Just curious...poll incoming.

Quoted: you are not a patriot if you oppose the PATRIOT ACT.

Please tell me that was sarcasm.

If not, you NEED to be kicked in the nuts until unconsciousness.

The statutes in the Patriot Act in no way infringe on my personal liberties.

If you think they do, please elaborate.

There's already been numerous articles posted on this site about the Patriot Act being abused for things that it was never intended for...

It's a slippery slope...

I think this was covered yesterday in the "Freedom vs Safety" thread.

Quoted: Since it's been passed - how has the Patriot Act been used against any innocent person?

If you're going to ask a question, ask it in a way that matters.  If something doesn't affect YOU, doesnt make it ok.

Im all for the government catching people who want to murder us.  

Initially yes but not for the renewal


As usual, the gov't has taken it too far.  

No.

There was a guy who was investigating Area51. He went to the LV airport and was watching the janet terminal and was phographing people and there vehicles and wrighting down license plates of people who park in the secure lot and take flights to area51. Long story short, an FBI CT taskforce kicked his door and took all his computers, cameras and voice recorders and documents, he was detained for a while and was later released with out charges, he never got his stuff back. All was conducted under the Patriot Act and kept secret. He made a big deal out of it.......but nobody cared.

I cant blame the Govt tho, He was possibly risking national security.


ETA- I voted NO.

Quoted: I think this was covered yesterday in the "Freedom vs Safety" thread.

Many of the posters here see room for a double standard.

Quoted: Im all for the government catching people who want to murder us.

So am I, but I take exception to the way they do it as of late.

Currently 24% are in favor of a benevolent dictator...

Quoted: Just curious...poll incoming.

Definately...

However, I would have done a much better job explaining it and convincing people to READ THE DAMN THING rather than letting my political opposition smear the whole thing as an 'infringement on civil liberties'....

Just look at this board....

Look at all the people who are DIE HARD OPPOSED to a law they have NEVER READ, based on information obtained from 3rd and 4th hand sources like the news media, the ACLU, and so on....

Yes, I would have voted for it.

I'll bet nobody on this forum has gotten past the first 100 pages except me.


I'll bet 98% of people on the internet as well as those who post in this thread got all of the information they know about the act from the media and web forums and never actually started reading so much as the first page.


I would have made it more strict in a few ways. Mainly I think title IV doesnt put enough emphasis on the southern border or give the attorney general enough leeway to focus manpower there.

99% of you will have no idea what the above means or how the act seems to discriminate between the borders, but thats ok, you know enough to have an opinion because your on the interweb

Quoted: Currently 24% are in favor of a benevolent dictator...

76% are die-hard opposed to something they know NOTHING ABOUT besides what the liberals/socialists have told them....

Fuck the unPATROIT ACT it is total bullshit.


I can see how authoritarian figures would love it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just curious...poll incoming. Definately... However, I would have done a much better job explaining it and convincing people to READ THE DAMN THING rather than letting my political opposition smear the whole thing as an 'infringement on civil liberties'.... Just look at this board.... Look at all the people who are DIE HARD OPPOSED to a law they have NEVER READ, based on information obtained from 3rd and 4th hand sources like the news media, the ACLU, and so on.... To be perfectly honest, it's one of those laws that people really need help interpreting. There's nothing wrong with this. It's insanely complicated, and for no good reason. Have YOU ever read the thing? I made it 3 pages before I got dizzy the first time. It would take me at least a week to resolve the "strike this/add this" lines. Seriously, the cross referencing required to get your arms around it isn't for the faint of heart. Not only have most people not read it, but those professing to have read it in it's entirety AND understand it's nuances are suspect in my book. To say you have implies that you spent well over 40 hours on it - minimum.

I havent read the ENTIRE thing but have read 1XX pages, then got tired of reading and referenced other issues and jumped around in the acts.

It wouldnt be suspect to have read and understood the whole thing, some of us watch CSPAN and city goverment meetings for fun.

Quoted: Are you shitting me?  Fuck no.   Those who answered the poll "In Favor" should be banned...and sodomized.  Repeatedly.

I voted "No" because I'm an American and I like liberty and freedom.

When I voted I could see that there were 25 people at least that werent like me.  

I've got more than enough mags and ammo for the enemies of this country, it seems.

