Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Remarks by President Bush at Signing of USA Patriot Act of 2001
US Newswire ^ | 10/26/01 | George W. Bush

Posted on 10/26/2001 9:17:04 AM PDT by Native American Female Vet

Remarks by President Bush at Signing of USA Patriot Act of 2001

U.S.Newswire, 10/26/2001 12:03

To: National Desk

Contact: White House Press Office, 202-483-8932 WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the White House:

The East Room

9:49 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning and welcome to the White House. Today, we take an essential step in defeating terrorism, while protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans. With my signature, this law will give intelligence and law enforcement officials important new tools to fight a present danger.

I commend the House and Senate for the hard work they put into this legislation. Members of Congress and their staffs spent long nights and weekends to get this important bill to my desk. I appreciate their efforts, and bipartisanship, in passing this new law.

I want to thank the Vice President and his staff for working hard to make sure this law was passed. I want to thank the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Treasury for being here, both of whom lead important parts of our war against terrorism. I want to thank Attorney General John Ashcroft for spending a lot of time on the Hill to make the case for a balanced piece of legislation. I want to thank the Director of the FBI and the Director of the CIA for waging an incredibly important part on the two-front war -- one overseas, and a front here at home.

I want to thank Governor Tom Ridge for his leadership. I want to thank the members of Congress who are here on the stage, the Leaders, on this impressive effort. Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy and Senator Sarbanes and Senator Graham and Senator Reid.

I also want to thank Representative Porter Goss, LaFalce, Oxley, and Sensenbrenner for their hard work. And I want to welcome the men and women of law enforcement who are here in the White House with us today, as well.

The changes, effective today, will help counter a threat like no other our nation has ever faced. We've seen the enemy, and the murder of thousands of innocent, unsuspecting people. They recognize no barrier of morality. They have no conscience. The terrorists cannot be reasoned with. Witness the recent anthrax attacks through our Postal Service.

Our country is grateful for the courage the Postal Service has shown during these difficult times. We mourn the loss of the lives of Thomas Morris and Joseph Curseen; postal workers who died in the line of duty. And our prayers go to their loved ones.

I want to assure postal workers that our government is testing more than 200 postal facilities along the entire Eastern corridor that may have been impacted. And we will move quickly to treat and protect workers where positive exposures are found.

But one thing is for certain: These terrorists must be pursued, they must be defeated, and they must be brought to justice. (Applause.) And that is the purpose of this legislation. Since the 11th of September, the men and women of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been relentless in their response to new and sudden challenges.

We have seen the horrors terrorists can inflict. We may never know what horrors our country was spared by the diligent and determined work of our police forces, the FBI, ATF agents, federal marshals, Custom officers, Secret Service, intelligence professionals and local law enforcement officials, under the most trying conditions. They are serving this country with excellence, and often with bravery.

They deserve our full support and every means of help that we can provide. We're dealing with terrorists who operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, some of which were not even available when our existing laws were written. The bill before me takes account of the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists. It will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt, and to punish terrorists before they strike.

For example, this legislation gives law enforcement officials better tools to put an end to financial counterfeiting, smuggling and money-laundering. Secondly, it gives intelligence operations and criminal operations the chance to operate not on separate tracks, but to share vital information so necessary to disrupt a terrorist attack before it occurs.

As of today, we're changing the laws governing information-sharing. And as importantly, we're changing the culture of our various agencies that fight terrorism. Countering and investigating terrorist activity is the number one priority for both law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.

As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology. Investigations are often slowed by limit on the reach of federal search warrants.

Law enforcement agencies have to get a new warrant for each new district they investigate, even when they're after the same suspect. Under this new law, warrants are valid across all districts and across all states. And, finally, the new legislation greatly enhances the penalties that will fall on terrorists or anyone who helps them.

Current statutes deal more severely with drug-traffickers than with terrorists. That changes today. We are enacting new and harsh penalties for possession of biological weapons. We're making it easier to seize the assets of groups and individuals involved in terrorism. The government will have wider latitude in deporting known terrorists and their supporters. The statute of limitations on terrorist acts will be lengthened, as will prison sentences for terrorists.

