Good news for the American people

[Montgomery Burns]

1) Bush is going to sign the renewal of the Patriot Act:

WASHINGTON - After a long battle with Congress that went down to the wire, President Bush will sign a renewal of the USA Patriot Act, a day before 16 major provisions of the old law expire

Good. This will continue to allow law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share intelligence. No more "wall" like during the Clinton administration (Jaime Gorelick) that hurt intelligence regarding 9-11. This will help keep Americans safer from the terrorists who dream of killing millions of Americans.

2) Senate panel rejects bid for NSA inquiry.

Good. The Bush administration will now be able to continue to monitor phone calls from terrorists, thus making Americans safer.

3) Democrats...let the seething begin!

[geoffrey]

1) Bush is going to sign the renewal of the Patriot Act:

WASHINGTON - After a long battle with Congress that went down to the wire, President Bush will sign a renewal of the USA Patriot Act, a day before 16 major provisions of the old law expire

Good. This will continue to allow law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share intelligence. No more "wall" like during the Clinton administration (Jaime Gorelick) that hurt intelligence regarding 9-11. This will help keep Americans safer from the terrorists who dream of killing millions of Americans.

2) Senate panel rejects bid for NSA inquiry.

Good. The Bush administration will now be able to continue to monitor phone calls from terrorists, thus making Americans safer.

3) Democrats...let the seething begin!

Actually, even as a law and order conservative, I think the Patriot act goes too far. The rule of law and protection from unreasonable search are kind of important in my books as the fundamentals of democracy.

It isn't hard to get a warrant with even the slightest bit of evidence, lets do it through the legal system please.

[margrace]

geoffrey is right, even though someone once said "The Law is an Ass" and it protects the guilty sometimes as wll as the innocent it is the best we have. To allow certain people to use it get information on others in what we view as an illegal act will only come back to bite us.

[America1]

geoffrey is right, even though someone once said "The Law is an Ass" and it protects the guilty sometimes as wll as the innocent it is the best we have. To allow certain people to use it get information on others in what we view as an illegal act will only come back to bite us.

How is intercepting calls from known terrorist and terrorist sympathizers going to "come back to bite us". It seems to me that it already bite us for not doing it during the Clinton Admin. The simple fact is that the Clinton admin's intelligence "wall" is a HUGE reason why our agencies were not able to track the 9-11 cell in the first place.

[Black Dog]

How is intercepting calls from known terrorist and terrorist sympathizers going to "come back to bite us".

Question: how many "known terrorist and terrorist sympathizers" have been arrested, charged and prosecuted as a result of evidenced gathered by this NSA program? Any?

[geoffrey]

geoffrey is right, even though someone once said "The Law is an Ass" and it protects the guilty sometimes as wll as the innocent it is the best we have. To allow certain people to use it get information on others in what we view as an illegal act will only come back to bite us.

How is intercepting calls from known terrorist and terrorist sympathizers going to "come back to bite us". It seems to me that it already bite us for not doing it during the Clinton Admin. The simple fact is that the Clinton admin's intelligence "wall" is a HUGE reason why our agencies were not able to track the 9-11 cell in the first place.

You can easily get a warrant to spy on a KNOWN terrorist. No need to be side stepping the law.

The Intelligence 'wall' has been fixed outside of the Patriot act. Someone is feeding you horseshit.

[Liam]

How is intercepting calls from known terrorist and terrorist sympathizers going to "come back to bite us". It seems to me that it already bite us for not doing it during the Clinton Admin. The simple fact is that the Clinton admin's intelligence "wall" is a HUGE reason why our agencies were not able to track the 9-11 cell in the first place.

When in doubt, blame Clinton. FWIW, Clinton did not put up any walls among various intelligence agencies. Such walls existed for decades before Clinton became president. Clinton is about as much to blame for the walls as is Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford...

The problem I have with the Patriot Act is that it was intended to be used to stop and apprehend terrorists but the Ashcroft Justice Department used it in all sorts of pernicious ways, going far beyond protecting us from terrorism.

The wiretapping issue is entirely different in that Bush absolutely broke the law by putting wiretaps on US persons while circumventing the established protocol for doing so (getting a warrant from a FISA judge within 72 hours after tapping the phone). FISA warrants are handed out like candy, but Bush wanted to be able to operate the executive branch without ANY oversight by another branch of government. This is a terribly dangerous precedent to set and any so-called conservative or any so-called patriotic American who supports giving such unchecked power to the president is a traitor to America's ideals of balanced power and individual liberty. Aside from that, Bush lied to the public by claiming that all wiretaps were issued pursuant to a warrant. Big lie.

[America1]

How is intercepting calls from known terrorist and terrorist sympathizers going to "come back to bite us".

Question: how many "known terrorist and terrorist sympathizers" have been arrested, charged and prosecuted as a result of evidenced gathered by this NSA program? Any?

not sure, do you know? But if even is just 1, that's good enough for me.