Quoted: Quoted: There was a guy who was investigating Area51. He went to the LV airport and was watching the janet terminal and was phographing people and there vehicles and wrighting down license plates of people who park in the secure lot and take flights to area51. Long story short, an FBI CT taskforce kicked his door and took all his computers, cameras and voice recorders and documents, he was detained for a while and was later released with out charges, he never got his stuff back. All was conducted under the Patriot Act and kept secret. He made a big deal out of it.......but nobody cared. I cant blame the Govt tho, He was possibly risking national security. ETA- I voted NO. And you believe this guy because? I mean, it's not like the folks 'investigating Area 51' have NEVER pulled a hoax before? And by the way, he WAS BSing about the PATRIOT Act, because the law covering the photographing of restricted areas (such as military bases, military arms rooms, and so on) was passed back during the early days of the Cold War.... It has nothing to do with the PATRIOT act.....

Im not saying I believe anybody, Im just repeating what I saw on the TV. And he said they used the PA to illegaly electronically tap his shit before the raid. or something like that.

Quoted: Are you shitting me?  Fuck no.   Those who answered the poll "In Favor" should be banned...and sodomized.  Repeatedly.

They only voted for the second half of that.

I'm strongly opposed to the "patriot" act, its what turned me against Bush and his administration.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There was a guy who was investigating Area51. He went to the LV airport and was watching the janet terminal and was phographing people and there vehicles and wrighting down license plates of people who park in the secure lot and take flights to area51. Long story short, an FBI CT taskforce kicked his door and took all his computers, cameras and voice recorders and documents, he was detained for a while and was later released with out charges, he never got his stuff back. All was conducted under the Patriot Act and kept secret. He made a big deal out of it.......but nobody cared. I cant blame the Govt tho, He was possibly risking national security. ETA- I voted NO. And you believe this guy because? I mean, it's not like the folks 'investigating Area 51' have NEVER pulled a hoax before? And by the way, he WAS BSing about the PATRIOT Act, because the law covering the photographing of restricted areas (such as military bases, military arms rooms, and so on) was passed back during the early days of the Cold War.... It has nothing to do with the PATRIOT act..... Im not saying I believe anybody, Im just repeating what I saw on the TV. And he said they used the PA to illegaly electronically tap his shit before the raid. or something like that.

A few minutes of Coast to Coast AM will give you a 'reasonable' estimation of that man's credibility....

Especially given what he said about USAPA vs the restricted area rules....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Currently 24% are in favor of a benevolent dictator... 76% are die-hard opposed to something they know NOTHING ABOUT besides what the liberals/socialists have told them.... Sure Dave. We need more restrictive laws that give more power to big brother. That will solve everything. Or Maybe We just enfore the laws we already have on the books. 1) The Patriot act doesn't restrict anything besides giving money to terrorisim.... 2) The point of the PATRIOT Act was to un-do the damage that was done to our foreign security agencies (CIA, et al) by the libs in relation to their actions against foreign terrorists... It's a sad state of affairs when you have harsher law enforcement remedies against your own citizens than you do against foreign terrorists - BUT THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE PATRIOT... Hmm...

If you say so Dave.


Judge Orders FBI to Turn Over Thousands of Patriot Act Abuse Documents

By Ryan Singel June 15, 2007 | 3:52:04 PMCategories: Sunshine and Secrecy  
Just one day after a news that an internal audit found that FBI agents abused a Patriot Act power more than 1,000 times, a federal judge ordered the agency Friday to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's use of a powerful, but extremely secretive investigative tool that can pry into telephone and internet records.  

The order for monthly document releases commencing July 5 came in response to a government sunshine request by a civil liberties group, which sued in April over the FBI's foot-dragging on its broad request.

The April request from the Electronic Frontier Foundation asked the FBI to turn over documents related to its misuse of National Security Letters, self-issued subpoenas that don't need a judge's approval and which can get financial, phone and internet records.  Recipients of the letters are forbidden by law from ever telling anyone other than their lawyer that they received the request.  Though initially warned to use this power sparingly, FBI agents issued more than 47,000 in 2005, more than half of which targeted Americans. Information obtained from the requests, which need only be certified by the agency to be "relevant" to an investigation, are dumped into a data-mining warehouse for perpetuity

Another fine example Dave.


