House Press Release posted here:
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/PATAct201etc5305.pdf
Posted on 05/02/2005 7:26:43 PM PDT by MagnusMaximus1
Below press Release announcing tomorrow's hearing was just posted today on a congressional website.
PATRIOT Act Oversight Hearing Tuesday
What: Oversight Hearing on Sections 201, 202, 213, and 223 of the USA PATRIOT Act
Who: Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security - Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.), Chairman
When: 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 3, 2005
Where: 2141 Rayburn Building
House Press Release posted here:
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/PATAct201etc5305.pdf
Yes, it's time to let it expire.
Bob Barr works for the ACLU. Who the hell cares what he thinks?
Which parts are those? I've read it, and beyond the hyperbole I read ~about~ it, I haven't yet actually seen anything in it that seems objectionable to me.
Got something specific?
True Americans who honor their oaths of office should care about what Bob Barr thinks.
I think I can be a "true" American and still support it. To those who think I'm not, they know what they can do with that. ;)
That seems to be the only thing that I ever hear about it. Library books. What?? Uhmm... big deal? I remember when library books had check-out cards in the front cover and all you had to do to see who'd ever checked out a book was to look and the card and there's the name and date of everybody that had checked it out. Big Whoopie.
Alliance Members
Members of Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances urge Congress to review and, where necessary, amend provisions of the Patriot Act to bring them in-line with the Constitution.
Rep. Bob Barr, Chairman, PRCB
Former Member of Congress (R-GA)
Brad Jansen
Adjunct Scholar, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
American Civil Liberties Union
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
“The members of our Alliance are concerned about efforts by Congress and the Administration to make all the temporary powers of the Patriot Act permanent, without any recognition of the serious reservations many law-biding Americans have about secrets searches of their homes and their possessions by federal agents, as well as other far-reaching provisions.â€
Bob Barr, Chairman, Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances
more civil rights violations against average americans take place at traffic stops every day then under prosecution with the patriot act.
You claim that these organisations oppose the act. OK. What do YOU oppose about the act?
I'm honestly not merely being obtuse here. I'd really like to know what you find objectionable in the act.
You have a point there, regardless, the Patriot Act needs to expire, asap.
let's just take one basic concept - should authorities have to get a court order to monitor each and every different communications medium a person under surveillance might use? a land line, various cell phones, email and the internet, text messaging, etc. Or should they be able to get just one warrant to cover them all?
They will do it anyway, warrant or none. Maybe not the FBI but other agencies.
Other laws already answer your questions. Just because SOME local, state and federal law enforcement officials are too lazy, stupid and/or egotistical to comply with proper legal procedures and/or applicable laws, does not mean we should continue to allow them or control-freak politicians to rape our Constitution by such legislation as the "Patriot Act".
You keep posting links to things with which you say you agree.
Can you articulate some of the things with which ~you~ have a problem?
Now some might say "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about," but I'd rather they provide a reasonable cause for a search before they do it instead of inventing one after the fact.
I heard Judge Napolitano on the radio a few months back (on Jim Quinn's show, www.warroom.com) he was talking about how different parts of the Patriot Act desperately need to be removed and/or reworked. This (above) was one of the specifics he cited. Some folks here don't give Judge Napolitano a lot of credibility, but I don't see what's wrong with him.
what laws? why is the single wiretap provision part of the patriot act then, if its already on the books someplace else? do you realize we live in a country where someone can walk into a Best Buy and walk out with an activated cell phone, anonymously paid for with cash, 2 minutes later? how are court issued wiretap regulations supposed to keep up with surveillance given those kinds of realities?
No, actually, it was the Patriot Act that finally allowed LE agencies to file for a warrant to wiretap a *person* instead of a particular phone number. Seems sensible. In the age of disposable pre-paid cell phones, it would be impossible otherwise.
