Patriot Bill Reform Site

[the11ama]

I just came across this from a link on the Washington Post. This is just a link, and does not necessarily represent my views. My view, I'll "view" another beer.

 

Patriot Bill challenge page

[AYoKoNA]

This link is so broad and general in relation to defining the patriot act. It contains no details as to what specific abuses and acts of abuse that our gov't or FBI have acted upon.

 

Infact TO THIS DATE:

Their has not been ONE complaint of the patriot act being abused by FBI or gov't officials. The fact remains that the patriot act is used for terrorism and terrorism only.

[the11ama]

Infact TO THIS DATE:

    Their has not been ONE complaint of the patriot act being abused by FBI or gov't officials.

493996[/snapback]

There in fact have been. One case in point, but not the biggest of the issues, had something to do with library records. There have been bigger issues; it's just that the mainstream media has largely ignored any gov't action here in this country regarding the "partiot" acts.

[Bleeble]

Infact TO THIS DATE:

    Their has not been ONE complaint of the patriot act being abused by FBI or gov't officials. The fact remains that the patriot act is used for terrorism and terrorism only.

493996[/snapback]

Go ask the ACLU about that one

 

Honestly, looking at the main page, I can't even tell what they're trying to say about the Patriot Act. It almost sounds like they're supporting it.

[swifty11212]

untill they actually put details, im not doign anything.

[AYoKoNA]

There in fact have been.  One case in point, but not the biggest of the issues, had something to do with library records.

494440[/snapback]

Link please? I love when people on the Internet make up things without backing it up.

How about these links:

In an editorial for usatoday.com, Sen. Roberts argues, however, that the Congress needs to give the FBI "all legal tools" to fight terrorism, which it will use within its constitutional limits.

 

    Today's FBI honors the rule of law, is bound by executive orders and attorney general guidelines, and is subject to vigorous oversight by congressional committees that will monitor closely how it uses administrative subpoenas. In four years, I predict we will find again that the tool was used wisely and that allegations of abuse are not supported by facts - and Americans will be safer.

 

But the Detroit Free Press reports that Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein of California, who is also on the Senate Intelligence Committee and plans to press for the hearing to be made public starting Tuesday, was skeptical of her colleague's claims. "This is a very broad power, with no check on that power. It's carte blanche for a fishing expedition."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0606/dailyUpdate.html

There have been bigger issues; it's just that the mainstream media has largely ignored any gov't action here in this country regarding the "partiot" acts.

LMAO!!!! My my how some people are so misguided.....

I guess the next thing your going to tell me is that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee are also lying?

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., speaking at the first of several oversight hearings on terrorism legislation, called criticism of the Patriot Act "ill-informed and overblown."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., mounted a strong defense of the Patriot Act, saying she believes there is "substantial uncertainty and perhaps some ignorance about what this bill actually does do and how it has been employed."

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, says she has received more than 21,000 letters from constituents opposing the Patriot Act. But she says the complaints tend to be general, not specific, and that many are not related to the law at all.

 

"I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me," she said. "My staff e-mailed the ACLU, and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They e-mailed back, and said they had none."

Feinstein said that her office has received 21,434 letters opposing the act, but more than half cite provisions that have not been enacted or sent to Congress by the Bush administration. The rest, she said, largely concern security measures governing items mailed to the United States from abroad -- not provisions of the Patriot Act.

http://realpolitik.us/archives/001448.php

Go ask the ACLU about that one laugh.gif

 

Honestly, looking at the main page, I can't even tell what they're trying to say about the Patriot Act. It almost sounds like they're supporting it.

Honestly, I am not here to fix your weak argument. Go on the website YOURSELF, find me a link of abuse, and POST it on HERE for everyone to see.

The problem is you won't find one. Happy Hunting!

[cchalogamer]

AYoKoNA! hey long time no see....

 

Anyway, I think we all know that IT would be relatively easy to abuse the partiot act, yet at the same time, i havent heard anything about it being abused. This does NOT mean that it hasnt been, just that it doesnt seem to be a wide spread problem.

 

Now as to the ACLU's outlook on it, ive certainly seen them view issues where i fully disagreed in the past, yet they have a point

 

Now is the time to restore real checks and balances to the worst sections of the Patriot Act. But our chance may be lost forever when Congress votes on whether to make it permanent and expand its powers.