[America1]

How is intercepting calls from known terrorist and terrorist sympathizers going to "come back to bite us". It seems to me that it already bite us for not doing it during the Clinton Admin. The simple fact is that the Clinton admin's intelligence "wall" is a HUGE reason why our agencies were not able to track the 9-11 cell in the first place.

When in doubt, blame Clinton. FWIW, Clinton did not put up any walls among various intelligence agencies. Such walls existed for decades before Clinton became president. Clinton is about as much to blame for the walls as is Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford...

The problem I have with the Patriot Act is that it was intended to be used to stop and apprehend terrorists but the Ashcroft Justice Department used it in all sorts of pernicious ways, going far beyond protecting us from terrorism.

The wiretapping issue is entirely different in that Bush absolutely broke the law by putting wiretaps on US persons while circumventing the established protocol for doing so (getting a warrant from a FISA judge within 72 hours after tapping the phone). FISA warrants are handed out like candy, but Bush wanted to be able to operate the executive branch without ANY oversight by another branch of government. This is a terribly dangerous precedent to set and any so-called conservative or any so-called patriotic American who supports giving such unchecked power to the president is a traitor to America's ideals of balanced power and individual liberty. Aside from that, Bush lied to the public by claiming that all wiretaps were issued pursuant to a warrant. Big lie.

WRONG. The Clintons absolulty installed the intelligence "Wall".

"Ms. Gorelick built that wall," said Ashcroft, "through a March 1995 memo."

The Gorelick memo stipulated, in part:

"We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

Ms. Gorelick is expected to be a leading candidate for attorney general should Mrs. Clinton win the 2008 presidential election."

[Black Dog]

not sure, do you know? But if even is just 1, that's good enough for me.

The government has mentioned one case where it says warantless spying led to the detention of terror suspects: the mentally ill man who allegedly schemed to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch, a plot he abandoned before he was arrested. However, the government orginally claime dthat the chap in question was id'd by Khalid Sheik Mohammad, a Al Qaeda "mastermind" captured in Afghnaistan. Big victory.

Anyway, I'm not gonna bother re-hashing points I've made about the FISA/NSA scandal. We can carry that one on here.

[Shady]

This isn't really a topic for those of you on the left. Your appropriate topic would be, the Al Qaeda Bill of Rights.

[Montgomery Burns]

geoffrey is right, even though someone once said "The Law is an Ass" and it protects the guilty sometimes as wll as the innocent it is the best we have. To allow certain people to use it get information on others in what we view as an illegal act will only come back to bite us.

How is intercepting calls from known terrorist and terrorist sympathizers going to "come back to bite us". It seems to me that it already bite us for not doing it during the Clinton Admin. The simple fact is that the Clinton admin's intelligence "wall" is a HUGE reason why our agencies were not able to track the 9-11 cell in the first place.

You can easily get a warrant to spy on a KNOWN terrorist. No need to be side stepping the law.

The Intelligence 'wall' has been fixed outside of the Patriot act. Someone is feeding you horseshit.

I'm sorry but:

1) Horsesh*t, and

2) Horsesh*t. The intelligence wall was broken down with the Patriot Act.

For all the hysteria about the Patriot Act, I find it interesting that you never hear any reasonable situations about someone losing their civil rights due to the PA.

[Montgomery Burns]

Liam:

The wiretapping issue is entirely different in that Bush absolutely broke the law by putting wiretaps on US persons...

What utter nonsense. Bush did not break the law. How old are you? Don't you remember Clinton?

...while circumventing the established protocol for doing so (getting a warrant from a FISA judge within 72 hours after tapping the phone). FISA warrants are handed out like candy...

So what? They're coming from other agencies and other NSA programs. Bush himself has said that the NSA program wasn't seeking any warrants from the FISA court.

...but Bush wanted to be able to operate the executive branch without ANY oversight by another branch of government. This is a terribly dangerous precedent to set and any so-called conservative or any so-called patriotic American who supports giving such unchecked power to the president is a traitor to America's ideals of balanced power and individual liberty.

A lie. A Big lie. How many times do I have to explain this on the forum? I can't be arsed to type it all out again, but this essentially sums up what I mean.

Just take a look at what happened during Jimmy Carter's administration:

...in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.

This surveillance took place to fight a simple espionage case, not to defend the country against an enemy that has already attacked US assets on numerous occasions and killed 3000 civilians in one attack on American soil.

The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.

In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."

US federal courts have long recognized that when it comes to waging war, the President, not Congress or the courts, is the supreme authority. Indeed, the wiretapping of calls between US citizens and foreign agents without a warrant is not only legal, it would probably take a Constitutional Amendment to strip the President of that power. The only reason why the BDS-inflicted Dems and the press are spinning this is because it is a Republican President by the name of George W Bush doing it. The public overwhelmingly supports the US eavesdropping on terrorists who wish to do Americans harm.