Is this one of the things you think is a problem? Why?
while that provision may have objectionable issues, the problem with that whole "anti Patriot" crowd is that they have no problems placing these powers in the most unaccountable branch of government - the judiciary. I don't trust the judiciary to protect me from terror threats. I'll give the executive and legislative branches the powers to do it, because at least I can vote them out of office if I feel it has misused them. if some judge refuses to issue a warrant against an AQ suspect, and that suspect blows up a shopping mall, what happens to that judge? nothing, they are unaccountable for their actions.
"What do YOU oppose about the act?"
For one, it's not limited to terrorism, as it had been sold.
Although the argument can be made that the wrong person in power will always find a way to do what they want regardless of what the law says.
I've heard of that too, but it is not actually true. Under the Patriot Act, a search of persons or premises still requires a warrant issued by a judge.
What you may be referring to is the "National Security Letter" that agencies like the FBI can issue which requests information from third parties, like credit card companies. It has nothing to do with searches of premises.
As far as third parties go, perhaps there is a privacy argument that should be made. But then again, this is information that I've already allowed some third party to keep about me. It is my definition already *not* private. But there is some discussion that might be worthwhile about this.
The horse's mouth.
How could something be absolutely limited to terrorism?
As I understand it, the Patriot Act is best described as an expansion of the RICO laws to include terror organizations, in addition to the organized crime outfits that RICO was limited to.
Seems like a reasonable direction to me.
That link was an opinion piece about corrupt Las Vegas politicians.
As I understand it the trickster's slipped in a comment about "money laundering" and almost anything involving transfer of money could be merely accused of being "laundering" - and guess who gets to decide?
They lied.
Not according to my friend who works as a detective. It was available only under RICO, not in an anti-terrorist investigation.
You make an interesting, even if unexpected, point:
A government willing to abuse its power doesn't worry about staying within the law. People that are paranoid about supposed abuses of the "Patriot Act" have a great deal more to fear than they know.
Hey, buddy, you must be mistaking me for one of those Bush Administration lackeys or "homeland security" types lurking here.
FYI, I happen to be a conservative Republican opposed to totalitarians from both the Right and the Left, so can your sanctimonius whining "oso blanco."
" They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania..
I'm still interested to hear what it is about the Patriot Act, specifically, that you find to be at odds with the constitution.
One thing. Anything?
Hmmm... intesting.
I will be at tomorrow's hearing. And I will save my eloquent arguments for then and there.
In the meantime, I'm off to bed now, for my beauty sleep. :-)
Goodbye, for now...
Sleep well then.
I find it illustrative that you have posted many posts to this thread, and have yet to actually say one clear thing about what it is you find wrong with the Patriot Act.
Just one.
Yeah, as far as I know, those records were ALWAYS available by court order. As far as I know--I think I've looked into this more than the average person, but by no means as thoroughly as some--the vast majority of stuff in the Patriot Act is merely assembling laws already out there into a framework of tools to be used to ferret out terrorists AND, more significantly, to update laws about phones and landlines for the cellular age. It's one of those oogah boogah scares that Bob Barr seems to need to make noise about since his career as a politician collapsed. He's one of those advertisements for term limits, as far as I'm concerned.
Unfortunately, the financial provisions that were on the police state wish list since day one and opportunistically trotted out on 9/12 don't expire. Only a repeal of the permanent provisions will get rid of them. Don't hold your breath.
I agree.
So that makes it okay?
The best patriot acts we can muster would protect our family values and reignite the desire to raise families we had in the 1950s.
It is on C-Span2, right now.
The patriot act in it's current form is just an........act.
Apparently the management of Free Republic does as they advertise his writings on the top right margin of the forum.
"Under the Patriot Act, a search of persons or premises still requires a warrant issued by a judge."
Secret warrants, issued by secret judges, concerning secret material, served by secret LEOs, and if the subject of the warrant finds out, somehow, that they were served and doesn't keep it secret, automatic prison. That's the problem I have with the Unpatriot Act.
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.