This bill was carefully drafted and considered. Led by the members of Congress on this stage, and those seated in the audience, it was crafted with skill and care, determination and a spirit of bipartisanship for which the entire nation is grateful. This bill met with an overwhelming -- overwhelming agreement in Congress, because it upholds and respects the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.

This legislation is essential not only to pursuing and punishing terrorists, but also preventing more atrocities in the hands of the evil ones. This government will enforce this law with all the urgency of a nation at war. The elected branches of our government, and both political parties, are united in our resolve to fight and stop and punish those who would do harm to the American people.

It is now my honor to sign into law the USA Patriot Act of 2001. (Applause.)

(The bill is signed.) (Applause.)

END 10:57 A.M. EDT


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-252 next last
And so it is done.
1 posted on 10/26/2001 9:17:04 AM PDT by Native American Female Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
We are so very fortunate to have this man as our President.
2 posted on 10/26/2001 9:22:47 AM PDT by Sunshine55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
It is now my honor to sign into law the USA Patriot Act of 2001. (Applause.)

Even after the Supremes gut this deal, we'll continue to rue the day.

3 posted on 10/26/2001 9:25:36 AM PDT by Glenn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

4 posted on 10/26/2001 9:25:52 AM PDT by Glenn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Glenn
I sure hope the Supremes do the job they are suppose to. It just blows my mind people think this is a good thing. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves today.
6 posted on 10/26/2001 9:39:28 AM PDT by Native American Female Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Native American Female Vet
America is now a police state. The terrorists have already won. At this point, I consider the State a greater enemy than the terrorists. There will be no significant restraints on these new police powers. The Constitution is obviously no restraint. The rubber-stamp judge panels are no restraint.

America has passed itself some blatantly fascist legislation here, and I, for one, shall oppose it to the utmost.

True patriots have many enemies, and the majoritarian American Police State is now chief among them. Hysterical democracy reigns supreme over Constititutional Republicanism once again.

I'm not impressed with the Constitutional lip service on the part of Bush-43 or Fashcroft, or anyone else who supports this sh!t.

We can only hope that some Constitutional judges quickly begin slapping down the tyrannical provisions of this law.

War is no excuse to negate the Constitution; those parts of the Constitution which are subject to suspension in time of War are clearly stated, and this law clearly exceeds those provisions.

The consent has been manufactured masterfully here.

9 posted on 10/26/2001 10:02:05 AM PDT by sargon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
This does not seem to be the "final" version as it is not up yet apparently.

H.R.2975
See SEC. 309. DEFINITION. in Text of Legislation This link may "time out" so you may have to use the previous link.

Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)

`Sec. 25. Federal terrorism offense defined
`As used in this title, the term `Federal terrorism offense' means an offense that is--

`(1) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion; or to retaliate against government conduct; and
`(2) is a violation of, or an attempt or conspiracy to violate- section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international airports), 81 (relating to arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 175, 175b (relating to biological weapons), 229 (relating to chemical weapons), 351(a)-(d) (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping), 792 (relating to harboring terrorists), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f) or (i) (relating to arson and bombing of certain property), 930(c), 956 (relating to conspiracy to injure property of a foreign government), 1030(a)(1), 1030(a)(5)(A), or 1030(a)(7) (relating to protection of computers), 1114 (relating to protection of officers and employees of the United States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1361 (relating to injury of Government property or contracts), 1362 (relating to destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 1366 (relating to destruction of an energy facility), 1751(a)-(d) (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 1992, 2152 (relating to injury of fortifications, harbor defenses, or defensive sea areas), 2155 (relating to destruction of national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2156 (relating to production of defective national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to certain homicides and other violence against United States nationals occurring outside of the United States), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), 2339A (relating to providing material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorist organizations), or 2340A (relating to torture);
`(3) section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284);
`(4) section 601 (relating to disclosure of identities of covert agents) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 421); or
`(5) any of the following provisions of title 49: section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy), the second sentence of section 46504 (relating to assault on a flight crew with a dangerous weapon), section 46505(b)(3), (relating to explosive or incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life by means of weapons, on aircraft), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved, or section 60123(b) (relating to destruction of interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility) of title 49.'; and
(2) in the table of sections in the beginning of such chapter, by inserting after the item relating to section 24 the following:
`25. Federal terrorism offense defined.'.

