Posted on 12/22/2008 8:59:18 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
This is not very reassuring. They certainly missed the biggest terrorist attack on our country, didn't they?
Tell ya what BigIF.... read these concerns from intelligent Conservatives writers, leaders, lawyers, who understand the ramifications of the Patriot Act and the legislation that has been attached to the Patriot Act. Hey, I’m a plain ole southern gal who has studied the Constitution a bit along with the Founding Fathers, and Madison in Federalist #58 would “NOT” agree with you on this matter.
http://www.bordc.org/resources/conservative.php
You said:
“...they are not listening unless certain ‘keywords or phrases’...”
That is freaking hilarious, so hilarious that Congress back in the late 1990’s wanted to look more closely at the NSA due to “instances” of abuses. Of course the NSA gave them a bunch of flack. Why the flack if they were so pure? Hell, Congress had no idea what they were doing, how comforting. “
_______________
There is virtually no aspect of government power that can not be abused. So then maybe the whole idea of government is ‘freaking hilarious’ to you?
Programs like the eschalon program create a sort of ‘random’ surviellance for National Security purposes. If there is to be “specific” targeting of US citizens for surviellance then a warrant is pursued. In other words it then becomes no longer solely the power of the Commander in Chief but is subject to ‘due process’ involving all three branches.
To just say that a power ‘can’ be abused does not make it illegal or un-Constitutional.
You said:
“Who is to say this broad questionable power is used against those who do not agree with the Obama Administration?”
________________
What broad questionable power? Please tell me specifically what it is you think that is such a broad power. Please be specific.
_____________
You also said:
“Let me try this - Who is to say with this new administration they don’t like you having Conservative meetings because the local people like your ideas. The whole idea is to take back your district and elect more Conservative minded people. But, in the mind of a Socialism, this can’t be allowed to take place. They see these meetings as dangerous and decide this is a form of usurpation on the part of the group.”
__________________
The Patriot Act does not allow what you claim it does. You can make up a million “what if” scenarios where all different types of government power can be abused but that is why we have checks and balances.
_______________
You also said:
“With all the general loopholes of the Patriot Act, the group is placed on the possible terrorist list. Insane? They did this to a handful of white guys in Alabama who had a few guns last year.”
_______________
What loopholes? Again please be more specific. If you have a link to the specific case you mention here then please provide a link if you can.
Are these people being denied their right to due process??? I doubt it.
You said:
“Tell ya what BigIF.... read these concerns from intelligent Conservatives writers, leaders, lawyers, who understand the ramifications of the Patriot Act and the legislation that has been attached to the Patriot Act. Hey, I’m a plain ole southern gal who has studied the Constitution a bit along with the Founding Fathers, and Madison in Federalist #58 would “NOT” agree with you on this matter.
http://www.bordc.org/resources/conservative.php “
____________________
I have no problem with an examination of the Patriot Act. It a legislative act and not a part of the Constitution so it should be examined by the People, the Courts, etc….
But I am asking for you to be specific as to what it is that you find so troubling about in regard to Constitutional rights.
I think Old Sarge was referring to the democrats in his comment, not the Bush administration.
My problem is with the VIOLATION of our 4th Amendment rights. You know that little ole thing like “AFTER THE FACT”? Most of all, this power does not go only to the President, this goes to other Law Enforcement agencies. And this new law that gives the agencies the right to hold a person (not just suspected Terrorist) for 48 hours is balderdash!
H.R. 3179 is the latest attempt to expand the scope of the PATRIOT Act even before it is clear that all the current PATRIOT Act powers are necessary and being used appropriately. Despite the unanswered concern, key Congressional leaders resorted to stealth tactics late last year to attach a measure to the 2004 Intelligence Authorization bill that drastically increased the power of the FBI by allowing the agency to demand records from car dealers, pawnbrokers, travel agents, and other businesses without the approval of a judge or grand jury. Neither the House nor the Senate debated this measure; the real action happened behind closed doors.
The same thing appears to be happening to H.R. 3179 — the Anti-Terrorism Intelligence Tools Improvement Act of 2003. House leaders planned to rush the bill to the House floor for approval without any real debate until a coalition of groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Free Congress Foundation and the American Conservative Union raised a ruckus. At that point, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, whose name appears on the bill with that of Porter Goss, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, decided that perhaps it deserved a hearing in subcommittee before being voted on.
