More Gov't Abuses Within Patriot Act

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Yes, I see and understand the difference between safe and safer. Do I feel "safer" because the FBI has the authority to tap my phone without a warrant? No. I actually feel less safe. We have officials in our goverment that have pursued young children online with sexual intent and you want to give them the authority to tap your phone without first obtaining a warrant. That's absolutely ludicrous.

Why exclude safest from your grammar lesson? Afterall, shouldn't safest be our ultimate goal.

How are you, or any of us, supposed to be the safest (there is your word) if the govt. needs a freakin warrant to do everything? You say you want the border closed (as well as I). Does the govt. need to get a warrant for that too? When it comes to fighting terrorism I say screw the warrants. A warrant is nothing but a road block. More red tape. Its not like we are talking about the police needing a warrant to enter a house because they think the people living there are selling meth. We are talking about terrorism for Christs sake! The govt. doesnt need their hands tied down while fighting terrorism and thats exactly what warrants do. And I have a question...what makes you think that the FBI is listening in on YOUR calls?? They aren't listening to the calls of the average Joe. They are listening to people that are suspected terrorists. Not you. It just baffels me that people can't seem to understand that.

 

[govols019]

They need a warrant because it's the law. You know, that thing they all swear to uphold.

In case you've never seen it:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[tieguy]

I'm curious to see what the opinions are of those who support the Patriot Act, especially the folks here who in the past have vocally spoken out in support. Does any of this matter to them or are they of the opinion to swipe it away and declare, "full steam ahead!" If that be the case, what scenario would it take for you to rethink or even change your support of the Act?

No right or wrong answer IMO but just curious as to what your thinking on it is at this moment. Thanks ahead of time for your comments. Look forward to reading them.

I guess I'm one of those who spoke out on behalf of the partriot act in the past. My position has not changed. I recognize the threat of a government gone wild. I hope the government uses its new found power wisely so I don't have to worry about stateside terrorists attacks. I reserve the right to pull support if I think the government has stepped way past its limits. I also recognize that some abuses may occur. Your watch dogs that are quick to point out abuses may actually help me achieve my hope of a government kept in check keeping the terrorist threat in check.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

They need a warrant because it's the law. You know, that thing they all swear to uphold.

In case you've never seen it:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Again...what makes you, or anyone else that seems to be confused with the fact that the govt. is spying on suspected terrorists and not a bunch of UPS workers, think that you are being spied on? And why should a warrant apply to a terrorist who probably isn't a U.S. citizen anyway?

 

[CTOTH]

How are you, or any of us, supposed to be the safest (there is your word) if the govt. needs a freakin warrant to do everything? You say you want the border closed (as well as I). Does the govt. need to get a warrant for that too? When it comes to fighting terrorism I say screw the warrants. A warrant is nothing but a road block. More red tape. Its not like we are talking about the police needing a warrant to enter a house because they think the people living there are selling meth. We are talking about terrorism for Christs sake! The govt. doesnt need their hands tied down while fighting terrorism and thats exactly what warrants do. And I have a question...what makes you think that the FBI is listening in on YOUR calls?? They aren't listening to the calls of the average Joe. They are listening to people that are suspected terrorists. Not you. It just baffels me that people can't seem to understand that.

Ever hear the term 'probable cause'? This gives the arresting officer/agent discretion in a situation where there is not time to obtain a warrant.

I know the FBI is not listening to my calls but I will stand up for the freedoms of others.

Our forefathers created a system of checks and balances to keep those in positions of power from abusing it. If we eliminate these[checks and balances] then that opens the door for corruption. Isn't our government already corrupt enough?

If child molesters can make their way to top levels of our government, then whose to say an Al-Qaeda operative or Iranian operative can't do that same thing. Do you want al-qaeda listening to your childrens' phone calls? Do you want child molesters listening to your childrens' phone calls?

How do you know that the FBI is only listening to terrorists? Can you prove it? If they truly are ONLY listening to TERRORISTS then why would the US Attorney General make an announcement confirming abuse?