(b) Section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `is a violation' and all that follows through `title 49' and inserting `is a Federal terrorism offense'.
(c) Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(A) by inserting `(or to have the effect)' after `intended'; and
(B) in clause (iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `(or any function thereof) by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping (or threat thereof)';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by inserting the following paragraph (4):
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; and
`(B) appear to be intended (or to have the effect)--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government (or any function thereof) by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping (or threat thereof).'.

10 posted on 10/26/2001 10:05:14 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: amundsen
My question is when was the last time the Republicans actually rolled back government powers over citizens?

Bears repeating....

11 posted on 10/26/2001 10:06:10 AM PDT by Aristophanes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: amundsen
My question is when was the last time the Republicans actually rolled back government powers over citizens?

They had their chance in 1994, and promptly blew it.

12 posted on 10/26/2001 10:09:28 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Well hell, instead of calling them the Founding Fathers we'll just call 'em terrorists from now on.

Notice that the new class of crimes really is the just the same acts as already defined but with an added element of intent to influence government.

13 posted on 10/26/2001 10:10:13 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
Today, we take an essential step in defeating terrorism, while protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans.

You know, I was positive he said "civil liberties" of all Americans.
I guess my hearing is worse than I thought...

This bill met with an overwhelming -- overwhelming agreement in Congress, because it upholds and respects the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.
Oops...there it is. Hmmm...I'll take my constitutional rights, how about you?

14 posted on 10/26/2001 10:12:13 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
Self bump...
15 posted on 10/26/2001 10:15:32 AM PDT by Come get it
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
Well it finally happened. I only hope SCOTUS will strike down this garbage soon before the jackboots get the upper hand.
16 posted on 10/26/2001 10:17:31 AM PDT by AUgrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
intent to influence government

I guess all Freepers are terrorists now. How many of us protested last fall? How many have written their congresscritters? Does writing your congresscritter qualify as 'intent to influence government' under any of these interpretations? How about protesting?
17 posted on 10/26/2001 10:19:37 AM PDT by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
Intent is everything.
Such as in the expression "criminal intent".
Someone must have "criminal intent" to be convicted of a "crime". Or such is my understanding.
18 posted on 10/26/2001 10:20:04 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
May God help us all. Not one thing in this new bill would have prevented 9/11, but what this new bill WILL do is usher in a police state. 1984 will be nothing in comparison to what this travesty of a bill will do.
19 posted on 10/26/2001 10:28:01 AM PDT by FreedomIsSimple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
1) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion; or to retaliate against government conduct;

If I have a scowl on my face would/could that be considered "intimidation"? If an e-mail to my Senator/Representative is "critical" could/would that be construed as "retaliation against government conduct"?
Seems somewhat vague to me, but what do I know?

20 posted on 10/26/2001 10:28:47 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
1361 (relating to injury of Government property or contracts)

I guess the folks at Klamath better not use acetylene torches to open the head gates again...else they'd be 'terrorists'.

21 posted on 10/26/2001 10:31:50 AM PDT by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freedomcrusader
The devil is in the details.
I'm anxious for the final bill to come out and see what is different, if anything is that is.
22 posted on 10/26/2001 10:36:51 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: Glenn
Even after the Supremes gut this deal, we'll continue to rue the day.

Only if you intend to break the law.

24 posted on 10/26/2001 10:51:20 AM PDT by ClancyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: Native American Female Vet
I sure hope the Supremes do the job they are suppose to. It just blows my mind people think this is a good thing. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves today.

This is the first sign that the terrorist acts of 9/11/01 are succeeding.

We, as a country, have entered into the globalist ideals, as in NO MORE "NATIONAL" CIVIL RIGHTS...the baby has gone down with the bathwater...A sad day for me, and our country, IMHO.

FMCDH

27 posted on 10/26/2001 11:03:15 AM PDT by nothingnew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: alien2
"agencies have to get a new warrant for each new district they investigate"

Would you please state WHY you think it a good thing that the subject of a wire-tap warrant should be able to defeat it by changing his location.

