^^my basic argument in the past few threads summed up in one post ^^

[quote="TGB!":d4d0a]

Politicians using "fear" to stir up the masses - SAY IT ISNT SO! What a PROFOUND epiphany and critique on modern politics. I tell you what though - I've seen more pictures of terrorist than I have of "Old People" shopping for dog food because their SSI is so low. Truly "neo-cons" are the only sect of politikos using "fear" to their advantage.
[/quote:d4d0a]
I never said they were the only ones. Kerry/Bush are one in the same. It just so happens that Bush is the president at this time.
[quote:d4d0a]
As for Bush "giving" the name of Al Qaeda to AQ - absolute bullshit as any review of de-classed FBI/CIA documents show. I would think that the fact that Richard Clarke "chastising" Condi Rice about "AQ" before 9/11 would dissuade anyone of that particular ridiculous theory. . .or not, rarely has TRUTH been any deterrent to ideology.[/quote:d4d0a]
[quote:d4d0a]Although "al-Qaeda" is the name of the organization used in popular culture, the organization does not use the name to formally refer to itself. The name "al-Qaeda" was coined by the American Federal Government based on the name of a computer file of bin Laden's that listed the names of contacts he had made in Afghanistan, which talks about the organization as "the base" of the jihad.[/quote:d4d0a]
[url="http://www.answers.com/topic/al-qaeda"]http://www.answers.com/topic/al-qaeda[/url]

[quote:d4d0a]
As for the whole "civil liberties" bent: show me. I've YET to see any American arrested and held indefinitely for expressing their First Amendment rights. The PA SPECIFICALLY protects Americans in regards to their activities covered under the FA, and CONTRARY to popular belief actions taken under the authority of the PA ARE subject to judicial review AND propable cause - which this congressman would certainly be aware of if he read the silly thing. . .cest la vie[/quote:d4d0a]
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpee ... 16879&c=86
http://ga1.org/nyclu/notice-description ... _id=926071
http://www.mcrcnet.org/Reports/2004/042 ... 2004.htm#1
http://www.socialistalternative.org/justice29/22.html

[quote="TGB!":d224e]

Third and Fourth Article - let them sue if they feel they were unlawfully detained. . .good luck though on a non-citizen and likely non-naturalized "citizen" taking this court. Were authorities overzealous in their canvassing - possibly. . .no arm of the justice department is immune to mistakes - again let em sue. Federal Courts and the Supreme courts have made their decisions regarding the PA, and the only "blow" has been two court cases - one dealing with the so-called Sneak and Peeks and the detaining of prisoners on "foreign" soil. . .hardly the indictment against the PA that the ACLU would like. [/quote:d224e]
So is this not an example of the Patriot Act?

It doesn't matter anyway. The fact still remains that thousands have been arrested under the patriot act, and only one has been charged with any form of terrorism. Even if no one was arrested Liberties are still being violated.

[quote:d224e]# (802) Allows law enforcement to conduct secret searches, perform roving wiretaps, and gain access to highly personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records.

# (206 and 507) Authorizes law enforcement officials to force librarians and booksellers to hand over book check-out and internet use records.

# (215) Allows FBI agents to investigate citizens for criminal activity without probable cause if they say it is for "intelligence purposes".

# (218) Allows law enforcement to search a person's home without anyone present and to delay notification indefinitely.[/quote:d224e]

Not to mention the definition of terrorism has been changed to:
[quote:d224e]SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;[/quote:d224e]

Under these provisions, homeland security has done the following:

[url="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=206591"]http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=206591[/url]
http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/rea ... =315&t=315
http://www.rense.com/general52/black.htm
http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?s=%20%201268949
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl? ... ode=thread
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stori ... 10819.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... DT0480.DTL
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030 ... -5163r.htm
http://www.unknownnews.net/030929dead.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0628-01.htm
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/ ... 18708.html


[quote:d224e]
And once again - you asserted - to bolster your AQ and Global Terrorism isnt REALLY that big of a problem ( rolleyes: ) - that Bush Co. gave AQ their name. . .which is not true and which your link does nothing to prove. Using your logic. . .since we named Italy, Germany, and Japan the "AXIS OF EVIL" - that whole WW2 thing was all in all a whole bunch of nothing. . .we "named" em for political gain. . .nothing to see here. . .move on Jews[/quote:d224e]
It wasn't to bolster an argument. Coleman brought it up. oOo:

And on the topic of congress:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0109-12.htm

[quote:26156]# (802) Allows law enforcement to conduct secret searches, perform roving wiretaps, and gain access to highly personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records.

# (206 and 507) Authorizes law enforcement officials to force librarians and booksellers to hand over book check-out and internet use records.

# (215) Allows FBI agents to investigate citizens for criminal activity without probable cause if they say it is for "intelligence purposes".

# (218) Allows law enforcement to search a person's home without anyone present and to delay notification indefinitely.[/quote:26156]

And not a SINGLE one of those rules can be used without judicial review and propable cause and peer review - meaning that those who are being investigated are NO DOUBT already part of an ongoing operation - not just because they slapped on a "FUCK BUSH" T-Shirt. . .I know the ego of the liberal desperately needs to believe that the Big Bad Gubment is coming to get them. . .but sadly in this regard its simply not true.

