(continued)

The Patriot Act broadens the pen register exception in two ways:

"Nationwide" pen register warrants
Under the Patriot Act PR/TT orders issued by a judge are no longer valid only in that judge's jurisdiction, but can be made valid anywhere in the United States. This "nationwide service" further marginalizes the role of the judiciary, because a judge cannot meaningfully monitor the extent to which his or her order is being used. In addition, this provision authorizes the equivalent of a blank warrant: the court issues the order, and the law enforcement agent fills in the places to be searched. That is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment's explicit requirement that warrants be written "particularly describing the place to be searched."

Pen register searches applied to the Internet
The Patriot Act applies the distinction between transactional and content-oriented wiretaps to the Internet. The problem is that it takes the weak standards for access to transactional data and applies them to communications that are far more than addresses. On an e-mail message, for example, law enforcement has interpreted the "header" of a message to be transactional information accessible with a PR/TT warrant. But in addition to routing information, e-mail headers include the subject line, which is part of the substance of a communication - on a letter, for example, it would clearly be inside the envelope.

The government also argues that the transactional data for Web surfing is a list of the URLs or Web site addresses that a person visits. For example, it might record the fact that they visited "www.aclu.org" at 1:15 in the afternoon, and then skipped over to "www.fbi.gov" at 1:30. This claim that URLs are just addressing data breaks down in two different ways:

Web addresses are rich and revealing content. The URLs or "addresses" of the Web pages we read are not really addresses, they are the titles of documents that we download from the Internet. When we "visit" a Web page what we are really doing is downloading that page from the Internet onto our computer, where it is displayed. Therefore, the list of URLs that we visit during a Web session is really a list of the documents we have downloaded - no different from a list of electronic books we might have purchased online. That is much richer information than a simple list of the people we have communicated with; it is intimate information that reveals who we are and what we are thinking about - much more like the content of a phone call than the number dialed. After all, it is often said that reading is a "conversation" with the author.
Web addresses contain communications sent by a surfer. URLs themselves often have content embedded within them. A search on the Google search engine, for example, creates a page with a custom-generated URL that contains material that is clearly private content, such as: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=sexual+orientation
Similarly, if I fill out an online form - to purchase goods or register my preferences, for example - those products and preferences will often be identified in the resulting URL.

The erosion of accountability

Attempts to find out how the new surveillance powers created by the Patriot Act were implemented during their first year were in vain. In June 2002 the House Judiciary Committee demanded that the Department of Justice answer questions about how it was using its new authority. The Bush/Ashcroft Justice Department essentially refused to describe how it was implementing the law; it left numerous substantial questions unanswered, and classified others without justification. In short, not only has the Bush Administration undermined judicial oversight of government spying on citizens by pushing the Patriot Act into law, but it is also undermining another crucial check and balance on surveillance powers: accountability to Congress and the public.

Non-surveillance provisions

Although this fact sheet focuses on the direct surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act, citizens should be aware that the act also contains a number of other provisions. The Act:

Puts CIA back in business of spying on Americans. The Patriot Act gives the Director of Central Intelligence the power to identify domestic intelligence requirements. That opens the door to the same abuses that took place in the 1970s and before, when the CIA engaged in widespread spying on protest groups and other Americans.
Creates a new crime of "domestic terrorism." The Patriot Act transforms protesters into terrorists if they engage in conduct that "involves acts dangerous to human life" to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." How long will it be before an ambitious or politically motivated prosecutor uses the statute to charge members of controversial activist groups like Operation Rescue or Greenpeace with terrorism? Under the Patriot Act, providing lodging or assistance to such "terrorists" exposes a person to surveillance or prosecution. Furthermore, the law gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to detain or deport any non-citizen who belongs to or donates money to one of these broadly defined "domestic terrorist" groups.
Allows for the indefinite detention of non-citizens. The Patriot Act gives the attorney general unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants. The attorney general can order detention based on a certification that he or she has "reasonable grounds to believe" a non-citizen endangers national security. Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial.

Where are the rebuttals to what I posted?

Geez Louise! Gimme a chance to read 'em and think about them first.

I'm not digging my heels in on the PA, I just wanted to know specifically what was so objectionable.

You want a knee-jerk response? Okay - the posts were too wordy. They need to be more concise and focused.

BTW, thanks for the links. I [u]WILL[/u] read them.