The Patriot Act: Business Balks
It's joining critics who seek to curb the law's wide-ranging investigative powers. And Capitol Hill is listening


Las Vegas Mayor Oscar B. Goodman loves to remind visitors of Sin City's oh-so-discreet tagline: "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." But since the New Year's celebrations ringing in 2004, he has had to modify the motto. Fearing a terrorist attack, the FBI descended on casinos, car rental agencies, storage warehouses, and other Las Vegas businesses with sheaves of "national security letters" demanding financial records covering about 1 million revelers. Startled business owners who questioned the action were told they had one choice: cough up their documents or wind up in court.

Now, a somber Mayor Goodman acknowledges, what happens in Vegas may end up staying in an FBI computer. "It's Kafkaesque," he says. "The central component to our economy is privacy protection. People are here to have a good time and don't want to worry about the government knowing their business."

STRANGE COALITION.  The FBI carried out its document hunt under the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law passed hurriedly in the aftermath of September 11. The act allows investigators to demand that businesses turn over sensitive financial records, without specifying the investigation's target or why the files are needed. The outfit receiving a letter is permanently gagged, prohibited by law from ever disclosing that the feds came calling. ZE records and joo keeps youz mouth shut. JA

Indeed, the statute is silent on whether company officials who receive an order can call a lawyer or appeal to a judge -- although the Justice Dept. says it always allows businesses to seek legal recourse, behind closed doors and without the person appealing present. "Businesses want to cooperate in the war on terrorism, but this type of unchecked government power goes a little over the line," says Bob Shepler, director of corporate finance at the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

With most provisions of the Patriot Act due to expire at yearend, the Administration has been urging Congress to make its temporary police powers permanent. But an odd coalition is trying to scale back the government's reach -- and it may be making headway. On Nov. 9, word came from Capitol Hill that the rising chorus of civil liberties complaints could produce a deal to temper some of the law's more intrusive features.

THOUSANDS OF LETTERS.  If that happens, corporate interests can notch up part of the victory to savvy lobbying. Concerned about the circumvention of due process guarantees -- and about hefty compliance costs -- a half-dozen prominent business groups have joined with the American Civil Liberties Union to push Congress to narrow the law's scope. What's surprising in today's with-me-or-against-me Washington is that the coalition includes such Bush allies as NAM, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Realtors.

"These are not groups that normally take on this Administration," says Susan Hackett, general counsel of the Association of Corporate Counsel, a coalition member that represents companies' in-house lawyers. "People in the business community clearly are worried."

Administration officials insist they haven't overreached. "The Patriot Act allows us to get a very limited set of records," contends one Justice official. "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions, and courts are loath to do so." Department officials say that judges have granted them access to business records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act just 35 times in the first 3 1/2 years of the law, adding that those orders involved only data on driver's licenses, public accommodations, apartment leases, credit cards, and telephone use.

DATA LEAKS?  But Justice also enjoys broader clout under the Act's Section 505 -- an expansion of national security letters, issued without a court order. Since 2001 the feds have served as many as 30,000 letters a year, according to Administration sources and civil libertarians. Despite the volume of requests, one Justice official says: "There has not been a single verified abuse of any Patriot Act authority."

Still, corporate lobbyists and business groups are increasingly concerned about the law's cost and potential for abuse. The business alliance spelled out its reform agenda in an Oct. 4 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). The groups argue that the Patriot Act's Sections 215 and 505 "allow the federal government to require voluminous and often sensitive records...without [public] judicial oversight or other meaningful checks on the government's power."

They say that compliance with the demands puts confidential financial data, trade secrets, and other proprietary information at risk. Another concern: the fear that multinationals could land in legal trouble abroad -- particularly in Europe -- for violating stringent privacy laws there if they comply with U.S. government demands for financial records.

"EXTREMELY BROAD."  The businesses with the most at risk are real estate agents, car dealers, casinos, jewelers, boat dealers, travel agencies, insurance brokers, Internet service providers, and pawnbrokers -- all deemed to be financial institutions under a broad definition approved by Congress in 2003. "Our customers must be comfortable that sensitive financial information will remain confidential," says Tom Heinemann, a policy analyst at the Realtors' association. "Our industry wants to make sure that there are appropriate checks and balances in place to protect access to those kinds of records."

