Posted on 12/16/2005 10:58:09 AM PST by new yorker 77
--------------------------------------------------------
Larry Craig – Idaho
Phone: (202) 224-2752
Email: http://craig.senate.gov/email/
Website: http://craig.senate.gov/
--------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Hagel – Nebraska
Phone: (202) 224-4224
Email: http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
Website: http://hagel.senate.gov/
--------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Murkowski – Alaska
Phone: (202) 224-6665
Email: http://murkowski.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Website: http://murkowski.senate.gov
--------------------------------------------------------
John Sununu – New Hampshire
Phone: (202) 224-2841
Email: http://www.sununu.senate.gov/webform.html
Website: http://sununu.senate.gov/
--------------------------------------------------------
Frist also voted against it in order to keep the option open to hold another future cloture vote.
Are you just nuts or what? Pray tell what about the Patriot Act constitutes "spying on our citizens"? What about the Patriot Act has changed the law from prior practice and how? Do you even know what is in the law and what was in the law before the Patriot Act? I can only conclude from your statements that you have no idea at all what is different between the Patriot Act and the law before the Patriot Act. But you have accepted plenty of myths about it.
"You want to apply Castro's form of National Security."
Please describe for us how the law as changed by the Patriot Act compares to "Castro's form of National Security"? Oh, that's right, you can't can you?
"I prefer the methods that have been applied by the worlds leader in liberty for more then 200 years."
So, again I say, tell us how radically different the law became after the Patriot Act? It's clear you have no idea what the law provided for before the Patriot Act.
During the "cold war" the miltary nature of the adversary was external. The analogy between the cold war and terrorism would have been as if the Soviets had been able to plant operational elements of the Red Army into our civilian population, to plan and carry out military acts of sabotage here. Do you really think that if that had been the case we would not have pursued them here, among our population, the way we are pursuing the terrorists with elements of the Patriot Act now? You live in a dream world that never existed and does not exist now.
BTTT! I'll do the same! Blackbird.
So, your contention is, if we only had the unPatriot Act in place on 9/10, 9/11 would never have happened. Further, that with the unPatriot Act in place, that it will never happen again? Are you really making that statement? Really? Sorry slick, YOU don't have the right to forfeit my FReedom, so you can FEEL safe. This will be the first Kudo's I've sent to the U.S. Senate in years! Blackbird.
...and there's a reason that Janet Reno and the "Toons" are all for it! You may want to take a step back and look at whom in you're in bed with. Blackbird.
I am saying none of those things.
I am, however, saying that the encroaching police state that is present-day America is not desirable and is a hideous outcome of this externally-produced series of events.
I am saying that we are giving up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, and thusly, we deserve neither. deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Hagel is a globalist RINO. No kidding. He's a yearly attendee at the Bilderberg meeting, and I don't trust him further than I can throw him.
LOL - good one. But good luck with Sununu - he's always struck me as one of those Northeastern RINO's.
You've invoked the spectre of the Clinton family, yet you blindly insist that broad powers that permit intrusion into our electronic activities, sneak & peek searches, our book buying and library usage, and our private business are without any risks. I simply cannot believe that you've thought this through carefully. Read the summaries of what is expiring on December 31st, including the sweeping removal of wiretap permits permits that used to be required in addition to warrants! Read the "one party" (e.g. your ISP) grants of sweeping permission to tap your E-mail. It's all there in black and white, but all you can say over and over again is that spying on Americans is good because you believe that only Republicans are in power now. I've got news for you, and so does Richard Poe: Hillary has been waging a war against Internet freedoms. These powers give her and her ilk more power, not less.
I agree with you that some of the provisions in the core PA are good. I think even some of those expiring are useful and not dangerous, because they limit spying on foreigners. But spying on Americans who have made no contact with anti-American foreigners is a wholly different story. Where does treason begin and patriotism end? I'll not have a Hillary Clinton or a judicial system stacked in her favor deciding that, not if I can help it.
Think it over, but the onus is on you as a supporter of these measures to prove to the rest of us Americans that the PA is harmless, not the other way around. Most laws have harmful side-effects. You've not convinced me that this one is acceptable.
well said.
You keep saying "our electronic activities"; well not mine. What is it that you are doing that would make anyone suspicious of your "activities"?
You ignore that most of the expansion of the "broad powers" relate to "domestic terrorism" investigations.
