1 What you'll find Howie is that 99% of critics of the PATRIOT Act do not know what its provisions actually are, and exactly how it changed existing law. Instead, they repeat false claims and exaggerations.

2 Robin speaks the truth. I know of no one outside of KOS-land who makes any claim that their life has been negatively impacted by the Patriot Act (or impacted in any way for that mattter).

3 What I want to know is why it's easier to slip under the radar getting a gun than it is to do some reading of "questionable material"... I'm not anti-gun, but damn if it ain't easy for nutjobs to get one. I love how Bush, inc. gives the opposite names to things it's trying to pass to trick those who are asleep in our government into going, "Huh? Where do I sign? When's lunch?". Anyway, as you know I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act, since I think it's eroding our hard won American freedoms and rights. What does everyone else think? (besides "fuck you osamabinbitchin' lib bastard")

4 Yes Sahib, you have question for the Filthy one?

5 Be specific osama. In what ways specifically has the patriot act 'eroded our freedoms and rights'? Until you can answer that question, you just come accross as hysterical and uninformed. Oh yeah, fuck you osamabinbitchin' you lib bastard.

6 Well, I guess 40 Republicans, some known as staunch conservatives, voted for the amendment to be amended anyway...(238 to 187). So that's quite a majority. To be specific, I don't want people monitoring what I read. How is that for a start?

7 Fair enough osama, I wouldn't much want that either. However, is that what's happening? Is it ok for the FBI to moniter a persons reading if they are already a suspect, or should that be out as well?

8 As Robin suggests, few people have read the Patriot Act, including the congress critters who voted for it. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote — at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." –Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). The bill was rammed through congress a few weeks after 9-11 and during the Anthrax scare. In this atmosphere of hysteria, congress critters were given a couple of days to act on it. It was overwhelmingly passed. What is so bad about the new law? "Generally," says Rep. Ron Paul, "the worst part of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants." He is referring to Section 213 (Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the "sneak-and-peek" provision, which effectively allows police to avoid giving prior warning when searches of personal property are conducted. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government had to obtain a warrant and give notice to the person whose property was to be searched. With one vote by Congress and the sweep of the president's pen, say critics, the right of every American fully to be protected under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was abrogated. Under the USA PATRIOT Act in this country, Section 802 defines domestic terrorism as engaging in "activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any state and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence. According to Rep. Ron Paul, “Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." According to this definition, any act of civil disobedience now falls under the umbrella of terrorism. The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your Internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mails and Internet communications. The Act also allows the government to order librarians and bookstores owners to report the ‘literary consumptive’ practices of individuals. Librarians around the country have led the charge against this provision in the Patriot Act, arguing that Americans have always been free to read whatever they choose without being monitored by government. The Act also gives the government the power to access your medical and tax records. Some of these ‘flawed’ provisions are set to expire at the end of the year. But President Bush wants to make them permanent and even strengthen the Act, and the House and Senate have been holding hearings in preparation for votes. These are just a tiny fraction of the numerous provisions that conflict with the Constitution. The Act, rather than focusing on ‘terrorists’, as you and I would define them, focuses on American citizens. Companions to the Act contain ‘lone wolf’ provisions and FBI pamphlets have been produced and distributed that warn people to be on the look out for people who call themselves Constitutionalists, and to turn them in. Clearly this act further subordinates American citizens to the whims of government. It brings us one step closer to Martial Law. There are over 600 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States. It is apparent that the government is prepared to round up dissidents should the voice of dissent reach a critical mass. This is no longer a country governed by the people for the people. The people are now viewed as an impediment to the consolidation of power currently being undertaken by the government. The future is coming into focus. I see tanks in the streets. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, -- The Declaration of Independence

9 DG...I think snooping library records is crap. Think of how easy it is to get into this country, fake ID's, absurd airport security, weak or nonexistent security involving major water supplies, buildings, bridges, etc. Need a gun? Easier than opening a bank account. Those things worry me more than someone's reading habits. I want results and confidence, not big brother.

10 Greg: I thought you would like that subject.

11 He whose name I shall not repeat said: "Anyway, as you know I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act, since I think it's eroding our hard won American freedoms and rights. What does everyone else think?" I think that the Patriot Act is a necessary evil, but should definitely have a periodic renewal requirement and should never, EVER, become permanent law. Such laws have a way of far outlasting their time, and becoming tools for oppression after their original purpose has expired. I oppose its permenence for the same reason as many others; it can be used by corrupt politicians to attack political opponents, i.e., Hillary "filegate" Clinton. The Patriot Act itself doesn't bother me an infinitessimal fraction as much4 as a judiciary that is completely out of touch with the Constitution and beyond control of the President, Congress, and the People. When the judiciary exceeds its legal bounds and begins to actively legislate from the bench with little or no regard for the Constitution or American legal and social tradition, then I think it doesn't matter what legislation Congress passes, we're screwed. Congress is like a carnival sideshow with misbehaving monkeys, but the Courts are a big-top three-ring circus with all the elephants gone rogue. Anyone who thinks it's okay for judges to exceed their Contitutional powers just because they happen to agree on a point of contention is just asking for trouble, because once the precedent of excess is established, it's almost impossible to correct. P.S: Fuck you osamabinbitchin' lib bastard.