What's more, the business groups contend that the Patriot Act, as written, gives the feds carte blanche to rifle through corporate records. One worry: Like police searching a car trunk after a traffic stop, the feds could discover evidence of unrelated crimes or securities law breaches when they rummage through business records. "The sweep of government power is extremely broad," says Lisa Graves, senior counsel at the ACLU. "When you've got a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."

Business groups say they already are getting pounded. They argue in their Oct. 4 letter that the law "does not impose any limit on the breadth of records" demanded by federal agents, and they are seeking "a meaningful right to challenge the order when the order is unreasonable, oppressive, or seeks privileged [business] information." The coalition has urged Congress to give companies the right to seek court permission to lift the act's lifetime gag orders, an idea that may be taking hold.

DEAF EARS.  Few of these complaints are registering with the usually business-friendly Bush Administration. The Justice Dept. says that business has all the protections it needs. "There are sufficient safeguards that many choose to ignore," Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee at an April hearing. Among those: a right to appeal to a secret court and a limited right to counsel to comply with or challenge an order. Gonzales now favors including those guarantees in the rewritten Patriot Act, which will be finalized by House and Senate negotiators scheduled to meet for the first time on Nov. 10.

But Gonzales is likely to be disappointed by many of the other provisions negotiators are now hammering out. Both the Senate and House versions of the measure would allow a judge to modify an FBI order that was deemed unreasonably burdensome on a business. And on Nov. 9, the House directed its team to accept Senate-passed provisions setting a four-year sunset clause on many of the Patriot Act's key provisions, despite Administration opposition.

In final negotiations, the Senate is pushing its House counterparts to incorporate most of the safeguards sought by commercial interests. One big victory for the corporate coalition came on Nov. 9 when House negotiators agreed to permit businesses or individuals to seek judicial review of national security letters. Senate leaders believe they have an agreement on another top business concern: limiting the power of law enforcement to keep company records on file forever. A tentative deal would require investigators to return or destroy lists they've obtained, such as those covering airline passengers or casino customers, if the terror tip turns out to be a dud.

FRAYED TIES.   Less certain is the fate of a Senate-passed requirement that the FBI link the specific records that it's seeking to a specific suspect. The Administration is fighting to maintain its current power. The changes sought by business "are overly complex and will lead to litigation difficulties [in pursuing terrorist suspects] because it will require the courts to engage in a more complicated legal review," one senior Administration official argues. As BusinessWeek went to press on Nov. 9, congressional leadership sources said that no final deal had been cut on the sensitive issue.

In one area, business appears to be losing: Neither version addresses corporate concerns about exposing trade secrets or breaching customer privacy.

Corporate reps in Washington acknowledge that they had qualms about the Patriot Act from the start but say they didn't want to speak out against the key legislative underpinning of the war on terrorism immediately after September 11. But with George W. Bush's approval rating now hovering below 40%, Hill Republicans may have decided that it's wiser to stand up for their corporate donors than to stick with their embattled President.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Currently 24% are in favor of a benevolent dictator... 76% are die-hard opposed to something they know NOTHING ABOUT besides what the liberals/socialists have told them.... Sure Dave. We need more restrictive laws that give more power to big brother. That will solve everything. Or Maybe We just enfore the laws we already have on the books. 1) The Patriot act doesn't restrict anything besides giving money to terrorisim.... 2) The point of the PATRIOT Act was to un-do the damage that was done to our foreign security agencies (CIA, et al) by the libs in relation to their actions against foreign terrorists... It's a sad state of affairs when you have harsher law enforcement remedies against your own citizens than you do against foreign terrorists - BUT THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE PATRIOT... Hmm... 1) You must not use the library. It doesn't restrict you from using the library... It does require libary operators to share their property (describing your reading habits) with the government - the key word is THEIR PROPERTY - your library records belong to the library, not to you).... 2) PATRIOT act almost exclusively deals with domestic law enforcement. Against foreign terror suspects, who's civil rights are still respected (ironic, eh?)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Currently 24% are in favor of a benevolent dictator... 76% are die-hard opposed to something they know NOTHING ABOUT besides what the liberals/socialists have told them.... Sure Dave. We need more restrictive laws that give more power to big brother. That will solve everything. Or Maybe We just enfore the laws we already have on the books. 1) The Patriot act doesn't restrict anything besides giving money to terrorisim.... 2) The point of the PATRIOT Act was to un-do the damage that was done to our foreign security agencies (CIA, et al) by the libs in relation to their actions against foreign terrorists... It's a sad state of affairs when you have harsher law enforcement remedies against your own citizens than you do against foreign terrorists - BUT THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE PATRIOT... Hmm... If you say so Dave. Judge Orders FBI to Turn Over Thousands of Patriot Act Abuse Documents By Ryan Singel June 15, 2007 | 3:52:04 PMCategories: Sunshine and Secrecy   Just one day after a news that an internal audit found that FBI agents abused a Patriot Act power more than 1,000 times, a federal judge ordered the agency Friday to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's use of a powerful, but extremely secretive investigative tool that can pry into telephone and internet records.   The order for monthly document releases commencing July 5 came in response to a government sunshine request by a civil liberties group, which sued in April over the FBI's foot-dragging on its broad request. The April request from the Electronic Frontier Foundation asked the FBI to turn over documents related to its misuse of National Security Letters, self-issued subpoenas that don't need a judge's approval and which can get financial, phone and internet records.  Recipients of the letters are forbidden by law from ever telling anyone other than their lawyer that they received the request.  Though initially warned to use this power sparingly, FBI agents issued more than 47,000 in 2005, more than half of which targeted Americans. Information obtained from the requests, which need only be certified by the agency to be "relevant" to an investigation, are dumped into a data-mining warehouse for perpetuity