And yes, why would you object to adding "the use or development of chemical weapons, crimes of violence against Americans overseas, development of weapons of mass destruction, multinational terrorism, financial transactions with a country designated as a sponsor of terrorism, and providing material support to terrorists or terror organizations to" the list of offenses that can be used to justify a federal wiretap (Sec 201). Are you saying that such offenses should not be ablt to warrant a federal wiretap, and why not?
In this age of both identity theft and the use of Internet communications between terrorists, why do you object to computer crimes being able to justify a federal wiretap warrant? (Sec 202) Should such crimes go uninvestigated?.
Why should "foreign intelligence" gathered through wiretaps on criminals not be shared with a wide array of federal agencies, including defense and intelligence agencies.(Sec 203) Is it your position that if a court authorized wiretap reveals a conversation between two terrrorists that includes discussion of plans for an activity against an American defense facility, here or abroad, that the DOD should not be told about that information?
Why, in a "foreign intelligence investigation" should authorities be required to get separate warrants from a court every time the suspect changes from one cell phone to another. (Sec 206) Is it really your complaint that as we investigate that suspect your rights are invaded just because he borrows your cell phone for a few minutes?
What exactly is your problem with federal authorities being able to "expand the duration of foreign intelligence surveilance of non-U.S. citizens"? (Sec 207) Are you a non-U.S. citizen to whom such surveilance may apply? How so?
What is your problem with the techical clarification allowing law enforcement to get a search warrant instead of a wiretap order, "in order to seize a voice mail message"?(Sec 209) Whether a wiretap order (monitor your telephone as they could before the patriot act, and as they still can), or a warrant for your telephone system's voice mail messages for you (as they can now), the level of "intrusion" does not seem to have changed and has not changed at all for anyone not suspected of domestic terrorism activities.
Most states now require schools, hospitals, doctors and many others to report "suspicious" statements to police "if there's immediate danger of physical injury" to someone. They, the schools, hospitals and doctors make that determination - do the statements, in their mind, constitute an an immediate dange of physical injury to someone. So, how is it such a great expansion of that concept that now "communications service providers" can "disclose suspicious e-mail messages to police if there's immediate danger of physical injury"? (Sec 212) The Justice Department says that prior to the Patriot Act, the FBI could not take emergency calls from Internet service providers (ISPs) who had knowledge of an ongoing crime. Now, the FBI can respond when an ISP suspects that an online conversation reveals an emergency. Were you somehow under the mistaken notion that your Internet communications , like these, were "private"? There is nothing more "public" than the Internet.
Why, during "a foreign intelligence investigation" should "investigators" not be able "to use rap and trace or pen register" devices? (214) When they have a warrant to wiretap convesations in a "foreign intelligence investigations", why should they not be able to register "the numbers of the people on either end of the call", just as they have done for criminal investigations? Why should terrorists and spys have advantages that criminals don't even get?
Why should libraries and bookstores be exempt from investigatory powers from warrants for "tangible things" that businesses like hotels and car rental outfits had always previously not been exempt from? (Sec 214). Is the terrorist's "vacation" and "business trip" information less "private and personal" than a book? This provision has been invoked all of 35 times and never for a library or bookstore.
And yes, if someone is hacking into my computer system or my telephone I should not have to get a court order to seek government assistance in helping to trace the source of the invasion of my property (Sec 217).
What is your problem with warrants for wiretaps when the "intelligence" purpose of the tap may only be "significant" with a "primary" purpose being a criminal investigation. (Sec 218) This key amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is also seen as key to removing the "wall" between intelligence and criminal investigations.
What is your problem with allowing "nationwide search warrants for electronic communications". (Se 220) Without them, when tracing the Internet communication of single terrorist, the government had to seek time consuming multiple warrants, for each jurisdiction through which the terrorist's interent messages passed. Put that terrorist on a lap-top and checking in and out of libraries and Starbucks across the country and you could never get the multiple warrants fast enough to keep up with his movements.
As I said in an answer to a pevious question on this thread, you seem to be willing to ignore the nature of the war we are in. It is the nature of that war that brings the increased security requirements to fight it. The analogy would be as if during the "cold war" the Soviets had been able to plant operational units of the Red Army into hiding, here among our civilian population. They'd be using our phone systems, our mail systems, our computer networks, our libraries, our businesses, our financial systems and everything else - just as though they were citizens. Do you really think we would have ignore there presence and not take steps to locate them and stop them before they could act? And, given that everything they would do would be inter-mingled with the legitimate activities of citizens, do you not think we would let that stop us from trying to find and stop them?