28 posted on 10/26/2001 11:03:46 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
Patriot Bill Moves Along

Source: Wired News

Published: 7:16 a.m. Oct. 4, 2001 PDT Author: Declan McCullagh

Posted on 10/4/01 10:36 AM Pacific by Pipe Dog

Patriot Bill Moves Along By Declan McCullagh 7:16 a.m. Oct. 4, 2001 PDT

WASHINGTON -- A key House panel has unanimously approved unprecedented surveillance powers for police, capping a fiery weeklong debate over how to balance freedom while fighting terrorism.

Late Wednesday evening, the House Judiciary Committee voted 36-0 in favor of an anti-terrorism bill crafted by GOP and Democratic leaders but opposed by civil liberties groups. The full House will likely vote on the measure by next week.

During the six-hour debate that ended at 8:30 p.m. EDT, which included votes on amendments to the bill, committee members said they felt the so-called Patriot Act -- based loosely on the additional police powers that President Bush had requested -- is a reasonable compromise between liberty and security.

Rep. Robert Scott (D-Virginia) said: "Much of this bill will be an effort to give authority and then safeguard against abuses."

Even legislators such as arch-conservative Bob Barr (R-Georgia), who had criticized the Patriot Act earlier this week, ended up embracing it. "We were able to eliminate or severely limit the most egregious violations of Americans' civil liberties that were contained in the original proposal," Barr said after the vote.

At a Cato Institute event Tuesday afternoon, Barr had taken a far more critical approach: "The philosophy underlying the legislation remains problematic.... There are a number of troubling provisions in this latest draft."

The worries expressed by some groups that are members of the new In Defense of Freedom coalition include: the ease with which police could eavesdrop on the Internet, expanded information-sharing between police, the CIA and similar agencies, and potentially intrusive surveillance of users by their Internet providers.

During Wednesday's markup session, which began at 2 p.m., committee members introduced a slew of amendments -- but, citing the interests of time and cooperation, withdrew nearly all of the proposed changes that did not enjoy overwhelming support.

Among the amendments that the committee approved:

A study of how biometric identification systems -- tied to the FBI fingerprint database -- could be used at U.S. borders and consular offices to nab anyone wanted for a crime. The attorney general has 90 days to prepare a report.

An attempt to limit "forum-shopping" by prosecutors seeking wiretap orders. Since the Patriot Act gives courts the power to order wiretapping anywhere in the U.S., Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California) said she was worried that "it would encourage the government to engage in forum searching. If the court that issues the warrant is far from the defendant, it becomes difficult for the person to contest it."

Assurance that Internet providers, which will be required to cooperate with law enforcement's requests for surveillance of users, won't be forced to retool their networks just for police convenience. That amendment was introduced by Rick Boucher (D) and Bob Goodlatte (R) of Virginia.

Allowance for individuals to sue police who leak information obtained in a wiretap. The sponsor, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts), described it this way: "If information gained during surveillance is improperly released, you have a right to go in and sue, with a minimum award of $10,000. If someone goes in and wins, the head of the agency which released the information must either initiate action against the leaker or will have to explain why this action was not taken."

The Patriot Act's sponsors, House Judiciary chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), tried to talk committee members out of making additional changes, saying the bill could be reworked in the next few days before the full House voted on it. Rep. Howard Berman (D-California) said that one section of the Patriot Act gives any company that suspects an unauthorized intrusion a broad right to monitor what the suspected trespasser is doing.

"It doesn't limit the intercepts the government can take to or through. It seems to allow a non-judicially authorized tap of a unauthorized computer user or to monitor their computer," Berman said.

Replied Sensenbrenner: "Gentleman makes a good point. We'll take a look at it between now and the floor."

Rep. Goodlatte wanted a better definition of what kind of information police could obtain without a court order.

The Patriot Act increases the utility of the FBI's Carnivore's surveillance system when used in address-only mode, meaning e-mail addresses of correspondents are recorded but not the body of e-mail messages. Any U.S. attorney or state attorney general could order the installation of Carnivore or other Internet wiretaps in emergency situations without obtaining a court order first.