We'll see exactly how much real 'abuse' there was... I predict at most 1 or 2 cases... If such abuse occurred, the cases will be overturned by the courts....

Since the data described (phone, internet-service, and library records) belongs to the organization/company that it was obtained from (and NOT the consumer/subject-of-investigation), we are in 'unique' territory here...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Currently 24% are in favor of a benevolent dictator... 76% are die-hard opposed to something they know NOTHING ABOUT besides what the liberals/socialists have told them.... Sure Dave. We need more restrictive laws that give more power to big brother. That will solve everything. Or Maybe We just enfore the laws we already have on the books. 1) The Patriot act doesn't restrict anything besides giving money to terrorisim.... 2) The point of the PATRIOT Act was to un-do the damage that was done to our foreign security agencies (CIA, et al) by the libs in relation to their actions against foreign terrorists... It's a sad state of affairs when you have harsher law enforcement remedies against your own citizens than you do against foreign terrorists - BUT THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE PATRIOT... Hmm... 1) You must not use the library. It doesn't restrict you from using the library... It does require libary operators to share their property (describing your reading habits) with the government - the key word is THEIR PROPERTY - your library records belong to the library, not to you).... 2) PATRIOT act almost exclusively deals with domestic law enforcement. Against foreign terror suspects, who's civil rights are still respected (ironic, eh?)

1) Who owns the library?  Around here its the gubment.  I dont like giving the gubment more power.  You have no problem with it.
2) No, it gives domestic law enforcement expanded powers to investigate.  Not everyone they investigate is a terrorist.  That simple fact shouldn't escape you.

Nope!

Besides its shittiness, noone even had time to read it-and unlike ms. mccarthy I'd like to know what I've voting on if I'm in those shoes...

here's judge napolitano speaking about it:

patriot act bs

No.

It seems interesting to me, at least, that the patriot act was a response to 9-11 that the Republicans were in favor of, while a few Democrats were opposed.  And while, the majority here seem to be opposed to it.  Yet, the majority here also seem to support the Republicans more than the Democrats.

I was opposed to the patriot act at the time, and still am.  I was also opposed to going into Iraq at the time also.  But, now that we are there, and have made somewhat of a mess of things (along with a lot of good)  we need to stay there until the job is done.  You screw something up, you have got to fix it---not leave it alone and say oh-well.


The more I think about it, I believe there needs to be some party/person that represents the founding principles of freedom, and guts of this Country.  One should never---and I mean never---give up his/her principles for the appearance of security.  One is never really secure.  Nor is a Nation ever really secure.  Personal freedom is much more vaulable than life itself.  That is why we fought the British in the last half of the 18th century.  It was also why we fought the Civil war, although the two sides disagreed on which freedoms were more important.

When i first heard about it i wondered what it was , then when i got detials of all the rights we had to give up i realized that it was an excuse to tap our America freedoms hard and my respect for gov just began to slide from there ..Now i see anything gov as nothing but a"taker" , sadly with nothing comming back...

