Posted on 06/14/2004 1:02:19 PM PDT by ellery
Edited on 06/29/2004 7:10:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
While activists and politicians work to repeal or change parts of the Patriot Act that they say violate constitutional rights, Patriot Act II legislation -- which caused a stir when it came to light last year -- is rearing its head again in a new bill making its way through Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at wired.com ...
Okay FReepers, weigh in: Constitutional? Unconstitutional and should be stopped? Unconstitutional but necessary to fight terror?
Unforuntely necessary unless we want our economy to completely attack from the kind of attacks they stopped today.. The Ohio mall bombing.
I stand with Bob Barr. If it's important enough to suspend, or do away with our liberties, do it above board. If not, let's decide it isn't, also above board. No sneaking past the Constitution.
Hitlery will love this kind of power when she gets in office.
This provision hasn't been passed yet; it had nothing to do with stopping the Ohio mall bombing.
"It's almost un-American."
No -- It *IS* un-american! < small letter intentional >
400 Billion Dollars in defense budget. Not enough. Carnivore, Echelon, and the removal of habeas corpus weren't enough.
All they need is the law to put people in jail for five years if they told someone their records had been siezed, then none of the attacks, like on the USS Cole or the One World Trade Center will ever be successful again.
Checkpoints on the highways, security gates at malls and office buildings, and maybe an implanted GPS chip for each of us.. Yeah, that's the ticket. Only then will I feel all safe and warm.
Eisenhauer made a remark, that for real security you can go to prison. After all, you get three hots and a cot, and a roof over your head.
There's the answer! Put everyone, everywhere in prison, and interrogate them naked until they tell all about themselves, then let them out one at a time...
Ridiculous.
>>The FBI has admitted using the Patriot Act for nonterrorism investigations, such as cases involving corruption in a Las Vegas strip club, drug trafficking and other criminal activity.
They lied. They said they wouldn't use it for stuff like this.
So, why trust them now with unprecedented powers?
More power to Bob Barr.
"Hitlery will love this kind of power when she gets in office."
Yep. And we'll only have the GOP to thank for it.
It seems to me hard to say the bill is being snuck through if it's been printed up for over a year! That's a good thing, unlike the rush in which the Patriot Act was passed.
A firm definition of "international terrorism" is needed for the "lone wolf" provision.
I don't see how you can have a law against revealing NSLs without having a penalty for doing so.
Don't ya just love the smell of the Weimar republic in the morning!
Congress said the money laundering provisions would be used for just that when they passed it.
I've posted the quotes over and over.
Have you any quotes showing that the FBI was going to defy Congress-as you claim?
I didn't think so. A Big Lie is never defended, it's just repeated over and over.
I don't see how you can have a law against revealing NSLs without having a penalty for doing so.That's how you sneak it in. You pass a law with no penalty, then tell people it's the law. You don't tell them there's no penalties, after all "it's not up to law enforcement agents to give civics lessons".
Later you add the penalties, saying "it's already the law, we're just enforcing it".
-Eric
I'd like to see the list of Americans that have called their congressmen and asked for new anti-terror legislation. I imagine it could be printed on a matchbook cover.
An aged farmer has a reckless son who, because of his previous behavior cannot be trusted with firearms. The son keeps asking to use his daddy's shotgun, but his father, remembering what happened the last time he loaned it, keeps telling him no.
One night bears attack the farmer's horses. The son once again asks for the shotgun. The farmer is reluctant, but once he sees what the bears did to his horses, he becomes enraged and gives his son the shotgun. The son, like before promises not to misuse the gun.
The son chases the bears off to the farmer's relief. But later that night the son staggers around the yard with a bottle of whiskey in one hand and the shotgun in the other, blasting shots into the darkness in a drunken stupor, hooting and hollering and putting holes in whatever catches his fancy.
The next day the son tells his father that the bears aren't dead and now he needs a rifle. If the farmer gives him one, is he a fool?
than change the Bill of Rights. Start the process if this is needed as you claimed.
Before The Patriot Act came into effect. Law enforcement could go after the mob but were not able to go after terrorist. Now they can. Of course you have to get a search warrant before you do all this. Wouldn't it be nice to catch a child molestor this way!? With a search warrant of course.
I meant "then"
As it is, nothing surprises me. Much of this legislation was created before 9/11 (somebody even had the information posted recently about a Department of Internal Security or whatever, that Al Gore had proposed at one point during the 90s).
According to the GAO, the feds are doing a lot of data mining of commercial databases, from which it sounds like TIA is still going strong. They call it "factual data analysis" but it doesn't change the smell.
I bet most who support these kinds of things would be having fits if the democrats were in the White House and running Congress.
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.