"I'm referring to things like subject, header and what might be typed in below a URL," Goodlatte said. "If someone was to follow you around on the Internet they could get quite a dossier on someone. It would be good if it made it clear that this legislation did not include content."

Sensenbrenner promised to "work on getting the appropriate language in the committee report."

Some members worried about expanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a law that created a secret court for spy-related investigations that now would be broadened and made more powerful.

Rep. Scott described an Orwellian society that would arise if police receive the power to wiretap any phones a suspect might use: "Even pay phones will be tapped under this tag, or a neighbor's phone that the subject may use. If this (amendment) is not adopted anyone using the corner payphones might have their conversation listened in on."

Replied Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts): "There is a part of FISA appropriate to outline the minimization procedure."

Scott eventually withdrew his amendment.

Another anti-terrorist bill is being written by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont). Leahy's bill, which appears to be gaining support in the Senate, is called the "Strengthening Our Domestic Security Against Terrorist Act."

Leahy's staff are negotiating with the Bush administration over what sections will remain in the final bill.

The Patriot Act stands for "Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."

Ben Polen in Washington contributed to this report

29 posted on 10/26/2001 11:09:53 AM PDT by Pipe Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: ClancyJ
Only if you intend to break the law.

Sounds dangerously like "if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear"... except - loss of privacy, right to be secure in our persons and papers, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, Constitutional protection from vengeful government officials...

31 posted on 10/26/2001 11:18:44 AM PDT by MrB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: amundsen
Since the old rules allowed spies the ability to operate for years inside our government agencies without the FBI and CIA being able to extract them, all you Henny Pennies can go to Hell.
34 posted on 10/26/2001 11:28:19 AM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: alien2
I understand how it works, and I know I will not see it go there in my lifetime but someday, somehow someone will get there.
36 posted on 10/26/2001 11:30:54 AM PDT by Native American Female Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: nothingnew
I agree. I am glad to see I am not alone
38 posted on 10/26/2001 11:33:44 AM PDT by Native American Female Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: alien2
Our founding fathers had slaves does that mean we can too.

If you are paranoid please take prosac!!! That will calm you down.

Just think if you threaten anyone for any reason could you be called a terrorist?

Why cant we live in the USA as good trusting citizens?

You are innocent until they find some home grown terrorist group in you or your friends!

Love this country or pay a price... get out now if you have something to hide!!!

40 posted on 10/26/2001 11:35:16 AM PDT by Baseballguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: alien2
"#28 huh? "
I asked you first.

If you don't have a reason that subjects should have the right to evade warrants by changing their location it won't surprise me.
But after your long rant in reply #23, I was hoping you would.

41 posted on 10/26/2001 11:37:18 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
Of course, when this law fails to prevent another attack--and it will fail--they'll be back, saying the same damn thing: "we need more 'tools'". And the sheeple--including all too many FReepers--will swallow that one too.
42 posted on 10/26/2001 11:38:09 AM PDT by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Someone must have "criminal intent" to be convicted of a "crime".

Only where the crime involves a specific or general intent, such as malicious destruction of property or murder. There are crimes where no intent need be proved to sustain a conviction.

In this law one must be found to have committed one of the enumerated federal crimes with the intent described in the first section.

43 posted on 10/26/2001 11:39:54 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: amundsen
"particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
Yes, the unified warrant is obviously Constitutional.

I believe (not a lawyer) that federal warrants are issued for federal districts, so I don't see how a States Rights issue can be raised.

44 posted on 10/26/2001 11:42:21 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: Native American Female Vet
Several links in article...
Congress Clamps Down On Carnivore Requires reports on use of Internet-snooper system (No date given)

Recognizing its potential threat to individual privacy, Congress is in the process of requiring the FBI to report exactly how and when Carnivore, the controversial Internet-snooper system, is being used.

Officially named DCS 1000, Carnivore is the FBI's high tech hardware and software system capable of tapping directly into and recording terabytes of Internet traffic.

To install a Carnivore device, the FBI must first obtain warrants or court orders naming the targets of the investigation. Once installed in a cooperating Internet service provider's (ISP) facility, Carnivore collects all internet traffic. This mass of collected data is then "filtered" for evidence tied to the suspects named in the warrant.