EVEN THE MOST CURSORY of examinations reveals that H.R. 3179 would expand PATRIOT powers without including any built-in measures to provide accountability and oversight. One of its most troubling provisions involves new powers for searches ordered by National Security Letters. These can be used to demand access to individual or business records even where there is no showing of individual suspicion. There is no way for either the target of the investigation nor those on whom the letters are served can challenge them as overbroad. The statute, in fact, makes it a crime for a recipient from raising alarms in the press, or even with the Inspector General of the Department of Justice or the relevant congressional committees that should be exercising oversight of this provision.
Another provision of H.R. 3179 restricts the power of a judge to decide whether the admission of classified information in criminal cases is warranted. The government request that such evidence be allowed would be made without opposing counsel present and doesn’t even have to be in writing. In his testimony at the House hearing, former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, who served on the Judiciary Committee while in Congress and is both a former U.S. Attorney and CIA official, said this provision “represents an incremental shift of power away from the court and towards the prosecutor. Congress should hear much more from both prosecutors and defense lawyers with experience in this area before making such a change, in order to determine whether the effect may be much larger than intended.”
These are only two of the changes sought by H.R. 3179. Neither of them by themselves is going to make many Americans lose much sleep, but when combined with the other “tools” being acquired by law enforcement they should. The hearings on this legislation were never completed. They were suspended early to allow its members to participate in roll call votes on the House floor and have yet to be reconvened. If history repeats itself, they may never be resumed, as many observers believe that H.R. 3179 will be slipped into the 2005 Intelligence Authorization bill where it can be expected to receive little scrutiny or debate.
Conservatives should be concerned about all this. The fact that key Congressional leaders are maneuvering to enhance the power of the Executive Branch without providing for adequate debate over appropriate measures for oversight and accountability is disturbing enough. It was James Madison in Federalist 58 who stated that we did not fight for an “elective despotism” but one in which the powers of government were divided between the different branches of government so that “no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectively checked and restrained by the others.” However, by Congress’s granting great power — without checks and balances — to the Executive Branch, it is abdicating its own responsibility and encouraging future abuses by Federal law enforcement agencies.
CONSERVATIVES WELL KNOW that a government bureaucracy’s appetite for power is never sated. Left unchecked, it will push the limits, mindless of the cost to our freedom. Already, there is an effort underway in Congress to remove the existing sunset provisions to the PATRIOT Act even though the Government Accounting Office in a 2003 report raised questions about whether the Act’s powers were being misused to fight not terrorism, but run of the mill crime.
While most Americans are unlikely to find themselves part of an investigation involving terrorism, they should know that these new “tools” are already being creatively used by U.S. attorneys from one end of the country to investigate very ordinary criminal acts and citizens who don’t realize that the privacy and constitutional safeguards they once took for granted are already being eroded.
There are those who perhaps overstate the threat, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real. That’s why Congress should draw the line between the “tools” law enforcement really needs and those the law enforcement bureaucracy would simply like to have. At the very least, Congress should resist the temptation to approve law enforcement’s newest requests without at least ascertaining that the “tools” it already has are needed for the job and are being used as Congress believed they would when they were approved.
I guess Paul Weyrich and David Keene are wrong too... along with many of us who know this is dangerous...
http://spectator.org/archives/2004/06/03/oversee-the-patriot-act
Some of our European friends picked up on it as well as static about potential hijackings of US aircraft from our own sources.
Of course with a government our size, twisted beyond redemption, it took a while to connect the dots and act. But hey, it’s not like we don’t have excellent oversight on our immigration laws and crack down on expired visas. No, we must resort to laws which might be abused by the wrong civil/public servants in order to not rock the illegal immigration gravy train (Just one of several instances that could have slowed down/hindered 9/11).
The Founders created a Constitution that also included “Separation of Powers” with the President being the Commander in Chief and not a committee of commanders as you would have it.
“Checks and Balances” does not mean that they all share in the same powers it simply means that there is a way to keep eachother powers checked and that they are balanced in power.
First off I never said you were wrong about anything in regard to the Patriot Act, I simply asked you to be specific as to what your concerns were in regards to its Constitutionality. So far it has held up in Court as being Constitutional with the exception of one Court that had very leftwing justices. As I said already before I have no problem with the Patriot Act being examined and debated by the People, the Court, etc….
Thanks for a more thorough response and for the link you provided. I am going to stop for right now in debating the Patriot Act until I have more time to read and respond (I am at work). It is a somewhat separate issue from the surveillance issue of this thread anyway.
Thanks again and Merry Christmas!
I am working also. On the part of the two being separate issues - this is my point. They aren’t separate issues because the legislation is setup in order to give power to Prosecutors as well as law enforcement “should” “they” see the need to use the laws.
