The Patriot Act Extended

[Harbringe]

Elections in 2012 are going to be darn right interesting. :D

 

The US needs a third party for the next election with Ron Paul (Republican) as its Presidential candidate and Dennis Kucinich (Democrat) as running mate And Puh leese don't say its the Tea Party ,Weren't they the guys running around screaming in everyone's face we're the Constitution Party and only 1 of them voted againgst extending the Patriot Act because it was unconstitutional ,that's right only 1.Constitution Party........ YEAH RIGHT........ wake up and smell the coffee.

[marharth]

Elections in 2012 are going to be darn right interesting. :D

 

The US needs a third party for the next election with Ron Paul (Republican) as its Presidential candidate and Dennis Kucinich (Democrat) as running mate And Puh leese don't say its the Tea Party ,Weren't they the guys running around screaming in everyone's face we're the Constitution Party and only 1 of them voted againgst extending the Patriot Act because it was unconstitutional ,that's right only 1.Constitution Party........ YEAH RIGHT........ wake up and smell the coffee.

The tea party is the republican party with grassroot support, nothing more.

 

As I said before, I think Ron Paul has bad economic ideas, but his his stance on foreign policy would be great.

[RZ1029]

Elections in 2012 are going to be darn right interesting. :D

 

The US needs a third party for the next election with Ron Paul (Republican) as its Presidential candidate and Dennis Kucinich (Democrat) as running mate And Puh leese don't say its the Tea Party ,Weren't they the guys running around screaming in everyone's face we're the Constitution Party and only 1 of them voted againgst extending the Patriot Act because it was unconstitutional ,that's right only 1.Constitution Party........ YEAH RIGHT........ wake up and smell the coffee.

RZ for President 2012??

 

.... That's just a bad idea waiting to happen. I'd be half way to theocratic dictatorship by the end of the second year.

 

As for the Patriot Act, I don't get where most people are saying it's unconstitutional. I don't remember much about the actual passing of it, as I was a few years younger (obviously) and wasn't quite so interested in politics and such at the time. However, as far as the actual provisions within it, I don't really see where it goes against the Constitution. There are some things that may be excessive at times, but most of the portions still in effect are really not so different from what is used by the FBI and local law enforcement to combat organized crime and the drug cartels.

 

Side-note: Feel free to correct me on the parts still in effect, I have problems keeping them straight and I'm a bit too tired to look them up and double-check.

Edited May 29, 2011 by RZ1029

[marharth]

Elections in 2012 are going to be darn right interesting. :D

 

The US needs a third party for the next election with Ron Paul (Republican) as its Presidential candidate and Dennis Kucinich (Democrat) as running mate And Puh leese don't say its the Tea Party ,Weren't they the guys running around screaming in everyone's face we're the Constitution Party and only 1 of them voted againgst extending the Patriot Act because it was unconstitutional ,that's right only 1.Constitution Party........ YEAH RIGHT........ wake up and smell the coffee.

RZ for President 2012??

 

.... That's just a bad idea waiting to happen. I'd be half way to theocratic dictatorship by the end of the second year.

 

As for the Patriot Act, I don't get where most people are saying it's unconstitutional. I don't remember much about the actual passing of it, as I was a few years younger (obviously) and wasn't quite so interested in politics and such at the time. However, as far as the actual provisions within it, I don't really see where it goes against the Constitution. There are some things that may be excessive at times, but most of the portions still in effect are really not so different from what is used by the FBI and local law enforcement to combat organized crime and the drug cartels.

 

Side-note: Feel free to correct me on the parts still in effect, I have problems keeping them straight and I'm a bit too tired to look them up and double-check.

The fourth amendment protects against unwarranted search and seizure, so it is unconstitutional.

[RZ1029]

The three sections that Obama extended: -Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones. -Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations. -Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

 

Roving wiretaps have been used by courts for years in drug cases. That 'court-approved' part? Yeah, that's a FISA warrant. The USA PATRIOT Act just brought the requirements for a FISA warrant in line with a standard search warrant (again, looking back to anti-drug activities).