 

[wkmac]

Appreciate all the replies on this subject and am enjoying reading what you folks think on the matter. I'd like to take a moment and ask some questions that I might better appreciate where some of you are coming from. Some responses have used the term or implied the feeling of being safe and or safer as a result of the Patriot Act so I'd like to focus in on that for a moment.

I noticed one question had to do with feeling safe or safer which I think was meant to suggest that one word offered more and one offered less. By definition, neither word implies that over the other but I still understood the meaning and I might have phrased the question the same had I asked the question. This forced me to think and really look at those words more closely and here's what I found.

The word Safe has the following meaning:

1. Secure from danger, harm, or evil.
2. Free from danger or injury; unhurt: [SIZE=+0]safe and sound.[/SIZE]
3. Free from risk; sure: [SIZE=+0]a safe bet.[/SIZE]

What about the word secure?

1. Free from danger or attack: [SIZE=+0]a secure fortress.[/SIZE]
2. Free from risk of loss; safe: [SIZE=+0]Her papers were secure in the vault.[/SIZE]
3. Free from the risk of being intercepted or listened to by unauthorized persons: [SIZE=+0]Only one telephone line in the embassy was secure.[/SIZE]
4. Free from fear, anxiety, or doubt.<LI type=a>Not likely to fail or give way; stable: [SIZE=+0]a secure stepladder.[/SIZE]
5. Firmly fastened: [SIZE=+0]a secure lock.[/SIZE]
6. Reliable; dependable: [SIZE=+0]secure investments.[/SIZE]
7. Assured; certain: [SIZE=+0]With three goals in the first period they had a secure victory, but somehow they [/SIZE]

#3 above was part of the actual definition from the dictionary I used and was not an inserted commentary from me on the subject matter at hand.

What about the word free as in "free from danger"?

1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: [SIZE=+0]felt free to go.[/SIZE]
3. 1. <LI type=a>Having political independence: [SIZE=+0]"America . . . is the freest and wealthiest nation in the world"[/SIZE] [SIZE=+0](Rudolph W. Giuliani).[/SIZE] <LI type=a>Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties: [SIZE=+0]a free citizenry.[/SIZE]
   2. Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government: [SIZE=+0]a free press.[/SIZE]
4. 1. <LI type=a>Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance: [SIZE=+0]a healthy animal, free of disease; free from need.[/SIZE]
   2. Not subject to a given condition; exempt: [SIZE=+0]income that is free of all taxes.[/SIZE]
5. Not subject to external restraint: [SIZE=+0]"Comment is free but facts are sacred"[/SIZE] [SIZE=+0](Charles Prestwich Scott).[/SIZE]
6. Not literal or exact: [SIZE=+0]a free translation.[/SIZE]
7. 1. <LI type=a>Costing nothing; gratuitous: [SIZE=+0]a free meal.[/SIZE]
   2. Publicly supported: [SIZE=+0]free education.[/SIZE]
8. 1. <LI type=a>Not occupied or used: [SIZE=+0]a free locker.[/SIZE]
   2. Not taken up by scheduled activities: [SIZE=+0]free time between classes.[/SIZE]
9. Unobstructed; clear: [SIZE=+0]a free lane.[/SIZE]
10. Unguarded in expression or manner; open; frank.
11. Taking undue liberties; forward or overfamiliar.
12. Liberal or lavish: [SIZE=+0]tourists who are free with their money.[/SIZE]
13. Given, made, or done of one's own accord; voluntary or spontaneous: [SIZE=+0]a free act of the will; free choices.[/SIZE]
14. Chemistry & Physics
    1. <LI type=a>Unconstrained; unconfined: [SIZE=+0]free expansion.[/SIZE] <LI type=a>Not fixed in position; capable of relatively unrestricted motion: [SIZE=+0]a free electron.[/SIZE] <LI type=a>Not chemically bound in a molecule: [SIZE=+0]free oxygen.[/SIZE] <LI type=a>Involving no collisions or interactions: [SIZE=+0]a free path.[/SIZE] <LI type=a>Empty: [SIZE=+0]a free space.[/SIZE]
    2. Unoccupied: [SIZE=+0]a free energy level.[/SIZE]
15. Nautical Favorable: [SIZE=+0]a free wind.[/SIZE]
16. Not bound, fastened, or attached: [SIZE=+0]the free end of a chain.[/SIZE]
17. Linguistics
    1. Being a form, especially a morpheme, that can stand as an independent word, such as boat or bring.
    2. Being a vowel in an open syllable, as the o in go.

