Patriot Act not reauthorized

[Tulsa Shooter]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/16/senate.patriot.ap/index.html

[AC37]

Thank God. This has restored a small measure of faith for me in our government...or at least portions of it.

I was also encouraged to see the effort was co-led by Larry Craig, the same Senator who first sponsored the gun manufacturer's immunity bill, then helped kill it when Feinstein and others turned it into a new AWB. Nice to know we have a good Senator in office in Larry Craig. :)

[skyydiver]

Word. Freedom for security is never a good trade.

[kgull85]

Word. Freedom for security is never a good trade.

Do you mean security for freedom? Or is it the same thing? :)

[skyydiver]

Personally, I won't trade my freedom for security, but whatever works for you.

[J.P.]

*edit*
:anyone:

[blake711]

I honestly had no problem with it. WAy I look at it is I don't do anything wrong so I ain't got nothing to worry about.. Funny how its Criminals who always hate the laws. <<Not aimed at anyone in this post.. Let the FBI, CIA or anyone monitor my phone, email, pc usage, library card, anything they want. I Ain't doing nothing illigal so I ain't got nothing to worry about.. They would watch me all of about 5 minutes and say man this dudes life is borring. Lets find us someone else.

I say don't handcuff the folks that have to protect us. There are lots of real bad people out there that want to kill us. If it means someone may look into my activities big deal. Just stop the bad guys and I am just fine with it.

[skyydiver]

Problem is, Dubya wants to catch terrorists, me too, so he opens some holes in the 4th amendment with the Act. Fine, I trust him. But 20 years down the line, this new guy thinks that gun "freaks" are the same as terrorists and fall under this innocent act to protect us passed by Dubya, and the (#$ rolls from there. It is just a slippery slope I'm not willing to support. Get some intel, get some secret warrants (there IS a court for that if you didn't know), and kill some terrorists. That's the way it oughtta be.

[J.P.]

Yup.
Do we really want hillary to have the Patriot Act?

[F16mickey]

Yup.
Do we really want hillary to have the Patriot Act?
NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO I really would prefer she doesnt even get :censored: nominated!

[mons meg]

Doesn't no PATRIOT act really mean there's just a couple more annoying hoops (read: warrants) necessary to do all those same LE activities?

Like Skydiver said, there is a federal law and court especially set up for most of this... FISA.

[skyydiver]

Let me now say, in light of the latest $@$storm the NY times has stirred, that I do NOT believe that anything illegal or unethical has been done as far as "domestic spying". Other than some idiot disclosing covert anti-terrorism investigations. In war, national security DEMANDS that if you have technology like carnivore and cell listening software that it be used. I support that 100%, I just wouldn't want things like the "library clause" made statutory.

[J.P.]

I think it *alll* sucks!
My .02

[green country shooter]

It's not the whole Patriot Act, just a few of the more invasive provisions. In order to get the thing passed the first time they included sunset provisions on the library/business record provision and a few others. I susepct most of the senators didn't even read the bill the first time and didn't know that they'd voted on.

[mons meg]

Let me now say, in light of the latest $@$storm the NY times has stirred, that I do NOT believe that anything illegal or unethical has been done as far as "domestic spying". Other than some idiot disclosing covert anti-terrorism investigations. In war, national security DEMANDS that if you have technology like carnivore and cell listening software that it be used. I support that 100%, I just wouldn't want things like the "library clause" made statutory.

I think it can be argued convincingly that the recent "executive order" style NSA wiretaps violate the FISA, (nevermind the 4A). I just read a recent blurb from Bruce Schneier on Operation Shamrock that would make your blood boil. Basically, the NSA for a time intercepted ALL telegraph transmissions into/out of the US. Congress found out, got pissed, and created....the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act.

So now we're back to the argument at hand: Is warrantless interception of private communications expressly outlawed by FISA? If not by FISA, then the 4th is being made a mockery, IMO.

Discuss.

[skyydiver]

I do not think it is legal for the info to be used in a criminal trial of a US citizen. If that happens, the 4th has been violated. If it is used to "out" a non-citizen terrorist cell and have them deported or departed, which I think is the case, I say go for it. The "gray" and scary area would be if it were used against citizens who are members of "terrorist" orgs (like many on the left think the NRA is). Until the info is used against a US citizen who was not directly proved through other "legal" evidence after the fact, then I support the gathering. If they see me typing this (no doubt) and then trash the info because carnivore said the communication didn't match the right key words or whatever, fine. Hi big bro...I voted for Pedro.