 

Title one mostly touches on the FBI's power to combat terrorism. Gives them some extra money, says the military will help if a WMD is believed to be involved, condemns the discrimination of Arab and Muslim-Americans. Oh, and it made the Electronic something or another Task Force a little bigger because it was already grossly under-manned and funded, and generally ineffective.

 

Title two touches on the surveillance and the enhancement thereof in regards to FISA warrants. One of the major parts was just to break down the barrier between criminal investigations and foreign intelligence, as they sometimes crossed and the sharing of information between agencies was previously forbid. Title two also expressly protects US citizens, as they cannot investigate someone based upon any activities protected by the First Amendment. Also has some sanctions against North Korea and Taliban-Afghanistan, in addition to allowing the FBI to directly employ translators.

 

Title three is anti-money-laundering, mostly dealing with the Treasury's ability to investigate those suspected of laundering money for or funding terrorism or terrorist group.

 

Title four is border security, and mostly the northern one, for that matter. And it gives the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) some actual power that's probably a little overdue.

 

Title five covers reward money for terrorism-related information. Also touches on expanding/building a DNA database of offenders, terrorists, et cetera. Then it gives the National Security Letters some other abilities: The requests for counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records made under FISA can ask for the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a subscriber, or the name, address, and length of service of an employee of the provider. However, all of that was modified with a nice little addendum that you have to provide proof in the letter that there is an investigation that this relates to. Unfortunately I can't just go draw up letters when I want to investigate the bank vault and examine it for any excess money.

 

The ACLU did file suit over Title Five as it didn't lay out the legal process by which you could challenge a NSL. I guess the ACLU didn't stay awake during their Civics class, as even I know how to challenge a search warrant and I'm far from a legal expert. They also filed due to the gag order that came along with the NSL, requiring that the individual(s) the letter is delivered to cannot disclose the fact that they received one, arguing that the 'FBI's need for secrecy does not outweigh the 1st Amendment'. (Paraphrased) I don't see what the big deal is, they're just asking you to help out. They've already presented evidence and have the legal papers to do so, why wouldn't you keep your mouth shut about it if it might help stop a terrorist? Maybe that's just me, some people might find it interesting to watch another building blow up, or a skyscraper get knocked down. They're asking you to be quiet, not trade your soul away.

 

Oh, also, back on the Title Five subject, it also gave the Secret Service some extra abilities in regards to hackers attempting to gain access to any nuclear-weaponry-related-files-and-such, or the unauthorized access of a non-public terminal of any US Gov't Department, or the financial records and such. As a last part, in Title Five, there was some stuff about education and restricted funding based (basically) on whether or not they can get information from them easily. Slightly under-handed, but nothing illegal in my book.

 

On to Title Six! Isn't this just fun? I'm getting carpel tunnel just typing this.

 

Not much to say with Title Six, really. It just covers the payouts of the Victims of Crime Act, and basically expedited the process of getting compensation to officers or their family when they are injured or killed in the line of duty.

 

Title Seven! Only three more to go!

 

Basically more intelligence sharing, in addition to making the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make grants and enter contracts (bribe) groups to help combat terrorism when it crosses jurisdictional boundaries. Gives them a budget of 50-100mil.

 

Title Eight kind of adds to the 'domestic terrorism' definition to include assassination, kidnappings in addition to mass destruction. It also increases and defines the penalties for various terrorist activities. Did you know that you only get 20 years in prison if you blow up a train while it's unoccupied?

 

Title Nine! Almost there...

 

Eh... okay, I'll either edit this later or post again. I've got to take care of some stuff real quick.

[marharth]

The three sections that Obama extended: -Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones. -Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations. -Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

 

Roving wiretaps have been used by courts for years in drug cases. That 'court-approved' part? Yeah, that's a FISA warrant. The USA PATRIOT Act just brought the requirements for a FISA warrant in line with a standard search warrant (again, looking back to anti-drug activities).