[SIZE=-1]ADVERB: [/SIZE]

1. In a free manner; without restraint.
2. Without charge.

[SIZE=-1]TRANSITIVE VERB: [/SIZE]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]freed[/SIZE][/FONT] , [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]free·ing[/SIZE][/FONT] , [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]frees[/SIZE][/FONT]

1. To set at liberty; make free: [SIZE=+0]freed the slaves; free the imagination.[/SIZE]
2. To relieve of a burden, obligation, or restraint: [SIZE=+0]a people who were at last freed from fear.[/SIZE]
3. To remove obstructions or entanglements from; clear: [SIZE=+0]free a path through the jungle.[/SIZE]

I guess my question is, how do you yourself feel

1. Secure from danger, harm or evil as a result of the Patriot Act itself, in other words, can you cite specific codified sections of the act itself.

2. Free from danger or risk.

To help with any explaination offered, here is the link to Public Law 107-56 which is the aforementioned Patriot Act.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...107_cong_public_laws&docid=friend:publ056.107
I'd like to get more specific with the issuance of cabinet level (executive branch) Delegation of Authorities out to the specific agencies that are then codified into law as listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and also registed by the Federal Adminstrative Procedures in the Federal Register but I doubt anyone here would be willing to join me in such research. It tends to be vastly easier to accept what you are told something sez than to actually go and read this stuff.

Again, back to the root question, what specifically in PL 107-56 (it's broken out into sections that are easily referenced) makes you feel safe under the defined terms above and meet them to their exact definition?

Thanks again and looking forward to reading your responses no matter what side of the fence they come from.

 

[CTOTH]

How are you, or any of us, supposed to be the safest (there is your word) if the govt. needs a freakin warrant to do everything? You say you want the border closed (as well as I). Does the govt. need to get a warrant for that too? When it comes to fighting terrorism I say screw the warrants. A warrant is nothing but a road block. More red tape. Its not like we are talking about the police needing a warrant to enter a house because they think the people living there are selling meth.

Should the federal gov't ultimately be responsible for each citizen's safety? I don't think so. At some point American's need to take responsibility for their own and each others' safety and be vigilant. You, as a civilian, don't need a search warrant to bust down the door to your neighbors house and whoop his if he's harassing your family or something. If you think your neighbor is a terrorist then snoop around and notify authorities and arm yourself.

If the government does need to intervene then it should be on local or state level not the federal level.

 

[moreluck]

I heard something today that rang true for me regarding the little inconveniences and interruptions because of security measures......

How inconvenient was it for those folks just sitting at their desks in the Twin Towers to die on 9-11-01 ?? How inconvenient was it for their families ??

If you're an Imam shouting your prayers in public, you ain't flying on MY plane, baby !!!

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Should the govt. be responsible for each individual's safety? Umm....YES! ???????????? Federal and local. That is the purpose of the FBI, NSA, CIA, our military, etc.. Why wouldn't our govt. protect us? Right now the only thing that is holding them back is the whinning of a a bunch of liberals, and so called conservatives, that are more concerned with the rights of terrorists than they are with the safety of their own country. I'd have to say it sounds like their priorities are a little mixed up.

What I don't understand is why this is such a big deal. I mean if people would just go on about their lives, their business, as they would have before they found out the govt. was "abusing" the Patriot Act then everything would be cool. There is no change in your life because of this. Unless, of course, you are a terrorist or a whacko liberal. And that is all I have to say on the subject.

 

[CTOTH]

Oh boy, here we go with the "liberalism is mental disorder' bit again.
Is this your only political argument?