Quick question - have you actually READ the PA? I have - interesting read. . .should take a look at it. . .

Section 215 requires no judicial review and also 206 i believe.

And if those being investigated are no doubt guilty, then why has there been only one arrest made?

In any event, do you really think judicial review is any way meaningful?

It wasn't to bolster an argument. Coleman brought it up. oOo:

[/quote:f10d8]you brought it up when you sent me that idiotic video from BBC.

[quote:9ae39]Section 215 requires no judicial review and also 206 i believe.[/quote:9ae39]

False and false again. Section 215 refers to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which SPECIFICALLY outlines an panel of judges to review and AUTHORIZE requests for survelliance of folks involved in terrorism. It is a LAW that has been in effect since 1979 and was amended by the PA to include Section 215 which includes this little nugget that seemingly folks like to skip over:

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

As for Section 206 of the Patriot Act it is as well an amending of the FISA which - again - SPECIFICALLY states that Probable Cause must be met in order for a judge to approve the application for surveillance:

(a)(3) on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that—
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power: Provided, That no United States person may be considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
. . .

(b) Determination of probable cause In determining whether or not probable cause exists for purposes of an order under subsection (a)(3) of this section, a judge may consider past activities of the target, as well as facts and circumstances relating to current or future activities of the target.

So no - you and wherever you got your information from - is wrong. Again - read the PA and what it actually refers to.

[quote:b52db]Previously the government needed at least a warrant and probable cause to access private records. The Fourth Amendment, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and case law provided that if the state wished to search you, it needed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed and to obtain a warrant from a neutral judge. Under FISA—the 1978 act authorizing warrantless surveillance so long as the primary purpose was to obtain foreign intelligence information—that was somewhat eroded, but there remained judicial oversight. And under FISA, records could be sought only "for purposes of conducting foreign intelligence" and the target "linked to foreign espionage" and an "agent of a foreign power." Now the FBI needs only to certify to a FISA judge—(no need for evidence or probable cause) that the search protects against terrorism. The judge has no authority to reject this application. DOJ calls this "seeking a court order," but it's much closer to a rubber stamp. Also, now the target of a search needn't be a terror suspect herself, so long as the government's purpose is "an authorized investigation ... to protect against international terrorism."

Downplaying the extent of these changes, the DOJ argued to Congress that 215 is no big deal, since grand juries could always subpoena private records in the past. The difference they don't acknowledge is that investigators may now do so secretly, and these orders cannot be contested in court. While the new DOJ Web site asserts that searches under 215 are limited to "business records," the act on its face allows scrutiny of "any tangible thing" including books, records, papers, documents, and anything else. The site also says U.S. citizens may not be subject to search, but the act does not differentiate. How can it, when a library or doctor's office is simply asked to produce a list of names? And here is where the Justice Department hedges: It claims that a citizen cannot be searched "solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution." That means you can't have your records searched solely because you wrote an article criticizing the Patriot Act. But if you are originally from India and write that article, well, that's not "solely" anymore is it? To be sure, the ACLU is doing a bit of fearmongering when it says the DOJ can rifle through your records if they don't like what you're reading. If you're a U.S. citizen and not otherwise suspicious, you're probably safe, so long as all you do is read.[/quote:b52db]

[quote:b52db]When asked by the House Committee on the Judiciary to detail whether and how many times Section 215 has been used "to obtain records from a public library, bookstore, or newspaper," the DOJ said it would send classified answers to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The judiciary committee had what it called "reasonable limited access" to those responses, and it reported in October 2002 that its review had "not given any rise to concern that the authority is being misused or abused."

Wanting to learn more, the ACLU and some other civil rights groups filed a FOIA request, arguing that the DOJ was classifying its answers unnecessarily. But this May, a federal judge in U.S. district court in Washington ruled that the DOJ had the right to keep the specifics hush-hush under FOIA's national security exemption. The next day, at a judiciary committee hearing, Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh did throw a bone to librarians, noting that in "an informal survey of the field offices," Justice learned "that libraries have been contacted approximately 50 times, based on articulable suspicion or voluntary calls from librarians regarding suspicious activity." He noted that most such visits were in the context of ordinary criminal investigations and did not rely on the powers granted by Section 215.* He did not give specifics on searches of any other establishments.

Independent attempts to chronicle the frequency of records searches have proved inconclusive. Within months after Sept. 11, federal or local officials visited nearly 10 percent of the nation's public libraries "seeking Sept. 11-related information about patron reading habits," according to a University of Illinois survey. But since librarians are gagged under the act, it's not clear that these reports are accurate. In any event, the same study suggests that about 13.8 percent of the nation's libraries received similar requests in the year before Sept. 11, so it's impossible to say that the problem was exacerbated by the new law.[/quote:b52db]

[quote:b52db]215 does extend FBI power to conduct essentially warrantless records searches, especially on people who are not themselves terror suspects, with little or no judicial oversight. The government sees this as an incremental change in the law, but the lack of meaningful judicial oversight and expanded scope of possible suspects is pretty dramatic.[/quote:b52db]

sleeping:

/me throws some popcorn into his mouth.

/me grabs for a soda...