If you do, you're nuts, because that is the situation the terrorists have given us. They are here, living and working among us. They are using all the things and all the systems we use, yet they must be found and they must be stopped. So, we must peer into the "normal" activity of the nation in order to locate them. Or, like you, we can ignore how intermixed there activity is in between all the "legitimate" activity, make everything off limits and just bury our heads in the sand.
Sorry, we will not commit suicide just so that you can go to be at night with the warm and fuzzy good feeling about your "rights".
You have none if your dead.
"externally-produced series of events"????
Everyone of the terrorists was living and working and playing right here - and yes looking and acting like "legimate" citizens or "residence" for the most part. And, yes while much of their activity appeared "normal" and non-criminal on the surface, as does all of your activity, it wasn't non-criminal in the broad nature of it. So, yes, hidden among all this "normal" activity of the law-biding citizens of this country are the activities of a foreign army, hidden among us and among all our "normal" activity. And yes, it is the governments job to ferret out this invader and to do so the government must look at all the means by which the "criminal" activity can be discovered lying in among the "normal" activity.
Or, like you, we can ignore them and quit responding when they blow up more things.
What you have to get over is the fact that they are here, they are doing every thing they can to make their criminal activity look like every part of our every day lives, until the day they set to execute their plans. As a consequence, it is only by being able to look at what seems like normal activity to you and I, will the government find the activity of the terrorists.
They were not American citizens.
You want to cure the cold by shooting the dog.
You keep saying "our electronic activities"; well not mine.
Yes, and then you asked me if I ought to be investigated. Have you ever read 1984 Mr. "Wuli?" You appear to believe that America the Beautiful is incapable of turning into a Nanny State. I have news for you: it's already starting to happen.
By asking me such questions, you're implying that you'd never resist if the government became tyranical. A powerful Socialist or Communist could take office and circumvent the Constitution in any way imaginable, and you would never take any secret steps to organize political dissent, let alone prepare for armed resistance. What ever the government could manage to collect on you personally could never endanger you, your livelihood, or the security of your family. You'd have a spotless record of quiet compliance. In fact, assuming that you would never do such things, you would not even fear the possibility that someone could accumulate information about you that was false or mistaken.
Perhaps you'd defend your inaction by saying that you were "following orders."
You've revealed yourself as a statist. A powerful, authoritarian government with permission to snoop and archive information about its citizens doesn't bother you in the least. It appears to give you comfort.
To arrive at that pleasant and naive point of view, you've forgotten the lessons of our own history. The British empire had these kinds of powers over its subjects, and used them effectively to entrap citizens and relieve them of their wealth, liberty, and their very lives. This is why we have the fourth amendment, protecting us from "unreasonable searches and seizures." This is why we have the sixth amendment promising us the "right to a speedy and public trial." It is also why we have the second amendment. The entire point of our representative system is extensive and independent checks on the power of government.
Yet you don't mind stripping back these checks so that you can presume to have a few extra feelings of security.
And yes, why would you object to adding "the use or development of chemical weapons,...
You've taken the liberty of distorting what I said. I only object to limited aspects of the Patriot Act. If you truly believe that any legislation is acceptable if most of it is, then you have further revealed yourself as a fool. I do not object to foreign surveillance, or surveillance of interactions between Americans and foreigners. The Patriot Act as written goes much further than that, however. If you could stick to the point in a rational argument, we might have something to discuss. However, you've revealed that you can't by accusing me of restraining such obviously necessary means to defend Americans as those.
You have none if your dead.
Besides being grammatically incorrect, you're just touting someone else's arguments. I think Rush Limbaugh made them recently, in fact. I often agree with him; this time I don't. But that's what you do: parrot the party's points. I think your simplistic attacks on my position speak for themselves. If the Patriot Act as written is best supported by people like you, it's further evidence that it's dangerous to our liberties.
Have a nice day. There really isn't much more to say between us, so do enjoy it on your own.
You had the courage to support the procedural vote against the PA on principle that parts of it were dangerous to our liberties. Thank you!
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.