But thank you, I will now write a quick article or essay on why the Patriot Act and Surveillance is dangerous in the wrong hands.
Be Blessed!
He said Congress has been briefed about it, although some lawmakers have denied being informed of the program.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/01/nsa.spying/index.html
Apparently you have no problem with modern day “writs of assistance,” but I have one big problem with our government body ignoring present laws in exchange of usurping certain rights and granting bodies of government expanded powers not enumerated in the Constitution. But hey, I don't live in a belief that hell is not paved in good intentions, “tyranny and security in exchange for rights” is.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--- Not some DUmmie or KOS whiner but James Madison, someone who had a pretty good understanding of a certain document he helped craft.
Where is the word ‘oversight’ in the Constitution? Each branch has separate powers that create the checks and balances needed but the President does not have to answer to the Congress of the Court in regards to exercising power that the Constitution specifies as power granted to him. The Constitution grants the power of Commander in Chief to the President. Do you think he should have to gain permission to defend this nation from a foreign enemy? Do you think that it is a committee of commanders that the Constitution calls for?
Every President since Washington has exercised their power as Commander in Chief without regard of permission of oversight from Congress. Congress can though of course try to ‘check’ the power of the President through means of impeachment or other means if they feel that a President is abusing his power.
It is an implied power and in your somewhat defense not enumerated but has been granted by using various laws, House Rules and the US Constitution itself such as Article I, section 8, clause 18. Also backed up by several USSC rulings saying “”the power of inquiry – with process to enforce it – is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” McGrain v. Daugherty
In the founders case, backed up by common sense (Implied) because since Congress is in charge of appropriating funds, enacting laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers etc...Congress would need to know how programs were being administered, by whom, at what cost, whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. Of course common sense is not common which is why we have a collectivist named Obama being named Commander in Chief.
What? You doubt the word of Glen Greenwald? For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country... ( link for wuzzadems classic "Greenwald sock puppet follies.")
You said:
• It is an implied power and in your somewhat defense not enumerated but has been granted by using various laws, House Rules and the US Constitution itself such as Article I, section 8, clause 18. Also backed up by several USSC rulings saying “”the power of inquiry – with process to enforce it – is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” McGrain v. Daugherty
In the founders case, backed up by common sense (Implied) because since Congress is in charge of appropriating funds, enacting laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers etc...Congress would need to know how programs were being administered, by whom, at what cost, whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. Of course common sense is not common which is why we have a collectivist named Obama being named Commander in Chief.
__________________
Since when do laws or House rules grant power that supersedes the Constitution? I disagree that it is implied at all that the Executive has to bow down to Congressional oversight in order to justify using the power granted to it by the Constitution.
As I have already said the Congress and the Court both have powers that can be used to check the power of the Executive. The case you bring up is only verifying what I have already said. If Congress feels that there is an abuse of power then of course they can pursue an investigation and can battle the executive (which will then bring the Court into the picture) in order to curtail the Executive and/or possibly impeach. To do as was done in the case of McGrain vs Daugherty is what I have already said was a part of the checks and balances. In no way does this mean though that the President has to answer to the Congress or that his power has to be approved by Congressional oversight (the power of the Executive is not a shared power). In cases such as these we are seeing the three co-equal branches of government in a power struggle which can lead even to a Constitutional crisis.
In the first place - as has also always been true in the past - these 'war powers' are sunseted after a specific period of time; the Congress, and only the Congress, can extend these war-time practices.
What this dirty-diapered lib [Greenwald] needs is for al Qaeda to set off a fire cracker under his butt. Whatever you don't like about Bush, his administration has kept us safe from further attacks; if that were not true this jerk would be screaming for impeachment.
Such wire-tapping and other intel intercepts have been practiced by presidents certainly throughout the 20th century. LBJ did extensive wire-tapping of war protesters in the late 60's - and on. Robert Kennedy spied on MLK. Heck... Abraham Lincoln deported a congressman who disagreed with his policies [those apparently were the good ol' days.]
Besides, this idea of 'spying on American citizens' has the same smell as the above-mentioned horse effluvia! If these libs could just get themselves to admit an inconvenient truth, they would have to admit that almost all the telecom traffic in the world passes through American routers, servers and satellites. What they are effectively proposing is to make us blind. In the land of the blind the one-eye is king!
Clinton's Echelon and Carnivore practices were passed over by the great humanitarian Leftists... and what about Waco?
Always the Left is selective about what to criticize and what to keep silent about.
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.