According to the FBI, Carnivore is a "diagnostic tool" providing the Agency with "a 'surgical' ability to intercept and collect the communications which are the subject of the lawful order while ignoring those communications which they are not authorized to intercept."

The FBI further contends that its use of Carnivore as being, "subject to intense oversight from internal FBI controls, the U. S. Department of Justice (both at a Headquarters level and at a U.S. Attorney's Office level), and by the Court." [From: FBI's Carnivore - Diagnostic Tool]

Carnivore's threat to personal privacy and civil liberty, say its critics, is the fact that it collects information about every person -- not just the suspects -- accessing the Internet through the host ISP's connection.

Carnivore can collect copies of every email sent through the ISP's system, track the Web travels of every user logged on, and discover the IP addresses of all users, suspects or not.

The threat to individual privacy from the potential misuse of such a device is of great concern to many people, including the House and Senate Judiciary Committees of the U.S. Congress.

As a result of Judiciary hearings, Congress is acting to require the FBI to provide them with detailed reports on the use of Carnivore, or similar devices. Included as part of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act are the following orders to the FBI:

SEC. 306. REPORT ON DCS 1000 (`CARNIVORE').
Not later than 30 days after the end of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the Attorney General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall provide to the Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives and Senate a report detailing--
(1) the number of times DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device) was used for surveillance during the preceding fiscal year;
(2) the Department of Justice official or officials who approved each use of DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device);
(3) the criteria used by the Department of Justice officials to review requests to use DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device);
(4) a complete description of the process used to submit, review, and approve requests to use DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device);
(5) the specific statutory authority relied on to use DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device);
(6) the court that authorized each use of DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device);
(7) the number of orders, warrants, or subpoenas applied for, to authorize the use of DCS 1000 (or any similar system or device);
(8) the fact that the order, warrant, or subpoena was granted as applied for, was modified, or was denied;
(9) the offense specified in the order, warrant, subpoena, or application;
(10) the nature of the facilities from which, or the place where the contents of, electronic communications were to be disclosed; and
(11) any information gathered or accessed that was not authorized by the court to be gathered or accessed.

The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, including the Carnivore reporting requirements, has strong bipartisan support in Congress. The House approved the bill by a simple voice vote on July 23, and little or no opposition is anticipated in the Senate.

Included as part of the same bill, is a measure creating a special deputy inspector general assigned to provide special oversight of all programs and operations of the FBI through September 2004. [See: House Slaps Special Oversight on FBI]


So much for Congressional concerns about threats to individual privacy.

46 posted on 10/26/2001 11:46:18 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: Pipe Dog
"We were able to eliminate or severely limit the most egregious violations of Americans' civil liberties that were contained in the original proposal," Barr said after the vote."

Anyone know what that was?

"At a Cato Institute event Tuesday afternoon, Barr had taken a far more critical approach: "The philosophy underlying the legislation remains problematic.... There are a number of troubling provisions in this latest draft."

OK..so you take out 'the most egregious violations of Americans' civil liberties' and do nothing about the other stuff and that changes the 'philosophy of legislation?

"The worries expressed by some groups that are members of the new In Defense of Freedom coalition include: the ease with which police could eavesdrop on the Internet, expanded information-sharing between police, the CIA and similar agencies, and potentially intrusive surveillance of users by their Internet providers."

This makes me ask myself: Why have I sat for hours reading, emailing, calling, sending letters and protesting to stop this?

48 posted on 10/26/2001 11:51:08 AM PDT by Native American Female Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Native American Female Vet
I sure hope the Supremes do the job they are suppose to. It just blows my mind people think this is a good thing. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves today.

Excuse me.....but I do not believe our founding fathers ever faced such a horrific threat which we are currenly facing. They were fighting for liberties which we did not have back then. Now we are fighting for our very lives and existance as a nation. I think John Adams and the gang would understand that certain things need to change for the good of our national security. Calm down, and don't worry so much about our civil liberties....and start worrying about what is really important right now. Everything else will work itself out in the end.
49 posted on 10/26/2001 11:51:55 AM PDT by GinaL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-252 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson