Skip to comments.FR Poll Thread: "The Patriot Act Should be..."
Posted on 06/13/2005 10:21:02 AM PDT by DTogo
click here to read article
Agreed. It appears that many people find Freedom freightening. It's the age-old struggle, thus the admonishment "eternal vigilance"!
I'm sure that Gary Hart and Andrew Young do have a sequel to their Patriot Act. President Rodham may have Attorney General Obama modernize the list of terrorist organizations though.
And no matter what happens, I think that it should be reviewed every 4-5 years.
I voted 'dropped' because the Patriot Act is a legacy of the Clinton presidency and tramples underfoot our Bill of Rights.
Sorry, an America with the Bill of Rights curtailed for any reason is not America. And you are much too trusting of government (probably because the R party runs it.) Would you have supported this measure from a Janet Reno justice department? Also, your argument is purely an emotional one. That's how this reactionary measure got passed in the first place.
Couldn't you just imagine how they would tweak it to fit their agendas?
Scary thought...very scary thought.
Yeah, but when the Islamic terrorists who come over the border with Mexico go to a library, we'll nab 'em there, but good! /sarcasm.
I voted to trim it. If the Bush Admin wants to keep the various provisions, have them go over how those provisions have been used, in closed session with Congress if necessary. I want to see which ones have been effective, which ones haven't been used much, and which ones have been abused.
I have a German friend who is shocked at the police state we now live in, in America.
The fact that a citizen of the birthplace of Nazism can be shocked like that, is shocking.
By their words and actions, they prefer that these people have such power than that they do not. Of course, Patriot Act supporters want President Rodhan to wield such power.
The same people who want the Telephone Tax (Spanish American War) and the Income Tax (WWI) made permanent.
Maybe because the root word of libertarian is liberty?
I said eliminate it. We already have far too much government intrusion in our life.
Some will say "If you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." Imagine Hillary becoming presindent and deciding what is right & wrong. It basically chews up the Constitution, Bill of Rights etc. and spits it out into a government issued ID card.
Exactly what I was going to say when I saw that line.
I wonder how many people would change their opinion on smoking in bed if there was going to be a fire that night because they fell asleep hold a lit cigarette.
Quality of life is what is important, not the length of it.
And no matter what happens, I think that it should be reviewed by the citizens with a vote every 4-5 years.
Profiling is a must. You could bet if little white haired chriatian women had flown those planes into the buildings...those little grannys will be pulled out of line faster than you could spit. But, because it is muslims...profiling is not acceptable.
Unless the feds can figure out how to cover the basics like protecting our borders and profiling middle eastern males they can sh!tcan the whole thing.
Haha, you expect the gov't to admit they abused the citizens. Sure maybe in 2599 they will.
Expanded but still with a need to vote on it every year to keep it going.
I still believe President Bush screwed this whole thing up when on Sept11, he did not, Declare War on Syria, Iran and Iraq,( Since they were the top three countries that the State Department had on their terrorist sponsoring list.) declare Martial Law and put US on total WW2 style war footing including draft, give Damascus Tehran and Bagdad 96 hours to evacuate then Nuke one, ..... and oh yeah -CONTROL OUR BORDER IN A TIME OF WAR.
And when Syria and Iran and Iraq had unconditionally surrendered, established new governments that included freedom of Religion - or been utterly destroyed, then we could have lifted Martial Law.
No need for Patriot this or that, I or II.
What rights have been given up? Most provisions brought terrorism suspects on par with suspected mobsters. Has RICO been abused? Yes. Does that mean we should let terrorists elude police by chancing phones? No.
A lot of the criticism of this Act deliberately leaves out the role of the court in verifying there is good cause to track a suspect. That court has also been abused in the past but the suspected violations occured prior to John Ashcroft's arrival. Could a Hillary administration abuse this? Sure. Without sufficient Congressional oversight they can abduct Cuban boys, incinerate Texas ranchers, sic the IRS on political enemies. We can't give the terrorists an even break just because Her Thighness might get in.