[GostHacked]

Allright Kids

Taken from THE BBC

It is a law that was passed virtually without dissent, just 45 days after the 11 September attacks.

And it is thick: 342 pages that nobody in Congress professed to read.

Great, legislation was passed and no one read a damn word of it. Screw it , sign it into law anyways.

At last count, more than 330 communities in 41 American states had passed resolutions condemning the Patriot Act.

Eventhough you hate Wikipedia, I present one article that was struck down and a list of states and cities bringing legislation condeming the Patriot Act.

Notice how you see New York in that list making legislation opposing the Patriot Act. A city that was shaken to the core from 9-11. It happened right in NEW YORK. Why do they oppose it then? You figure out of ANYONE that they would be the first to sign on to something like this. So why did they oppose it? No answer right Monty?

[GostHacked]

Also Monty, the government is tapping your phone and Internet connection. They are monitoring everything you do. Everything you say, type, they are listening.

Even if you are not a terrorist, they can do this. Without a warrent. Anytime. They could be listening to you right now. This very instant.

Are you comfortable with that?

[geoffrey]

Also Monty, the government is tapping your phone and Internet connection. They are monitoring everything you do. Everything you say, type, they are listening.

Even if you are not a terrorist, they can do this. Without a warrent. Anytime. They could be listening to you right now. This very instant.

Are you comfortable with that?

I'm personally ok with that, I've got nothing to hide. That doesn't mean that it should be ok to do though.

Taking evidence to a judge saying "look! this guy is a terrorist, lets tap his phones" is not a big deal. Get your warrants, then spy the hell outta those terrorists.

The laws are there for a reason, to protect citizens from crazies, and to protect citizens from their government.

[margrace]

Geoffrey you should go and live in a country where there are no rights, where your phone can be tapped and you can be thrown in jail with no charges. I thought that one of the main reasons for being in Afghanistan and Iraq was to give the people these rights and now you would give yours away.

And don't tell me this isn't the thin edge of the wedge for Americans. Unless they smarten up pretty soon they will be living in a dictatorship.

[GostHacked]

Also Monty, the government is tapping your phone and Internet connection. They are monitoring everything you do. Everything you say, type, they are listening.

Even if you are not a terrorist, they can do this. Without a warrent. Anytime. They could be listening to you right now. This very instant.

Are you comfortable with that?

I'm personally ok with that, I've got nothing to hide. That doesn't mean that it should be ok to do though.

Taking evidence to a judge saying "look! this guy is a terrorist, lets tap his phones" is not a big deal. Get your warrants, then spy the hell outta those terrorists.

The laws are there for a reason, to protect citizens from crazies, and to protect citizens from their government.

You support it and refute it in the same post. I am ok with it, but it does not mean it is right. Confliction there it seems. I think the warrents should come first THEN start tapping the phones. They should not be able to tap my connections on the whim that I may be a terrorist. They should have some proof first before that happens.

But you are right when you say the laws should protect the citizens, but it should not violate their basic rights in doing so. The NSA wiretapping violates the constitution. Most of the Patriot Act violates your basic rights. I do not see how this is to protect the people.

[geoffrey]

Geoffrey you should go and live in a country where there are no rights, where your phone can be tapped and you can be thrown in jail with no charges. I thought that one of the main reasons for being in Afghanistan and Iraq was to give the people these rights and now you would give yours away.

And don't tell me this isn't the thin edge of the wedge for Americans. Unless they smarten up pretty soon they will be living in a dictatorship.

Margrace, I would recommend you read my post closer.

You support it and refute it in the same post. I am ok with it, but it does not mean it is right. Confliction there it seems. I think the warrents should come first THEN start tapping the phones. They should not be able to tap my connections on the whim that I may be a terrorist. They should have some proof first before that happens.

But you are right when you say the laws should protect the citizens, but it should not violate their basic rights in doing so. The NSA wiretapping violates the constitution. Most of the Patriot Act violates your basic rights. I do not see how this is to protect the people.

I am ok with it from my perspective, like on a one on one basis I don't care. If the government wanted to spy on me, however silly it would be, its not really a big deal. I can imagine, however, certain groups that this leaves open to persecution, so its not a valid law in a democratic country. It's like if the government came out with a law saying all Geoff's should get $1000. I'd be ok with it, but I wouldn't think its right.

Thats what I said, go get warrants if you have evidence that these people are terrorists. Thats the big lie that the Administration is feeding everyone. "These are known terrorists!" Bullshit. If they were known terrorists, judges would be obliged to give up a warrant to spy on them. Patriot Act is ccrraaapp. Destroying the 'intelligence' walls is good, co-operation is always good. But domestic spying without warrants is a no go in my books.