If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Remember earlier in the week when the Senate blocked the renewal of the Patriot Act? Maybe not so much   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 437
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

12375 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Dec 2005 at 12:18 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



437 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-12-22 01:52:35 PM  
HappyDaddy

You must admit that Clinton's searches of Ames ultimately paid off and involved all three brances of government. How do you justify the DoD "threat" of a 79-year old grandmother who met at a local Quaker meeting house to discuss how to protest military recruiting at an area high school?
 
2005-12-22 01:52:49 PM  
Immaculate_Misconception

Ames was acting as a foreign agent, which according to FISA makes a warrant unnecessary as far as I understand.

Close.

The relevent justification by the administration was:

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."


(Copied from http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp)

As I understand it, since Ames was acting as an agent of a foreign power, the warrantless search was authorized by Regan's executive order. I still don't like it.

Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

So it sounds like there was oversight moved to the FISA court for that provision, even though Clinton still thought he could do what he wanted.
 
2005-12-22 01:53:09 PM  
HappyDaddy

Have you caught on to the fact that Attorney General Reno authorized a warrantless physical search of Ames' residence before physical searches were allowed under FISA?

And they thought it a bad idea so they wrote specific rules to to require a warrant - correct? Sounds like a good idea.
 
2005-12-22 01:53:27 PM  
Buffalo77 asks, (not that we haven't heard it before...)

"Gosling exactly what civil liberties have you lost?"

Hmm, how about the right we all used to enjoy that enabled us to walk down any street at any time without being required to present our "papers" on demand?

There used to be a time when Americans found it offensive as the two words, "papers please" used to be thought of as only something that happened in countries we were opposed to.

Do you have any other questions to parrot?

Oh, and have a beautiful holiday - I would hate to think we couldn't all agree on the horrendous war on Christmas thing!
 
2005-12-22 01:53:39 PM  
With global warming and all, Canada may not be such a bad place to move to.
 
2005-12-22 01:53:49 PM  
The 'Patriot Act' serves only to create two parties of 'us' and 'them.' It was initially sold to you as 'we' need to be protected from 'them,' with 'them' being anyone the government considered dangerous without ever identifying what 'dangerous' meant. As we have seen, any law that suspends the rights of an American citizen indefinitely affects any one of us. In truth, we are all 'them,' and only the government is 'us.' Of course the government would keep this law in place. It allows them to collect your taxes and enslave you. It allows them to accuse you of a crime and condemn you without explanation. Effectively being stripped of your citizenship by denying you your rights should be punishment for a serious crime. The Patriot Act makes you a non-citizen before you've even been tried.
 
2005-12-22 01:53:50 PM  
Immaculate_Misconception: Ames was acting as a foreign agent, which according to FISA makes a warrant unnecessary as far as I understand.


But he was still a US Citizen. Innocent, in the eyes of the law.
 
2005-12-22 01:54:38 PM  
Immaculate_Misconception: Ames was acting as a foreign agent, which according to FISA makes a warrant unnecessary as far as I understand.

Nope - that's why they amended FISA immediately after the Ames thing to allow for FISA orders approving physical searches.

Question: Do you believe that Americans possess a Constitutionally protected "right to privacy"?

Of course not - at least not in the generalized sense that I think you mean. We have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. What is "reasonable" or not is a function of lots of factors and has been litigated since the 4th Amendment was ratified.

Not that I really give a shiat but it is amusing to me that everyone assumes that I am a big proponent of the Patriot Act and of the NSA surveillance.
 
2005-12-22 01:55:48 PM  
asdfbeau

Every little piece of factual information you learn makes you a more worthwhile person. People dislike me because of the contempt that I hold for their ignorance, but this does not matter to me. Uneducated/partially educated opinions on matters of law and science often do more harm than good.

Oh for crying out loud. Okay, I'll call your bullshiat - give us your educated opinion on the Patriot Act.
 
2005-12-22 01:56:18 PM  
What is "reasonable" or not is a function of lots of factors and has been litigated since the 4th Amendment was ratified.

My impression is that 'reasonable' basically comes down to 'what can I get past a judge today?'.

Our 4th amendment rights have been slowly eroding since the 'war on drugs' got started.
 
2005-12-22 01:57:29 PM  
roundblack

you are almost right. the constitution gaurantees these rights to all people. regardless of their geographic location.

Well I'd argue slightly otherwise, that the Constitution doesn't guarantee those rights, it just tells people that they are entitled those those rights in the first place. It's not walking into a store and being handed a free ice cream cone, to me it's more like you walked into the store with the cone already in your hand and have to prevent the store from taking it away.
 