 

Title one mostly touches on the FBI's power to combat terrorism. Gives them some extra money, says the military will help if a WMD is believed to be involved, condemns the discrimination of Arab and Muslim-Americans. Oh, and it made the Electronic something or another Task Force a little bigger because it was already grossly under-manned and funded, and generally ineffective.

 

Title two touches on the surveillance and the enhancement thereof in regards to FISA warrants. One of the major parts was just to break down the barrier between criminal investigations and foreign intelligence, as they sometimes crossed and the sharing of information between agencies was previously forbid. Title two also expressly protects US citizens, as they cannot investigate someone based upon any activities protected by the First Amendment. Also has some sanctions against North Korea and Taliban-Afghanistan, in addition to allowing the FBI to directly employ translators.

 

Title three is anti-money-laundering, mostly dealing with the Treasury's ability to investigate those suspected of laundering money for or funding terrorism or terrorist group.

 

Title four is border security, and mostly the northern one, for that matter. And it gives the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) some actual power that's probably a little overdue.

 

Title five covers reward money for terrorism-related information. Also touches on expanding/building a DNA database of offenders, terrorists, et cetera. Then it gives the National Security Letters some other abilities: The requests for counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records made under FISA can ask for the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a subscriber, or the name, address, and length of service of an employee of the provider. However, all of that was modified with a nice little addendum that you have to provide proof in the letter that there is an investigation that this relates to. Unfortunately I can't just go draw up letters when I want to investigate the bank vault and examine it for any excess money.

 

The ACLU did file suit over Title Five as it didn't lay out the legal process by which you could challenge a NSL. I guess the ACLU didn't stay awake during their Civics class, as even I know how to challenge a search warrant and I'm far from a legal expert. They also filed due to the gag order that came along with the NSL, requiring that the individual(s) the letter is delivered to cannot disclose the fact that they received one, arguing that the 'FBI's need for secrecy does not outweigh the 1st Amendment'. (Paraphrased) I don't see what the big deal is, they're just asking you to help out. They've already presented evidence and have the legal papers to do so, why wouldn't you keep your mouth shut about it if it might help stop a terrorist? Maybe that's just me, some people might find it interesting to watch another building blow up, or a skyscraper get knocked down. They're asking you to be quiet, not trade your soul away.

 

Oh, also, back on the Title Five subject, it also gave the Secret Service some extra abilities in regards to hackers attempting to gain access to any nuclear-weaponry-related-files-and-such, or the unauthorized access of a non-public terminal of any US Gov't Department, or the financial records and such. As a last part, in Title Five, there was some stuff about education and restricted funding based (basically) on whether or not they can get information from them easily. Slightly under-handed, but nothing illegal in my book.

 

On to Title Six! Isn't this just fun? I'm getting carpel tunnel just typing this.

 

Not much to say with Title Six, really. It just covers the payouts of the Victims of Crime Act, and basically expedited the process of getting compensation to officers or their family when they are injured or killed in the line of duty.

 

Title Seven! Only three more to go!

 

Basically more intelligence sharing, in addition to making the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make grants and enter contracts (bribe) groups to help combat terrorism when it crosses jurisdictional boundaries. Gives them a budget of 50-100mil.

 

Title Eight kind of adds to the 'domestic terrorism' definition to include assassination, kidnappings in addition to mass destruction. It also increases and defines the penalties for various terrorist activities. Did you know that you only get 20 years in prison if you blow up a train while it's unoccupied?

 

Title Nine! Almost there...

 

Eh... okay, I'll either edit this later or post again. I've got to take care of some stuff real quick.

You pretty much just admitted the NSL's are unconstitutional.

 

Forgot about some stuff with the NSL's

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter

 

Section 805 is also unconstitutional since it violates the first amendment.

 

 

This should also explain further to why its unconstitutional.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield

 

I am not sure if the current patriot act in unconstitutional, but the one that was originally passed was unconstitutional without question.

 

While the wiretapping has as court order, it is a court order that allows them to basically search anyone's records who seem fit.

 

 

Also you seem to be back to the classic "Well do YOU want to get bombed again?" argument.