Quoted: here's judge napolitano speaking about it: patriot act bs

Have a look at that dave.

Opposed!

I wouldn't even wipe my ass with the patriot act.

Quoted: Quoted: here's judge napolitano speaking about it: patriot act bs Have a look at that dave.

Thanks for posting that I hadn't seen it before.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

is this upheld by the patriot act, I am not a law student and I don't understand much of the legal jargon, but can the property of a US citizen be searched without a warrant because of the patriot act?  that is what I have been lead to believe

I am not looking over my shoulder for black helicopters but I oppose a violation of the constitution and that is what I believe this is, and a very blatant one at that

-Mike

Absolutely not. I like my 1A and 4A Rights almost as much as my 2A.

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> It does require libary operators to share their property (describing your reading habits) with the government - the key word is THEIR PROPERTY - your library records belong to the library, not to you).... <snip> ...and that's ok with you?  I don't want my reading habits scrutinized by the .gov.  I am sure you would just say "don't use the library" but that's utter crap.  Or are you in the camp that says "...if you're not doing anything wrong then you don't have to worry..."?  How crazy do things have to get before these laws suddenly progress to the point that you start noticing. You know Dave in my time here you have had some pretty good points and I have sometimes enjoyed reading your posts but in this thread I think you are wrong.  Don't get hung up on the word PATRIOT in this act.  Don't give in to the rhetoric that states if you're not for the act then you are with the terrorists.

Since the records belong to the library, you never had control over them anyway...

They are not YOUR records, they are the library's records ABOUT YOU...

See the difference...

I would have a problem with the government tapping into your computer without a warrant, for instance...

I do not have a problem with the government telling another part of the government to hand over government property (library records)....

Quoted: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." is this upheld by the patriot act, I am not a law student and I don't understand much of the legal jargon, but can the property of a US citizen be searched without a warrant because of the patriot act?  that is what I have been lead to believe I am not looking over my shoulder for black helicopters but I oppose a violation of the constitution and that is what I believe this is, and a very blatant one at that -Mike

The 4th and 5th Amendments are upheld completely...

The PATRIOT Act requires warrants for all searches & seizures of your person or property...

It just in many cases requires that those warrants be sealed, and the search/seizure be kept secret until trial... Once arrested, you and your lawyer would be provided with a copy of the warrant (and if there was no warrant, the evidence would be thrown out)....

This is already done with mob/wiretapping cases pre-PATRIOT.... The warrants exist (in keeping with the Constitution) but obviously you cannot tell the suspect that there is a warrant until after the search/seizure/surveillance, because doing so would defeat the purpose of getting the warrant (covert surveillance)...

As for the 'National Security Letters', those do not violate the Constitution because the information being obtained is not YOURS, it is someone else's information ABOUT you. Thus, your right to 'be secure in YOUR person, papers and property' is not violated since the items obtained do not belong to YOU.

The point of national security letters was to provide an official and accountable paper trail, to prevent abuse by agents who might use their official status for inappropriate reasons (eg requesting data from the phone company under the 'guise' of national security, to find out if one's SO is cheating).... With a NSL, there is a paper trail that shows the request was made....

Quoted: Absolutely not. I like my 1A and 4A Rights almost as much as my 2A.

And how are any of your 1st amendment rights affected by the PATRIOT Act?

Unless you think you have a RIGHT to send money to terror groups....

Quoted: Quoted: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." is this upheld by the patriot act, I am not a law student and I don't understand much of the legal jargon, but can the property of a US citizen be searched without a warrant because of the patriot act?  that is what I have been lead to believe I am not looking over my shoulder for black helicopters but I oppose a violation of the constitution and that is what I believe this is, and a very blatant one at that -Mike The 4th and 5th Amendments are upheld completely... The PATRIOT Act requires warrants for all searches & seizures of your person or property... It just in many cases requires that those warrants be sealed, and the search/seizure be kept secret until trial... Once arrested, you and your lawyer would be provided with a copy of the warrant (and if there was no warrant, the evidence would be thrown out).... This is already done with mob/wiretapping cases pre-PATRIOT.... The warrants exist (in keeping with the Constitution) but obviously you cannot tell the suspect that there is a warrant until after the search/seizure/surveillance, because doing so would defeat the purpose of getting the warrant (covert surveillance)...

if that is a fact I have absolutely no problem with it, but let me make sure I understand there can be no phone taps, searches of your property, or allow the the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order, everything I have read or found says that this is so.

and is the phone company forced to hand over the records if requested by the .gov w/o a warrant because if the are it is still a violation it is just the victim is different

-Mike

P.A. = FAIL.