2005-12-22 01:58:10 PM  
HappyDaddy:

Nope - that's why they amended FISA immediately after the Ames thing to allow for FISA orders approving physical searches.

Well, I don't see Congress amending FISA now to accomodate Bush's transgressions. Do you?
 
2005-12-22 01:58:19 PM  
Something else that people are kind of glossing over IMHO, is the fact that prior to the Patriot act information gathered under FISA was considered 'tainted', it couldn't be used in criminal proceedings.

The Patriot act effectively removed barriers between the intelligence community and law enforcement agencies, meaning that information gathered in the name of "national security" could be now used in criminal proceedings, regardless of whether this evidence was obtained in a manner which was mindful of a defendant's rights.
 
2005-12-22 01:58:22 PM  
HappyDaddy: Have at it.

Google Ames + "warrantless search"



You MIGHT want to do that yourself. It doesn't produce what you think it does.
 
2005-12-22 01:59:18 PM  
Weaver95:

Our 4th amendment rights have been slowly eroding since the 'war on drugs' got started.

We disagree on a lot of things, Weaver95 but I think we may have strong common ground on that issue. The Dems are just as bad as the Republicans on that issue.
 
2005-12-22 02:00:47 PM  
pontechango: How do you justify the DoD "threat" of a 79-year old grandmother who met at a local Quaker meeting house to discuss how to protest military recruiting at an area high school?


I'd like to see the source documents. It matters whether the AFSC was referred to as a "threat" by the FBI, or was referred to as a "threat" by an informant, or if it was all something entirely different. Context is everything.
 
2005-12-22 02:01:49 PM  
Okay, sorry, I was out to lunch at Pizza Hut. (Mmm... pizza buffet.) I evidently have some catching-up to do, found two posts referring to me, so let's do that now.

Gosling exactly what civil liberties have you lost?

The right to not have my phone tapped and the right to not have my library card raped by the FBI, for starters. Right off the top of my head. For example, currently I have a book on attractions in Thailand rented. Maybe the FBI thinks I might have unsavory business in Thailand. Why else would I be renting a book on it? Oh, I also have the same sort of book involving Holland! Why, I must have some wide-reaching network! Better bring me in!
---------------------
how exactly are the dem's pWnd when they were the ones pushing for the short term extension?

This short term extension is a good thing, for everyone. The patriot act provides a set of good and powerful tools, along with a set of poorly written provisions that remove necessary judicial oversight that potentially remove our freedoms. The patriot act can be fixed, and should be fixed instead of just scrapped entirely. This gives politicians time to fix it, instead of rushing to a purely political vote for the rest of the week.

Of course, we'll probably just be in this situation in 6 months again, but I'd like to hope that we can make meaningful progress towards a patriot act that makes the groups that protect us more agile while not harming our freedoms.


This bill was a compromise, yes, but I believe the aim of the Dems was to kill it outright- one of them did brag after the vote that denied cloture that they had 'killed the Patriot Act'. They didn't do that. (Also, where did I say they were 'pwned'?)

My solution would be to shatter the Patriot Act into one bill per provision. If we can't do the line-item veto (please oh please can we have one?), then we can at least turn the bill into a bunch of little bills. That way we can pass the provisions that we actually LIKE while (hopefully) ditching the freedom-removing ones.

And if we're in this situation again in June, hey, that's campaign season. You scream loud enough that you hate the Patriot Act THEN, and some of them are going to listen if for no other reason than to keep their campaign alive.
 
2005-12-22 02:02:17 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas

But he was still a US Citizen. Innocent, in the eyes of the law.

I agree. It was an unlawful search. The only reason it didn't get tossed out as such was that from my understanding, Ames never went to court and instead pled guilty.

That's an even scarier thought, to me. That illegally used evidence can be used as leverage to get someone to plead guilty and avoid the very forum they would need to expose the dirty tricks. I guess he was probably up for the death sentence, though, and pleading guilty allowed him to get a prison term, instead.

Then again, I always get a chuckle when Jack McCoy does something like that on "Law & Order," so who am I to judge? :)
 
2005-12-22 02:02:31 PM  
This thread is over.

Random Reality Check
Hmm, how about the right we all used to enjoy that enabled us to walk down any street at any time without being required to present our "papers" on demand?

You folks are coming unglued and as such, continue to marginalize yourselves into irrelevence. By all means, continue your tireless bullshiat rants. You only fuel THE CONSERVATIVE JUGGERNAUT! w00t!
 