I think, if you do some research, you'll find that liberalism is more prominent in this country's history than you'd like to believe.

The Boston Tea Party was a liberal act. Ben Franklin, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Paul Revere, all liberals.

I think during the time period even Jesus, himself, would have been considered a liberal.

Time to find some new material my friend.

Good to know that I'm a Whacko Liberal Terrorist though. People have been telling me I'm a conservative my whole life. Talk about misguided.

 

[CTOTH]

If you're an Imam shouting your prayers in public, you ain't flying on MY plane, baby !!!

I don't know if you're religious or not, nor do I care but this statement is so completely ignorant that I don't believe the god of any of the major religions would tolerate it.

 

[Sammie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by moreluck
If you're an Imam shouting your prayers in public, you ain't flying on MY plane, baby !!!

I don't know if you're religious or not, nor do I care but this statement is so completely ignorant that I don't believe the god of any of the major religions would tolerate it.

Shortly after 9/11 when 'racial profiling' became so popular, we set aside a few Saturdays and made appointments with a Greek Orthodox cathedral, a Buddist and a Hindu temple and an Islamic mosque. We took our child (in junior high then) to these places of worship and had him ask his own questions to the monks, the Imam, etc. They were all very gracious and these were incredible experiences for all of us.

A little education goes a long way.

Need I say more?????

 

[moreluck]

Ok, so now I'm ignorant & uneducated.....but the TSA acted on this situation (the praying Imams) and I believe they did the right thing for the safety of the passengers.

 

[SeniorGeek]

First of all, I don't know how to put the little quotes in the little boxes to address every point individually.

If you do not have the "Section Quote" button, it is probably not supported by your internet browser.*

I believe what I posted earlier needs no further explaining.... but I have an additional observation.

In a city close by, there is a large population of Iranian people. Why is it they always call themselves a Persian Community? Duh, there is no Persia. Even they are ashamed to say they are Iranian.

Double duh, there was never a country that called itself Persia. It is the English-language name for Iran. (You might ask some of the Persians. I did, about 25 years ago. As you guessed, many were afraid to be associated with the things that were happening in their country/former country. At least one person I talked to had been granted asylum.)

According to Iran naming dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the Nazis pushed to call Persia by its native name, Iran. I guess we caved in to the Nazis on that one.

While we are striving for consistent labels of country and people, can we do something about the Dutch?

I don't envision the definition of "wrong" changing.......sounds like a Clinton quote to me.

I thought we were talking about "wrong" in the eyes of the government that performs surveillance. Clinton once held the highest office in our government, and there is the remote possibility that a Clinton will hold that office again. Power you give to a government you trust is hard to take back from a government you don't trust.

You may think that nobody would have a reason to watch you. But how do we expect to eliminate the terrorists unless everyone is treated as suspect?

If I'm doing something wrong, then they can come and get me.

What if you are doing something that someone else thinks is wrong, and has enacted into law? (Spanking children? Eating meat? Peeing in the shower? Not eating right? Spanking meat in the shower? Insulting people? Enslaving animals? Insulting animals?)

And I still put the ACLU right up there with PETA.....both useless!

I think both are losing ground on their main battlefronts.

*

 

[govols019]

Ok, so now I'm ignorant & uneducated.....but the TSA acted on this situation (the praying Imams) and I believe they did the right thing for the safety of the passengers.

Add bigot to that last. What other people and religions do you hate?

 

[moreluck]

I'm not intolerant of those who differ from me.......that's a bigot.

I'm intolerant of those that want only to kill Americans and blow up our country.

 

[tieguy]

.


What about the word free as in "free from danger"?

1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: [SIZE=+0]felt free to go.[/SIZE]

Anyway we shake it we will have to enclose, enslave or somehow deny access to be secure. locking your windows and doors being one example. Each of us has to determine how much we want to confine to feel safe. The patriot act has not affected me and it appears to have helped me therefore it has my support. But when I provide that support I sleep with one eye open.