We need the patriot act and this is the reason why...In the words of the president:-
We need to renew the Patriot Act because it strengthens our national security in four important ways. First, we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act authorize better sharing of information between law enforcement and intelligence. Before the Patriot Act, criminal investigators were separated from intelligence officers by a legal and bureaucratic wall. A federal prosecutor who investigated Osama bin Laden in the 1990s explained the challenge this way: "We could talk to citizens, local police officers, foreign police officers -- we could even talk to al Qaeda members. But there was one group of people we were not permitted to talk to -- the FBI agents across the street from us assigned to parallel intelligence investigations of Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda. That was a wall."
Finding our enemies in the war on terror is tough enough --law enforcement officers should not be denied vital information their own colleagues already have. The Patriot Act helped tear down this wall, and now law enforcement and intelligence officers are sharing information and working together, and bringing terrorists to justice.
In many terrorism cases, information-sharing has made the difference between success and failure -- and you have an example right here in Columbus, Ohio. Two years ago, a truck driver was charged with providing support to al Qaeda. His capture came after an investigation that relied on the Patriot Act, and on contributions from more than a dozen agencies in the Southern Ohio Joint Terrorism Task Force. And members of that task force are with us today. I want to thank you for your contribution to the safety of America, and you'll understand this story I'm about to tell.
For several years, Iman Faris posed as a law-abiding resident of Columbus. But in 2000, he traveled to Afghanistan and met Osama bin Laden at an al Qaeda training camp. Faris helped the terrorists research airplanes and handle cash and purchase supplies. In 2002, he met Khalid Shaykh Muhammad -- the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks -- and he agreed to take part in an al Qaeda plot to destroy a New York City bridge.
After Faris returned to the United States, federal investigators used the Patriot Act to follow his trail. They used new information-sharing provisions to piece together details about his time in Afghanistan, and his plan to launch an attack on the United States. They used the Patriot Act to discover that Faris had cased possible targets in New York, and that he'd reported his findings to al Qaeda. In the spring of 2003, the FBI confronted Faris, and presented the case they had built against him. The case against him was so strong that Faris chose to cooperate, and he spent the next several weeks telling authorities about his al Qaeda association. Faris pled guilty to the charges against him. And today, instead of planning terror attacks against the American people, Iman Faris is sitting in an American prison.
The agents and prosecutors who used the Patriot Act to put Faris behind bars did superb work, and they know what a difference information-sharing made. Here is what one FBI agent said -- he said, "The Faris case would not have happened without sharing information." That information-sharing was made possible by the Patriot Act. Another investigator on the case said, "We never would have had the lead to begin with." You have proved that good teamwork is critical in protecting America. For the sake of our national security, Congress must not rebuild a wall between law enforcement and intelligence.
Second, we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act that allow investigators to use the same tools against terrorists that they already use against other criminals. Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to track the phone contacts of a drug dealer than the phone contacts of an enemy operative. Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to get the credit card receipts of a tax cheat than an al Qaeda bank-roller. Before the Patriot Act, agents could use wiretaps to investigate a person committing mail fraud, but not to investigate a foreign terrorist. The Patriot Act corrected all these pointless double standards -- and America is safer as a result.
One tool that has been especially important to law enforcement is called a roving wiretap. Roving wiretaps allow investigators to follow suspects who frequently change their means of communications. These wiretaps must be approved by a judge, and they have been used for years to catch drug dealers and other criminals. Yet, before the Patriot Act, agents investigating terrorists had to get a separate authorization for each phone they wanted to tap. That means terrorists could elude law enforcement by simply purchasing a new cell phone. The Patriot Act fixed the problem by allowing terrorism investigators to use the same wiretaps that were already being using against drug kingpins and mob bosses. The theory here is straightforward: If we have good tools to fight street crime and fraud, law enforcement should have the same tools to fight terrorism.
Third, we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act that updated the law to meet high-tech threats like computer espionage and cyberterrorism. Before the Patriot Act, Internet providers who notified federal authorities about threatening e-mails ran the risk of getting sued. The Patriot Act modernized the law to protect Internet companies who voluntarily disclose information to save lives.