2005-12-22 02:03:00 PM  
"To the those opposing the patriot act, what suggestions do you have as an alternative?"

eshalis: Nothing on the Domestic side, everything on the international. Find Usama and capture him and his people obviously moron.

I get the feeling many people posting here don't really recall the purpose of the Patriot act. So to those that are no longer in favor of it or consistently opposed it, the question is: How do you prevent an attack from originating inside our borders?
 
2005-12-22 02:06:33 PM  
crawlspace [TotalFark]

You only fuel THE CONSERVATIVE JUGGERNAUT! w00t!

So, are you saying conservatives are FOR expanding the powers of the federal government? You're not rooting for a football team dumbass.
 
2005-12-22 02:06:34 PM  
HappyDaddy:

I'd like to see the source documents. It matters whether the AFSC was referred to as a "threat" by the FBI, or was referred to as a "threat" by an informant, or if it was all something entirely different. Context is everything.

Here's the original article at MSNBC:

Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?
 
2005-12-22 02:06:51 PM  
Da Scotsman: "I love reading from all the hippies who think you can hold hands, sing 'cumbaya', and everything will be OK if we just behave better.

If it's not too much trouble, please point out the civilization / society that did as you espouse and that survived and flourished? Thanks in advance...

There is only one way to defeat the enemy - you kill them."

No doubt. But your stoogieness shows in your failure to understand the importance of oversight in wire-tapping. YOU NEED TO GET A WARRANT to fulfill the law. No, it does not have to occur before the wire-tapping. It can legally be obtained afterwards. But without oversite, you are fatally tipping the balance in favor of the Executive branch, a no-no from the founders' perspective.
 
2005-12-22 02:07:21 PM  
How do you prevent an attack from originating inside our borders?

My position is: At some point, you don't. Law of diminishing returns. You can beef up security all you like (half our budget goes towards the military and homeland security), but if someone wants to attack badly enough and launches enough attempts, sooner or later someone's going to sneak through. And it doesn't help if the people we hire to do the job are about as competent as a rent-a-cop.
 
2005-12-22 02:07:43 PM  
 
2005-12-22 02:07:49 PM  
why_am_i_posting

I get the feeling many people posting here don't really recall the purpose of the Patriot act. So to those that are no longer in favor of it or consistently opposed it, the question is: How do you prevent an attack from originating inside our borders?

Get a warrant.
 
2005-12-22 02:09:10 PM  
It appears to me that the Constitution of the United States is living up to it's current status as a museum piece. It happens to have the same power as a museum piece. Greed and corruption over the years (from BOTH parties) have destroyed the very essence of what it was created to accomplish. Time and, dare I say the process of civil evolution, have taken from it the ability to execute what it was originally engineered for. More additions of Acts and Laws to it are ripping from its bones the substance that stalwarts, like myself, believe to be the very core of life in this country. Bush and his cronies are getting precisely what they want, even more power... all under the guise of "protection".

I don't know about most of you, but I NEVER wanted this.

Yeah, we were attacked. Some might say a random act of violence or a well orchestrated hit, nevertheless, the end result was senseless death on 9/11 and that carnage continues thousands of miles from here under that same guise of protection. Now that the war is in it's endgame, it appears to me the current administration is bent on "protecting" you and me by taking away our rights.

First rule of controlling the people you govern is to control the media. Check.

Second rule of controlling the people you govern is to start denying certain freedoms. Check.

Third rule of controlling the people you govern is to persuade them that the first two rules were necessary in the first place.

My two cents...
 
2005-12-22 02:11:21 PM  
OralB

Get a warrant.

Owned.
 
2005-12-22 02:11:40 PM  
Weaver95: Our 4th amendment rights have been slowly eroding since the 'war on drugs' got started.

I remember the shock I had after reading for the first time how the DEA could take your house from you if you were suspected of having used it for any reason related to selling or distribution of drugs.

They could take it and it would cost you an assload of time and money to get it back. I was gobsmacked.

And this all happened on the watch of Mr. Wonderful--Bill Clinton.

Both parties are under the pressure to succumb to the Eroding of the Rights, not just BushCo.

Do your damn homework next time you vote for the office of President. Stop voting for Lesser Evils and vote in people that you can relate to.

This multi-millionnaire rubber stamp politician crap has got to go.
 
2005-12-22 02:12:11 PM  
HappyDaddy:
Nope - that's why they amended FISA immediately after the Ames thing to allow for FISA orders approving physical searches.