It comes down to a basic difference in core philosophy; do you inherently trust govt. or not?
Personally, I inherently distrust all govt., and therefore think that any chance they have to infringe upon freedoms they will take, whether now or later.  I DO believe in the slipery slope idea, and the idea that almost ALL laws can be abused and mis-prosecuted by those in power.  I have seen friends cuffed and threatened with arrest for a "concealed weapon" for having a swiss army knife in their pocket, simply because the cop didn't like the way we looked.
If the law doesn't do anything, bad or good, then why have it at all?  What's the point of feel-good legislation?  I think some of you have had the wool pulled over your eyes in this case because it is the conservatives that have finally managed to pass feel-good legislation for themselves.
Zaphod, no offense meant here, 'cause I do like ya, but I sometimes think you trust what Rush and Bush jr. and the rest of the republican propaganda machine do and say way too easily.  You have asked for documentable proof that the PA is bad, yet you yourself have offered no proof that it is good, you've simply regurgitated the party line.  Why do YOU think it's so good?

This isn't actually a rebutal, BUT....

Why post an interpretation of the Patriot Act?
Interpretations are inevitably slanted and biased.
The Patriot Act ITSELF is a brief, and easy to understand read.  Post what parts of it you dislike.
Someone else's synopsis?
Too much spin.

Who here hasn't read it?
Be honest.
If you haven't read it, and your complaining about it, OR supporting it....
....you're a dupe.

Specific things from the act I have a problem with: from [url]http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html[/url]

So now we've got a fund.  You know what a fund requires? people to manage it.  You know what those people require? desks to sit at, and a building to sit in, etc. etc.  So we've added more useless dead-weight to an already overburdened govt.
I'm up to section 213 but I gotta get back to work.
One of the biggest problems I have is the amount of research it would take to truly understand what they've done to previous legislation.  All of the substitutions and edits are impossible to understand without the original documents.  Something as seemingly innocuous as a "except for" added to something could truly change the entire meaning.

In my studies of history,I have never, ever, found a Govt. that did not abuse the power it had.  If you give them an open door, they will go through it, everytime.  RICO itself is a bad law precisely because it gives .Gov such latitude to abuse it.  Patriot Act will certainly be used the same.  I guarantee it.  History has proven me right many many times over.  The very nature of Govt. ensures it to be so.

"Brief, easy to understand and read"? Really now. I don't know what you are reading, but the copy I have is 131 pages and full of lawspeak. I suppose you cross referenced every single law modified by the bill also.

I find your "slanted and biased" hand waiving most amusing. There are a miriad of groups on both the left and the right coming to the same conclusion: the Patriot Act is not good. Oh maybe there is a grand conspiracy, right?

Gee here is and example of what you claim is easy to understand:

SEC. 1015. EXPANSION AND REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CRIME IDENTI-FICATION
TECHNOLOGY ACT FOR ANTITERRORISM
GRANTS TO STATES AND LOCALITIES.
Section 102 of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998
(42 U.S.C. 14601) is amended—
(1) in subsection (b)—
(A) in paragraph (16), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
(B) in paragraph (17), by striking the period and
inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(18) notwithstanding subsection (c), antiterrorism pur-poses
as they relate to any other uses under this section or
for other antiterrorism programs.’’; and
(2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ‘‘this section’’ and all
that follows and inserting ‘‘this section $250,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2002 through 2007.’’.

Give that man a cigar! This is the point I have been trying to get across for years but political sheeple are so myopically challenged when it comes to government, it is pathetic.

It certainly wasn't meant that way. Quite the opposite, in fact. I've not often agreed with you, but I've admired your willingness to argue your point with data and in a manner conducive to changing opinions.



I'll admit that locking up citizens without due process is troubling, and VERY worth keeping an eye on.

I'm with Mac on this one. I'm not saying that the concerns of Captainpooby are invalid, just that, as described, they could be interpreted as anything from "simply prudent" to "tyrannically dictatorial".

As for the term "non-citizen", I've always believed that the Constitution protects citizen's rights, and no one else's. However, LAWS protect the rights of those who are in this country LEGALLY, though not to the extent the Constitution does, especially in a time of war and when the INS has been shown to have been so completely asleep at the wheel.

As for illegal "aliens", I say deport them on sight and shoot them if they try to run.

Ditto every word, Mac.

Today's been a busy day at work, but I do intend to read every word posted by Imbroglio above.

I'll get back to you in 2009! [;)]

It really is that simple in most cases, isn't it?



Anyone who claims that a government (of any stripe) cannot abuse the law is deluding themselves. I do believe, however, in the concept of probability. It is my opinion that the Democratic party is FAR more power-hungry and anti-freedom than is the Republican Party, so if this law had been passed under Klinton, I would likely be reacting similarly to Imbroglio & Co. simply because it's the kind of thing Liberals DROOL over.

Since this thing was passed by Republicans, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt unless it can be shown that either the law is bad in and of itself, or that the guys in power (purportedly my guys) are abusing it. In either case, I will strenuously oppose the law/action regardless of the perpetrators.



Well, you DO live in Broward, you know. I'm surprised the brave members of the police force didn't shoot your friends on sight...



Sorry, but I have not (yet) been convinced that this law is all bad, although I'm going to give an honest read to the [s]disertations[/s] posts made by Imbro above.