It's common sense reform, and it's delivered results. In April 2004, a man sent an e-mail to an Islamic center in El Paso, and threatened to burn the mosque to the ground in three days. Before the Patriot Act, the FBI could have spent a week or more waiting for the information they needed. Thanks to the Patriot Act, an Internet provider was able to provide the information quickly and without fear of a lawsuit -- and the FBI arrested the man before he could fulfill his -- fulfill his threat.
Terrorists are using every advantage they can to inflict harm. Terrorists are using every advantage of 21st century technology, and Congress needs to ensure that our law enforcement can use that same advantage, as well.
Finally, we need to renew the critical provisions of the Patriot Act that protect our civil liberties. The Patriot Act was written with clear safeguards to ensure the law is applied fairly. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role. Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the U.S.
Congress also oversees the application of the Patriot Act. Congress has recently created a federal board to ensure that the Patriot Act and other laws respect privacy and civil liberties. And I'll soon name five talented Americans to serve on that board. Attorney General Gonzales delivers regular reports on the Patriot Act to the House and the Senate, and the Department of Justice has answered hundreds of questions from members of Congress. One Senator, Dianne Feinstein of California, has worked with civil rights groups to monitor my administration's use of the Patriot Act. Here's what she said: "We've scrubbed the area, and I have no reported abuses." Remember that the next time you hear someone make an unfair criticism of this important, good law. The Patriot Act has not diminished American liberties; the Patriot Act has helped to defend American liberties.
Every day the men and women of law enforcement use the Patriot Act to keep America safe. It's the nature of your job that many of your most important achievements must remain secret. Americans will always be grateful for the risks you take, and for the determination you bring to this high calling. You have done your job. Now those of us in Washington have to do our job. The House and Senate are moving forward with the process to renew the Patriot Act. My message to Congress is clear: The terrorist threats against us will not expire at the end of the year, and neither should the protections of the Patriot Act.
Source :- whitehouse.gov
And finally if you have nothing to hide then you got nothing to fear!!!
The only reason that President Bush looks so good is that we can compare him to what Hillary might do. Don't ever forget that it was this President who sighed the Patriot Act and is asking for number II to be put in place.
I hope that realization will knock some of the glow off of him and help Freepers understand he is not worthy of our adoration in every area. Sure I respect the man but he is a man and he can and does make mistakes just like you and I do.
I would add, " If you arn't worried about something, your not trying hard enough."
There is no reason why someones professed religion should protect them from our legal system or scrutiny by there neighbors.
Over 55% of "conservatives" agree: big government is good (as long as the GOP is in control), and true "patriots" will gladly exchange liberty for perceived safety.
He's a heck of a lot better than the choices we had in the last 2 elections, but he's no conservative. The border policy & out of control spending disgust me.
Did your German friend specify any particular things?
Now that's gun grabber logic. The same old BS "If it saves one life". The bottom line is that the Patriot Act wouldn't have mattered there.
Someones religion should be of no significance to our government or our neighbors. I'm thinking Halocaust here.
How valuable is life without freedom?
Not the original design of Fed. Govt....
Big ole dittos, Laz....
Except that I just might have a number of things I'd want to hide - from the government, that is. Wouldn't mean I'm an enemy of the U.S., however.
But, being a muslim is all the rage today. It doesn't matter that they flew planes into our buildings. Being muslim today means being given carte blanche.
The Patriot Act takes away from American citizens. We didn't fly planes into buildings yet we are having our rights taken away.
Sponsoring terrorists perhaps that were involved in attacks on other nation states, which is none of our business. And why would a 'conservative' such as yourself all the sudden take the word of the State Department as gospel? I remember a year or two ago, the State Department was right up there next to Satan as most hated and couldn't be trusted for anything.
And yet our administration took the word of the CIA and other intelligence agencies to attack a pretty much defenseless nation state on the threat of invisible WMDs. Any condemnation of those groups?
So, is that the philosophy that has replaced "Give me liberty or give me death"?
If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.
Dwight D. Eisenhower