 

This sweeping legislation must be fixed if Americans are to preserve our basic freedoms and protect ourselves from broad government searches of our personal records and information. Under the Patriot Act, the government can:

 

 

[AYoKoNA]

AYoKoNA! hey long time no see....

 

Anyway, I think we all know that IT would be relatively easy to abuse the partiot act,

We ALL don't know anything. YOU may believe that it would be relatively easy to abuse the patriot act, MANY people do not. Have you ever cared to read the patriot act, or do you just go on websites that knit pick pieces of the act?

yet at the same time, i havent heard anything about it being abused. This does NOT mean that it hasnt been, just that it doesnt seem to be a wide spread problem.

Again, you haven't heard about it being abused because IT HAS NEVER BEEN ABUSED!!!! Why do you ASSUME that it has been abused without providing ANY evidence of such abuses? Do you not care to look at the links I provided. Do you not believe the ACLU or Diane Feinstein for that matter??? I guess I will have to quote it again!

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, says she has received more than 21,000 letters from constituents opposing the Patriot Act. But she says the complaints tend to be general, not specific, and that many are not related to the law at all.

 

"I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me," she said. "My staff e-mailed the ACLU, and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They e-mailed back, and said they had none."

Feinstein said that her office has received 21,434 letters opposing the act, but more than half cite provisions that have not been enacted or sent to Congress by the Bush administration. The rest, she said, largely concern security measures governing items mailed to the United States from abroad -- not provisions of the Patriot Act.

http://realpolitik.us/archives/001448.php

Is this keyboard working??

Diane Feinstein received 22,000 letters from the ACLU and they couldn't find ONE ABUSE!

Now as to the ACLU's outlook on it, ive certainly seen them view issues where i fully disagreed in the past, yet they have a point

Assuming you took the tiem to read that, you'll see it's the same point that all opposers to the act back in 2001 had.  The Fear of jeprodizing our constitutional rights. 

I did read it, I read it back when I read the patriot act in 2001. You seem to be missing the point. All those sections that the ACLU is pointing out are based off of one main ACT, an ACT against terrorism! Just read the opening title and first sections:

AN ACT

 

To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

TITLE I--ENHANCING DOMESTIC SECURITY AGAINST TERRORISM

The ACLU and PUNDITS need to stop MISCHARACTERIZING and MISREPRESENTING the Patriot Act.

 

NOw assuming it is used to the entended purpose, then I am ok with the act, but i think it needs to be reevaluated every few years to see if the threat is needed, preferably evaluated during an election year (hint hint)

495084[/snapback]

Huh? I'm not sure what your getting at? The patriot act has been used for its intended purpose, so I guess you are ok with it.

[BrewMeister2010]

Has anyone read the patriot act? (Excluding Ayokona, I'm pretty sure he has )

 

Here it is for any one to see.

 

I really don't see why anyone would really be worried about it. It doesn't give the government free reign to do whatever they want, they still have to get warrants and subpoenas to seize records and such. Most of it has to do with the sharing of information.

 

And it even includes sections on what happens for restitution if the government or an agent of the government may overstep or abuse any of these provisions.

 

However, Ayokona, I don't think your links are very reliable. Here is a link directly to the ACLU that not only states that they do feel the Patriot Act has been abused, in response to Senator Feinstein's inquiry and states particular people and instances.

[94Camaro]

However, Ayokona, I don't think your links are very reliable.

495488[/snapback]

Washington Times, Post and Voice of America aren't reliable enough? Sure, he links to realpolitik, but all the quotes there are from the Times, Post and VoA.

[BrewMeister2010]

I'm just taking the info straight from the horses mouth. Maybe the ACLU lied to the Post and others, but I don't see what they would have to gain from that. The link I supplied is directly to the ACLU in specific response to Senator Feinstein's inquiry. Of course it is also possible that the Senator lied. Perhaps I should have phrased my thoughts differently. Maybe they are reliable normally, but in this instance I am suspicious and would like to know where the misinformation is coming from.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just pointing out some discrepancies. If someone has an explanation for the differing info, I would like to know because it is odd and has piqued my curiosity

[Bleeble]

I just want to point out one thing... Just because there are no REPORTED incidents of the gov't . people with the Patriot Act, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Personally, I don't know of any incidents, but anything is possible.