I've never made the assertion it's good. I simply wanted to know why some people think it's bad. However, even those of you who are against the law cannot deny that if it could be guaranteed that it would only be applied to Bad Guys, it would be devestatingly effective against them. All the complaints I've heard so far (and they are valid, believe me) is that the law CAN be utilized by less-than-honest government forces to impinge upon the rights of the people. That's still not a problem with the LAW, that's a problem with the GOVERNMENT applying the law.

Also, I listen to, like, and trust Rush because he backs up his positions with logic and facts, and isn't afraid to hammer the Republicans when they deserve it. He has spent this whole week raking GWB and the rest of these guys over the coals for proposing that abortion of a Medicare bill.

I've never claimed that Republicans are perfect. Far from it. I've simply said they're FAR better than Democrats, with a few exceptions.

No doubt. When the ACLU and the NRA fall on the same side of a law, ya gotta wonder...

No, Imbroglio. You're wrong, and it's your arrogance that pisses people off.

We are not myopic because we trust government. We don't, but we recognize that a government is, at best, an evil necessity. Those you call "myopic" are simply trying to deal in reality while preserving the liberties we still have, or are trying to set up groundwork to reclaim those we have lost.

Those people (such as yourself) who see NOTHING but evil in government are the ones being myopic, not because your mistrust isn't valid, but rather because your hatred of all things government cloud your eyes to the reality that a) some things can ONLY be done by a government, and b) not EVERYONE in government is necessarily evil.

So, as with so many things in this world, my attitude toward Conservative/Republicans government is "Trust, but verify". When it comes to Liberal government I'm a bit closer to you, simply because of track records.

Phew......

Okay, page 1 of Imbro's thesis. Here goes.....

This attitude scares me, and to be honest I think that it will ultimately be the crux of major divisions in this country.  This party line thing.  It's no different (or less retarded) than guys getting into fist-fights over professional sports.  At the end of the day you are not a Republican or a Democrat in my mind until you run for public office.  Until then you may align yourself with the views held by the majority of Reps or Dems, but you yourself are no more a Rep than you are a Dolphin (or a Marlin for that matter).  
The fact that you trust a law more because it was passed by Reps instead of Dems frightens me.  Sincerely.
NONE of them have your best interests at heart.  They are ALL out for their own best interests, and that of their cronies.  It's not right to decry the corruption of govt. when the NAACP lobbyists get affirmative action laws passed and then have a party when the Christian Coalition gets anti-abortion laws passed.
The ends do not justify the means.

 

In that you are right. I may be registered as a Republican, but I reserve the absolute right to vote for whomever the hell I feel like voting for.

If Zell Miller were running for president against John McCain, see how fast I'd vote Democrat!



You're oversimplifying what I said. I said "give the benefit of the doubt to until..."



Generally your right, which is why I still retain some cautious suspicion of even Republican figures. However, you cannot deny that, when all is measured, the Republican party more closely reflects our views than does the Democratic party.



I regret that I have no idea of what you're speaking about here...

I was getting at the fact that people choose to ignore corruption when it benefits their own "moral" interests.  Kind of like trusting a law because Reps passed it instead of Dems.  I was also getting off on a tangent about the cronies, which is what lobbyists ultimately are.
Sorry for the confusion, I just got done working out and the adrenaline is pumping, makes my brain run at triple speed and I tend to get off on tangents.

most of the references are to the US Code.
It takes very little effort to do, online.
I did not find it challenging.No conspiracy, but be honest.
You, OF ALL PEOPLE, know damn well that "interpretations" are always slanted to fit a particular ideology.
Would you accept an "interpreted synopsis" that came from the Government?
Of course not.
Then why would you accept one at face value that comes from an advocacy group??
Actually it's pretty simple stuff, if you just have the US Code right there in another window to cross reference.
If doing that is beyond your abilities, then so is your discussing this issue.
Because if you can't read it, you're just regurgitating someone else's opinion.

Ok Zaphod, you seem to believe that, if they were in power, Democrats would jump at the chance to abuse this very abusable law.

 Republicans, on the other hand would merely use this law against the Bad Guys, and NOT abuse it by using it to target American citizens who they happen to believe are their political enemies at the moment.

If the above is true, how do you think the Democrats will use this law if they happen to come into power again?

This is the problem with most legislation like this.  While the current regime might not abuse the powers, how can we say what future regimes might do?

Why don't you provide links to these two "easy to read" documents?
The fact that it can't be written in a straightforward manner makes me suspicious off the bat.  Much like overly complicated contracts, they are usually written that way in order to pull the wool over someone's eyes.

I tend to believe that the odds favor that arrangement, yes, but [b]not[/b] that abuse by the guys on my side of the aisle is [b]impossible[/b], no.



Don't get me wrong! I [b]AM[/b] concerned about that!