 

[True Conservative]

Tie Guy, Soon you will be a member of the North American Union. US, Mexico and Canada will all be one country. One currency will be here sooner. Bush and the Neocons are not conservative. 350 Billion dollar deficits, nation building and homeland security are not conservative ideas. Wide open borders is not security. Mexican truckers rolling down our highways is not homeland security. Keeping the M3 (money supply stats) secret is not a conservative idea. End thre federal reserve system. Do you know who really creates money in the US. It's not the government. Bush and Clinton are working hard to enslave us. I for one do not need a multi-billion dollar do nothing security system. Beware the Military Industrial complex. Wolfowitz using his position to help his girlfriend get a job in the state department makes me sick. Read 1984. The info on your drivers license will soon be accessed by the Canadian, Mexican governments. Vote for Ron Paul. Inform yourself. Thanks for letting me vent.

 

[tieguy]

Tie Guy, Soon you will be a member of the North American Union. US, Mexico and Canada will all be one country. One currency will be here sooner. Bush and the Neocons are not conservative. 350 Billion dollar deficits, nation building and homeland security are not conservative ideas. Wide open borders is not security. Mexican truckers rolling down our highways is not homeland security. Keeping the M3 (money supply stats) secret is not a conservative idea. End thre federal reserve system. Do you know who really creates money in the US. It's not the government. Bush and Clinton are working hard to enslave us. I for one do not need a multi-billion dollar do nothing security system. Beware the Military Industrial complex. Wolfowitz using his position to help his girlfriend get a job in the state department makes me sick. Read 1984. The info on your drivers license will soon be accessed by the Canadian, Mexican governments. Vote for Ron Paul. Inform yourself. Thanks for letting me vent.

I'm afraid my world is not as exciting as the one you live in. I go to work, I go home, I sleep, cut the grass, go on vacation every now and then, watch a lot of games and work on projects around the house. There are no neocons, nor presidents working to enslave me in my world. The mexican drivers coming across the border? My sleeper teams get harrassed to death when they go through arkansas. I don't think the mexican truckers will do any better. god help them if they make it to tennessee or virginia where they have the DOT laws memorized verbatum. When I really want to lose sleep I think about Pelosi being speaker of the house. Now thats a nightmare.

 

[toonertoo]

I'm afraid my world is not as exciting as the one you live in. I go to work, I go home, I sleep, cut the grass, go on vacation every now and then, watch a lot of games and work on projects around the house. There are no neocons, nor presidents working to enslave me in my world. The mexican drivers coming across the border? My sleeper teams get harrassed to death when they go through arkansas. I don't think the mexican truckers will do any better. god help them if they make it to tennessee or virginia where they have the DOT laws memorized verbatum. When I really want to lose sleep I think about Pelosi being speaker of the house. Now thats a nightmare.

Pelosi needs to go, she is a disgrace to all Americans, she has so much botox, she cant even smile correctly. The things she says and does make her look like an idiot. (oh she is I forgot) As a woman, she is an embarrassment, and as a taxpayer, she's a thief, stealing my money for her antics. As a grandmother she is embarrassing her grandchildren, as an American she should be shot for treason. As an actress, "new congress in town" shes lame. From what I have read, shes not well read in foreign policy, but wants to go abroad to terrorists countries and hold them all in her loving arms.....She actually did I guess give the catholic sign of the cross in a mosque, but the headgear was just a little over the top. yah I know I know there are some foreign mid east countries who respect women, yada yada. Now is not the time for some cookie baking Grandma to take over our foreign policies. She clearly has gone on a power trip. She needs to be put back in her place. Lets work on partial birth abortion, Oh never mind, she lost. What a terrible defeat... how about instead of raising our taxes, review the fair tax plan. How about doing something with our tax dollars other than waste them on foreign travel. (Go work for triple aaa travel if you know so much about travel..... )And Easter recess or spring break. How about passing a clean bill for our soldiers instead of playing your idiotic games. And trying to give all of our money to the ludicrous lobbies just so you can have their votes. If I did my job like her I would get fired. I only get a few minor infractions before I get canned, I think shes past that.