 

You realize that Osama Bin Laden already succeeded in his goal before he died right? He did not want to destory America through bombing and killing everyone.

 

He wanted to destory it by making us fear him and his group, he wanted to bankrupt us and drag us into wars.

 

Because of the people who keep making the argument, you effectively helped the terrorists win.

[RZ1029]

You know... I typed for about thirty minutes on this before I just deleted it all.

 

I'm done with the debate forums in general, all they do is raise my blood pressure most of the time.

 

It's not because of anyone in particular, or because I can't defend my own point of view or anything like that. It's because I grow tired of people who listen to half of what I have to say and think they get the whole picture, filling in blanks and adding words I never said. The post before this is only the most recent in a string that has led me to the 'don't feel like it' mode. I'm going back to Witcher 2. Have a nice day.

 

PS: If you're confused by this post, chances are you're in the group short-circuiting my patience.

 

EDIT: Marharth, for the love of Geralt, please, please, please, google USA PATRIOT Act Title VIII Section 805.

Edited May 30, 2011 by RZ1029

[marharth]

You know... I typed for about thirty minutes on this before I just deleted it all.

 

I'm done with the debate forums in general, all they do is raise my blood pressure most of the time.

 

It's not because of anyone in particular, or because I can't defend my own point of view or anything like that. It's because I grow tired of people who listen to half of what I have to say and think they get the whole picture, filling in blanks and adding words I never said. The post before this is only the most recent in a string that has led me to the 'don't feel like it' mode. I'm going back to Witcher 2. Have a nice day.

 

PS: If you're confused by this post, chances are you're in the group short-circuiting my patience.

 

EDIT: Marharth, for the love of Geralt, please, please, please, google USA PATRIOT Act Title VIII Section 805.

I already read it, it was ruled by a federal judge to be unconstitutional.

 

Perhaps you should read it and the ruling?

 

I also ready everything you said, and replied to you with the parts you left out. Don't see why anyone would be confused.

 

As for putting words in your mouth...

 

"I don't see what the big deal is, they're just asking you to help out."

That would imply you understood the reasons behind it, and know why it could be illegal.

 

As for the whole bomb thing I got that from...

"some people might find it interesting to watch another building blow up, or a skyscraper get knocked down. They're asking you to be quiet, not trade your soul away."

[Aurielius]

Ok, A, I'm coming to the dark side.... :facepalm:

 

Somebody, please tell me that this is not true. Please.:ohdear:

http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac177/Aurielius/demotivational-posters-come-to-the-dark-side.jpg

 

It's not so bad, we have better parties..lol

 

 

Maharth excerpt

"I already read it, it was ruled by a federal judge to be unconstitutional."

Just for giggles please quote your source.....West Law preferred...but Federal Circuit Case Law ID will do..

Edited May 31, 2011 by Aurielius

[marharth]

Ok, A, I'm coming to the dark side.... :facepalm:

 

Somebody, please tell me that this is not true. Please.:ohdear:

http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac177/Aurielius/demotivational-posters-come-to-the-dark-side.jpg

 

It's not so bad, we have better parties..lol

 

 

Maharth excerpt

"I already read it, it was ruled by a federal judge to be unconstitutional."

Just for giggles please quote your source.....West Law preferred...but Federal Circuit Case Law ID will do..

Of course everything I say has to be just for giggles because you disagree with it...

 

It would have been easy for you to find the source have you actually read all the links I posted, but I will separately post them for you since you can't be bothered by that.

 

"One section of the Act (section 805) prohibited "material support" for terrorists, and in particular included "expert advice or assistance."[139] This was struck down as unconstitutional by a U.S. Federal Court after the Humanitarian Law Project filed a civil action against the U.S. government."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

 

Which came from the following sources.

http://hlp.home.igc.org/docs/press/patact012604.html

 

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hlpash12304ord.pdf (this is a pdf download)

 

 

 

Also perhaps you only bothered to scan through what I wrote and not read everything, but I posted that in relation to section 805, not the entire document.