However, the THREAT that one political party or another MAY abuse an otherwise good law (let's assume for the moment that the PA is good) is hardly a reason to not write the good law in the first place.

That's no different from saying that a law-abiding citizen cannot have a firearm because someone else MIGHT commit a crime with theirs.

I say, if the government abuses a law, hold them accountable! If you can't do it through the courts, then do it at the ballot box. If neither of those work, then I guess we have 1776 all over again...

I work in an industry that is required to possess and keep current numerous procedural documents. I can assure you that re-creating EVERY document in its entirety every time a change is made is impractical at best.

Am I happy with that situation? Nope, and not only for the reason you cite above (which I agree with), but also because it allows loopholes to be created/missed by accident, resulting in sometimes even greater headaches later on.

I'd love to simplify the legal and tax codes in this country, but afterwards we'd have to kill all the lawyers and accountants, and.....

.....wait a minute.....

....okay, somebody tell me why that would be a BAD thing?

I guess the crux then is that no one has demonstrated to me what is so "good" about it.

The PATRIOT ACT is a BAD Law because it VIOLATES LAWS of the CONSTITUTION Of the United States.

You Are NO Longer INNOCENT, You ARE ALL GUILTY.

You DO Remember the Constitution.

natez:
NO comment or Opinion ????
How Does Imbroglio Posts Compare to your analysis of the Patriot Act at work.

Seriously, I would like to Know.

^^^
[size=1]^ Million Gun Freedom March on Washington July 4th, 2003. A Well-Regulated Militia Being Necessary To The...
[url]www.Cures-not-wars.org/[/url] Truth Will Liberate Earth.
[url]www.RKBA.org/antis/hci-master[/url]Allege 1993 feinstein/hci PRETEXT for TOTAL Gun Freedom Confiscation.
[url]www.digitalAngel.net/[/url]Revelation 13:18  ID-GPS-MONEY [red]BAN[/red] Human Power Implant Micro-chip.
   
Never Again, Never Forget --  Seek the Truth , Liberate Your Mind -- We Are At War[/size=1]
 
FIXED BAYONETS -- FORWARD

VX

That does not answer the question:

[b]"What's so bad about the PATRIOT Act?"[/b]

That simply states that it is indeed bad.
I think specifics are necessary, in order for us to have any valuable discourse.
Otherwise we're no better than those who simply throw out empty phrases such as, "because it's bad for children", etc..

I still have yet to hear the reverse, [b]what's so good about the patriot act?[/b]

What's good, is the roving wiretap.
It modernizes the "wiretap" laws, so that it pertains to a specific individual, rather than a specific phoneline.
That way, if a bad guy switches from cel phone to cel phone, as bad guys tend to do, investigators can still maintain surveilance.

It seems reasonable, but then I'm sure someone who knows more than me could tell me why it's not.  In a way, it even protects those who might use the line, but are not the targets.

Also, remember how Zacharias Mousaoui (sp) had pre 9/11-9/11 intel on his hard drive, but the FBI couldn't look at it.  Now they can.
It ammended the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act of 1978.  This doesn't affect US Citizens.  Only spies from foreign powers, and FOREIGN (repeat: FOREIGN) terrorists.
See the details here:
[url]http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/srpt108-40.html[/url]

AND, the bulk of the Act deals with banking and finance.
Much of which we ignore, because it's just not as interesting.

Where the problems lie are in the nexus of intelligence gathering and criminal investigations.
But of course you'll rarely here people address these problems with any specificity, because most people HAVEN'T READ IT.
They are just repeating what they "hear".

Welcome to the "New World Order" comrades. Submit to the all seeing eye of "Big Brother" and you will be safe and secure. NOT!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any provision in The Constitution for any kind of national police force such as FBI, Secret Service, DEA, BATF, etc.......

Resistance is futile, you HAVE LET YOURSELVES BE ASSIMILATED!

But now you're using the same type of empty rhetoric that the anti-gun folks employ.
How about some substance?
Try actually addressing specifics.

IF the Act is unConstitutional, it will have to be challenged in court.
And I don't think this is much of an argument:



It might get attention, but it's no argument.
Specific "talking points" HAVE to be of substance.

Who here has a problem with this:

It's part of the Act, and I think it's a good thing.
Keeping in mind that it ONLY pertains to NON US Citizens.
What's the problem?

Its reasoning is well articulated here:


These fellow travellers go from spot to spot in search of "Jihad". Chechnya, Kosovo, Afghanistan, The West Bank, Gaza, and now Iraq.
Al Qaeda is not an exclusive club.

Based on the recent afirmative action decision, I wouldn't hold my breath that unconstitutional laws will be repealed by the SCOTUS.

Yeah, but you have to start somewhere.
And uninformed, empty slogans isn't much of a start.
Analysis, and user-friendly languaged critiques are what works.

Endless whining rarely accomplishes much.