and earth to get what you want."
The ACLU asked the Justice Department for the number of times it has asked libraries or bookstores for lists of purchases or for the identities of those who have bought certain books; how many times law enforcement officials have entered people's homes without letting them know until later; how many times they have approved phone traces of people not accused of any crimes; and how many times they have investigated Americans for writing letters to newspapers, attending rallies or other First Amendment-protected activities.
May God have mercy and save this Republic from the power grabbers of any party
Are you nuts or a plant?
Dan From Michigan is one of the most pro 2nd Amemdment people on FR. I think you knew that..didn't you?
Southack IS Big Brother
Hey Big Brother, Yes, I mean YOU
The title of this thread is "ACLU sues over Patriot Act not HSA
You like to twist the facts don't you
Very telling...........
BTW Do you get paid by the hour or by the post?
Southack is watching you
Source - FOXNEWS.
Did you miss the fact that the law in question still requires all government agencies to go before a judge and obtain a search warrant?
No, I didn't.
Actually, I was waiting for that response, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, by not going into detail on the subject before.
You see, the difference is that I read the Constitution and Bill of Rights with the "Original Intent" in mind. It seems that in place of "Original Intent", that you have accepted the Dubya "interpretation" of the Constitution and particularly, the 4th Amendment. Read the Federalist Papers and you might begin to understand that the signers of the Constitution and those who voted for the 4th Amendment, were primarily concerned with safeguarding the people from the government, as they feared that given too much power, those in government would abuse that power and they wanted to make sure that the citizens had proper recourse.
By authorizing covert searches and seizures, Dubya and Congress have effectively taken away any recourse. The whole idea of notification is to allow the citizen the opportunity to take legal action, if he believes that such action is justified. Not all warranted searches are upheld when challenged or on appeal. Court records are littered with such cases. But since, under the USA Patriot Police State Act, the citizen doesn't even have any idea if his rights may or may not have been violated by the government, he is denied the opportunity to have arguments heard in his defense, in a timely manner. Keep in mind that under the USA Patriot Police State Act, notification can be delayed and then have that delay extended indefinitely, thus completely removing that safeguard.
In other words, our lawmakers are saying that we no longer have the right to redress, if they happen to violate our rights under this law. No thanks.
I'll continue to stand on "Original Intent" and I will not vote for any candidate in the next primary or general election, who voted for these attacks on the Constitution, including Dubya and Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. (I will likely vote for a Republican for Congress, if one runs, since my current Congressman is a Democrat.)
Until then you are just another twit...
Ya gotta give it to the bushbots for consistency. When all of their sound bite propaganda has been shot down, they always resort to the liberal practice of name-calling. Perhaps their methods should tell us something about their motives.
Thank you, Texasforever, for making my point.
You wouldn't know a point if you sat on one. When you want to stop playing childish games get back to me.
I am saying NO SUCH THING, moron - and as much as you bash on the "Bush-bots" here (guess what, jack, I'm not one of them), you and your ilk in turn are reacting to HSA in a knee-jerk fashion, and are claiming all kinds of draconian problems with HSA when they simply are not present in that bill - in fact, IMO the HSA is actually a net improvement in privacy, since it banned both TIPS and a national id card and created a privacy officer, and it also had the added benefit of arming pilots in the cockpits. I have also said on MANY occasions over the last few days that once my review of HSA is done, that I am next going to re-visit the Patriot Act and start a discussion of what sections are the most obnoxious. So your canned spiel doesn't wash with me.
Once again, point out in that bill where the Constitution is trampled upon. You're making this claim - back it up.
Once again, a cite, please.
You see, once John Poindexter and his Nazis have your data in their hot little hands, the data provider is held harmless against any litigation that might arise out of the release of any of that data.
Wrong. You really should go to the DARPA site and read up on the topic more - they are actually well aware of current legal privacy issues.
Furthermore, if the government wants to use or release that data, they have only to ask the provider - NOT you - for a written release, with the data provider still being held harmless. To make matters worse, the plan is to ask the data provider to "voluntarily" sign a blanket release, when they provide your data. What company is not going to "voluntarily" sign that blanket release, when the option is to likely face a stringent IRS audit? In effect, there is NO protection against the accidental or intentional release of any of your private data.
Once again, please provide a cite here.
Which pages, and which sections? You have yet to post a single word from HSA to back up your claims here.
"No, I didn't. Actually, I was waiting for that response, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, by not going into detail on the subject before. You see, the difference is that I read the Constitution and Bill of Rights with the "Original Intent" in mind. It seems that in place of "Original Intent", that you have accepted the Dubya "interpretation" of the Constitution and particularly, the 4th Amendment. Read the Federalist Papers..."
And that's where you made yet another leap to the wrong conclusion.
You see, while the Federalist Papers are all great and wonderful, they aren't "law". They are opinions. For the most part, they are letters to the editors of various newspapers. Sure, they were letters written by great men, but nonetheless most rational adults don't typically confuse letters to the editor with written statute law.
The "original intent" of our Founding Fathers could well have been to make George Washington "King" for life, but original intent does not make for written, debated, passed and signed Constitutional law.
And as written, the HSA does not gut the 4th Amendment. You are still free to remain secure in your "person", per the 4th Amendment.
Moreover, the government still has to go before a judge and convince the judge to issue a warrant before a search can be instigated, per both the HSA as well as the 4th Amendment.
Thus, your rights haven't been "gutted", black helicopter talk to the contrary notwithstanding...
I didn't see anything like that in the HSA bill. Sure, there are a lot of existing federal and state anti-gun laws already on the books that need to be repealed or swatted down by the courts, but the closest thing INSIDE the HSA and Patriot Acts that could be even remotely construed as anti-gun would probably be the provision to track so-called "dual-use" technology purchases (e.g. a combination of BLU-82 Daisy-Cutter quantities of flash powder, diesel fuel, and fertilizer; a combination of certain bacterias and incubators; et al).
These potentially suspicious dual-use purchases were already legal for private companies to track, and Wal-Mart was already doing so. The HSA permits the government to pay for other organizations to engage in this sort of flagging now (e.g. credit card companies).
But again, it's completely Constitutional for private companies to track their sales.
So why gripe about that fact being included in the HSA, at the expense of the pro-gun "arming pilots" provision in the HSA as well as at the expense of the death of TIPS in the HSA as well as the ban on a National ID Card from the HSA legislation?
Is that in the context of TIA? That was not even part of HSA, and at this moment is only a glimmer in Poindexter's eye. And with all the outrage being expressed against TIA, it will either be killed or curtailed - hopefully curtailed, because the feds do need to do a better job dealing with their existing information stream, and a re-vamped TIA oriented towards data analysis and data mining could help achieve that.
Not only that, it would have been impossible for even a speed-reader to decipher, since it referred to chapters in various codes, like "Modify the third sentence in subparagraph a(1) and replace with "not"...etc.
I call this criminal negligence on the part of Congress.
What version of HR 5710 - the intial or the final? That claim can be deceptive - if there were few changes between the version of 5710 as passed initially by the House, and the final version as passed by the House, this isn't as big a deal as it sounds, if Paul is talking about the final version.
But I do agree with you reagarding the lack of attention regarding these major bills - from what I have seen the last three weeks, few folks in Congress, the media or the think tanks appeared to bother reading this bill before commenting on it. Heck, Bob Barr got caught saying that something should be changed in HSA - when it wasn't even in there. However, IMO, HSA is nowhere near as bad as a lot of critics have made it out to be.
I understood him to mean the final version.
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.