From here:

8. How is surveillance authority different under FISA?

Although orders issued under FISA are sometimes called FISA "warrants," this is misleading because it suggests that the FISA order is like an ordinary search warrant or Title III intercept order -- and it isn't. Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be based on probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. This is not the general rule under FISA.

9. What is the basic "trigger" for permitting FISA surveillance?

Under FISA, surveillance is generally permitted based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power -- not whether criminality is in any way involved. 1801(b)(1).

FISA 1801(b) defines this phrase in two ways, depending on whether the target is a U.S. person. 1801(b)(1) covers non-U.S. persons, while 1801(b)(2) covers "any person."

Non-U.S. persons are "agents" under FISA if they

* act in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a terrorist organization, 1801(b)(1)(A)
* act for or on behalf of a foreign power that engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to U.S. interests when (1) the circumstances of such persons' presence in the United States "indicate that such person may engage in such activities, or (2) when such person knowingly aids or abets any person, or conspires with any person to engage in such activities." 50 U.S.C. 1801(b)(1)(B).

So, for instance, a British national who works for the British embassy in the United States is an agent of a foreign power.

American citizens and permanent residents are "agents" if they knowingly engage in espionage for a foreign power or intelligence service, and such activities "are about to involve" a violation of U.S. laws--any criminal laws, not just espionage. 1801(b)(2)(B).


It sounds to me as though Ames was by definition acting as a foreign agent.


HappyDaddy:Of course not - at least not in the generalized sense that I think you mean. We have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. What is "reasonable" or not is a function of lots of factors and has been litigated since the 4th Amendment was ratified.

Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment.

The right to privacy has been clearly defined by Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v. Wade case). In addition, the right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self- incrimination limit.

So the current precedents that IMHO establish the "right to privacy" are not the law of the land in your opinion?

HappyDaddy:Not that I really give a shiat but it is amusing to me that everyone assumes that I am a big proponent of the Patriot Act and of the NSA surveillance.

I never accused you of supporting anything, I'm only asking you questions to better define your position.
 
2005-12-22 02:12:26 PM  
OralB: How do you prevent an attack from originating inside our borders?

RTFPDB
 
2005-12-22 02:12:57 PM  
ZipBeep

Here. (pops)

See fn 3. I can't get the document for you, at least not today.

There are loads of references to the fact of the warrantless search of Ames' house on the interweb. Some are very recent and in the nature of excusing the President's NSA surveillance, but many are much older and close to contemporaneous to the time of the search.
 
2005-12-22 02:13:32 PM  
And also this "well, he has good policy, but he tends to be very improper with his speaking; therefore, he is unelectable" bullshiat. They're electable if I SAY they're electable. I cast the damn vote. Don't tell me who I may and may not vote for.
 
2005-12-22 02:13:42 PM  
That should've been addressed to why_am_i_posting, not OralB, who had a good point himself.
 
2005-12-22 02:13:52 PM  
pontechango: How do you prevent an attack from originating inside our borders?

RTFPDB
 
2005-12-22 02:14:05 PM  
"I get the feeling many people posting here don't really recall the purpose of the Patriot act. So to those that are no longer in favor of it or consistently opposed it, the question is: How do you prevent an attack from originating inside our borders?"

I don't know, maybe we should form a panel to report on our security and how to improve it, we could then implement the recommendations. What's that you say? They already did that but the administration failed utterly to implement the recommendations but instead assumed absolute powers to perform surveillance on American citizens which reports are now showing were used to spy on suspected political opponents? Hmm, sounds like this administration is soft on security and big on absolute power. Not a good combination. Surely the conservatives in this nation will rise up in outrage against this expansion of unchecked powers of the federal executive.
 
2005-12-22 02:14:12 PM  
Did Saddam get a warrant before he bombed the Twin Towers?

(hehehe)
 
2005-12-22 02:15:56 PM  
HappyDaddy:

You are intentionally failing to make a distinction between a single exceptional case in which FISA was subsequently amended and thousands of other cases in which FISA was ignored entirely. Your tu quoque defense of Bush is bunk.
 
2005-12-22 02:16:46 PM  
ratboy

Did Saddam get a warrant before he bombed the Twin Towers?

No, he didn't and that's why he's on trial.
 
2005-12-22 02:16:53 PM  
"Did Saddam get a warrant before he bombed the Twin Towers?"


Does anyone know who was in charge of security at the WTCs?
 
2005-12-22 02:18:24 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: But he was still a US Citizen. Innocent, in the eyes of the law.


No, he was a foreign agent. Read up on FISA. Several of his Constitutional protections are limited or removed once the FISA court finds probable cause to believe you are a foreign agent.