My main problem with it is this: It fails to draw a distinction between me and Johnny Jihad.

Dave A = 'Tard. Get a fuggin' clue...

Opposed

I pretty much oppose anything and everything this administration does.

And I don't like GW either.

Quoted: I pretty much oppose anything and everything this administration does. And I don't like GW either.

Do you oppose the administrations economic policies?



(That is a trick question)

Quoted: Quoted: Currently 24% are in favor of a benevolent dictator... 76% are die-hard opposed to something they know NOTHING ABOUT besides what the liberals/socialists have told them....

Yes, we learned from these socialists why we should oppose the UnPatriotic Act:

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." is this upheld by the patriot act, I am not a law student and I don't understand much of the legal jargon, but can the property of a US citizen be searched without a warrant because of the patriot act?  that is what I have been lead to believe I am not looking over my shoulder for black helicopters but I oppose a violation of the constitution and that is what I believe this is, and a very blatant one at that -Mike The 4th and 5th Amendments are upheld completely... The PATRIOT Act requires warrants for all searches & seizures of your person or property... It just in many cases requires that those warrants be sealed, and the search/seizure be kept secret until trial... Once arrested, you and your lawyer would be provided with a copy of the warrant (and if there was no warrant, the evidence would be thrown out).... This is already done with mob/wiretapping cases pre-PATRIOT.... The warrants exist (in keeping with the Constitution) but obviously you cannot tell the suspect that there is a warrant until after the search/seizure/surveillance, because doing so would defeat the purpose of getting the warrant (covert surveillance)... if that is a fact I have absolutely no problem with it, but let me make sure I understand there can be no phone taps, searches of your property, or allow the the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order, everything I have read or found says that this is so. and is the phone company forced to hand over the records if requested by the .gov w/o a warrant because if the are it is still a violation it is just the victim is different -Mike

First of all, everything you have read comes from opponents of the law...

The PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to search your e-mail and your other property, et-all without telling you about it, however they still must get a warrant...

Opponents of the law have distorted this situation, by making it seem like one does not need a warrant for the search.... This is patently false - the warrant is still needed - they just can't tell anyone about it... But rest assured, anyone investigated by the Act *WILL* get to see said warrant if they are arrested because of it...

Another common claim is that it allows your phones to be tapped without a warrant.

This is also false. What it does allow is a 'roving wiretap warrant' which allows authorities to tap ALL of your phones, not just the ones they know about when they get the warrant (EG it is a warrant to wiretap YOU, not to wiretap a specific phone number)... This specific provision was added to deal with those who might use throw-away prepaid cell phones as an anti-bugging countermeasure, so that every time the suspect gets a new phone, the authorities don't have to go back to the judge and get a new warrant - they can continue using the original one.

And finally, the issue of 'National Security Letters' - here we are dealing with the collection of data from a 3rd-party... The letters provide an official channel for requests to companies for data about their customers - data that is the property of the company in question, NOT the customer....  This includes bills, library records, and so on... This is - as mentioned earlier - a unique situation of sorts - the company or government agency that owns the data is not being investigated, they are being asked to hand over data about a person who is - so the company's rights are not being violated... The person who is under investigation has no right to control the data in question, because it belongs to the company that gathered it.... It's no different than obtaining a store security video for use as evidence against someone who committed a crime in front of the store and was caught on video (the tape is not the property of the person who's actions are recorded on it)....

Quoted: P.A. = FAIL. My main problem with it is this: It fails to draw a distinction between me and Johnny Jihad. Dave A = 'Tard. Get a fuggin' clue...

And how do we draw such a distinction...

You could BE Johnny Jihad, after all...

Quoted: Quoted: I pretty much oppose anything and everything this administration does. And I don't like GW either. Do you oppose the administrations economic policies? (That is a trick question)

Well, if you include the cost of waging war without paying for it up front, without putting the burden on ALL Americans, Yes I oppose them on that too.

That's not a trick answer.

nope