This isn't about criminal law, this is about national security.

That's what the fuss is about. People not having a court hear evidence that establishes that they are a threat to national security in order to justify surveillance against them. And the Patriot acts erosion of the line between national security and domestic law enforcement.
 
2005-12-22 02:18:50 PM  
The extension gives some hope that they don't blindly make laws permanent.. but, yeesh, six months? Three was enough.. and it would have been nice to see Bush flip-flop and not veto it. Of course, he kinda already has, but, oh well. I actually don't have a problem with politicians "flip-flopping", as it shows that you can actually influence them and *gasp!* change their minds.



/props to EastCoastingB for the mock-up of my prized ham-sandwich
//double props to O'Reilly for having a funny name, and being so easy to make fun of in general
 
2005-12-22 02:18:58 PM  
"Late wednesday night" I love how the Senate tries to do things when the opposition isn't around. (Both sides do it)
 
2005-12-22 02:19:18 PM  
Immaculate_Misconception: So the current precedents that IMHO establish the "right to privacy" are not the law of the land in your opinion?


I absolutely accept the notion that the "right to privacy" manufactured by the SCt is the law of the land, to the extent that it has enunciated it.
 
2005-12-22 02:19:30 PM  
why_am_i_posting,

The question is where do you draw the line? How much of the information in your life should be privileged? How much privacy is it OK to give up? To what degree are you willing to sacrifice your rights in the hopes of catching the 'bad guy'? And at what point are you no longer being served by your government and instead, being ruled by them?
Once you begin accepting limits on your rights with the idea that eventually you'll 'get them back' once evil is safely dealt with, you'll realize that you can't trust your govenment or anyone else. And it will always be okay for them to take a little more.
 
2005-12-22 02:19:54 PM  
OralB: RTFPDB

Actually, I shouldn't have posted that since it was just Rice's bullshiat that the PDB was merely a "historical document". I meant to post a link to the actual PDB, which was a clear call to executive action (not a vacation).
 
2005-12-22 02:21:03 PM  
cryptozoophiliac: Does anyone know who was in charge of security at the WTCs?

Ooh, ooh, Mr. Kotter! I know, I know!!
 
2005-12-22 02:21:12 PM  
crawlspace said,

"This thread is over."

Thank God, I have finally met the end authority here on Fark. And all this time I thought it was this Drew character.



I had earlier responded to a post by Buffalo77 on what rights I felt I had lost by saying,

"Hmm, how about the right we all used to enjoy that enabled us to walk down any street at any time without being required to present our "papers" on demand?"

And crawlspace make a complete jackass out of himself by uttering,

"You folks are coming unglued and as such, continue to marginalize yourselves into irrelevence. By all means, continue your tireless bullshiat rants. You only fuel THE CONSERVATIVE JUGGERNAUT! w00t!"

It is a global ignorance thing with you or are you proud to not have any comprehension of what is going on around you? There was a time in this country if you were asked for your "papers" you could tell someone to drop dead - except in the case of a "Terry Stop" and other limited circumstances, like when you were driving your car.

It is people like you that will hand control of this country back to us "liberals" because you are driving your Republican base away faster than you are willing to acknowledge. All you need to lose is a total of 2% of the conservative vote. Why don't you think about that the next time you realize that even Weaver95 seems to be abandoning your party.

Keep it up, we need your support.
 
2005-12-22 02:21:24 PM  
HappyDaddy: There are loads of references to the fact of the warrantless search of Ames' house on the interweb. Some are very recent and in the nature of excusing the President's NSA surveillance, but many are much older and close to contemporaneous to the time of the search.


Oh, and as much as I'm enjoying this aspect of the conversation, you do realize that you're only arguing this in order to qualify your "but Clinton", don't you?

Why not discuss the topic at hand?
 
2005-12-22 02:21:33 PM  
I get the feeling many people posting here don't really recall the purpose of the Patriot act.

I agree with you. Regardless of its purpose to easier catch terrorists, it shouldn't exist. It creates too slippery of a slope, IMO. In order for the FBI to better do its jobs, current laws may need to be slightly altered, and thats fine; they need to de their job, but not at the expense of the Constitution.

I Voted for Bush twice, and might vote for him a third time; if he quits being an ass-hat and protects our borders without using the constitution for ass-wipe.

BTW, how many of you lefties are going to have my back when Hillary, et al try to take my guns? I want to make sure that your civil liberties and mine are the same.
 
Displayed 50 of 437 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report