12 Damn all my typo's today. DAMN THEM TO HELL!!!

13 "DG...I think snooping library records is crap." I agree, when there is no reason to do so. However, I want the feds to have the rights to investigate the reading habits of those they suspect of terrorism links. "Think of how easy it is to get into this country, fake ID's, absurd airport security, weak or nonexistent security involving major water supplies, buildings, bridges, etc. " Not sure what you mean here. Are you really trying to say that since these things are worrisome that they somehow negate the issues of terrorism in general? "Need a gun? Easier than opening a bank account. " I assume you are talking about the illegal purchases of firearms. Please remember that the 2nd holds that it is your right to own guns. "Those things worry me more than someone's reading habits. I want results and confidence, not big brother." Again, your arguments just don't hold water. If you suspect that someone might be a potential terrorist, and have good reasons for that suspicion, then why hamstring the police by not allowing them access to library records?

14 Howie, Good call. DG, The government isn't accessing the library or book purchasing activities of terrorists, they are doing it to American dissidents. Most think that the war is in Iraq. The real war is here at home and were losing badly.

15 Greg, remember that in here American dissidents are pretty much viewed as terrorists. DG, man...if you have some pretty solid facts behind someone being a suspected terrorist, you should be able to go after them. This includes any records. The problem I have is in HOW that suspicion is established, not how preventative measures are carried out. I think this completely holds water, btw. I also don't see what you didn't get when talking about water supplies, bridges, etc. since these are major vulnerabilities in our major cities. Cripple or infect can be a nasty, but effective method. Anyway, I gotta run. I'll be back later after Greg gets banned again. IM, P.S. Damn you for making me agree with you so many times in the past week!

16 DG: "If you suspect that someone might be a potential terrorist, and have good reasons for that suspicion, then why hamstring the police by not allowing them access to library records?" The government/police have never been 'hamstrung'. Previously the government needed at least a warrant and probable cause to access private records. The Fourth Amendment, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and case law provided that if the state wished to search you, it needed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed and to obtain a warrant from a neutral judge. Probable cause and a warrant are no longer needed. The government can now investigate the private records of anyone, for any reason it deems appropriate.

17 "....increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants." Many forget why all these issues are brought up in the Patriot Act to begin with. It was "too hard" to get warrants to search certain records, seize computers, etc. THAT'S what led to 9/11. The fear of treading on rights is what kept them from taking decisive action in way too many instances. They don't want to just snoop on any ordinary Joe-on-the-street. It's a total waste of time. They want the ability to do so if there is probable reason to do so. And I WANT them to search [insert suspect's name here] house or computer or library records if he gives good reason to do so.

18 "Probable cause and a warrant are no longer needed. The government can now investigate the private records of anyone, for any reason it deems appropriate." That is not the way I understand it. The police are still required to get a warrent, but do not have to tell the suspect that it is being served. I'm not saying I love it, but it does help to not have to show your cards before you are done investigating. I also don't want it to last forever. I like the sunset provisions and the conversations that we have on its renewal.

19 Oyster: 'Many forget why all these issues are brought up in the Patriot Act to begin with. It was "too hard" to get warrants to search certain records, seize computers, etc. THAT'S what led to 9/11. The fear of treading on rights is what kept them from taking decisive action in way too many instances.' Horse puckey! David Schippers, Chief Council for the House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible conducting the impeachment against former President Clinton, went public revealing that prior to 9-11, many FBI agents had come to him informing him about the impending attacks. These agents knew the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of the terrorists' funding, etc., many months in advance of the 9/11 attacks. The FBI command pulled them off of their investigations into these terrorists and threatened them with the National Security Act saying that if they talked about any of the information pertaining to their investigations they would be prosecuted. Consequently, many of them sought the council of Mr. Schippers hoping to get somebody in the U.S. government to take action against these terrorists before their plan could be implemented. Mr. Schippers talked to many Congressmen and Senators, and tried to get a hold of Att. Gen. John Ashcroft, all only to get the run-around. Mr. Schippers is now legally representing at least ten of these FBI agents in a suit against the U.S. government in an attempt to subpoena their testimony, where they can then legally tell what they know and legally get it on record. The pre-9-11 investigation was obstructed by bureaucrats, not the courts, and only God knows why.

20 WRONG!!!! The answer is : The consessions will be erased in conference after the Senate takes this up. The bill will be permanent. It will prove useful in the GWT but later the law will be turned inward on ourselves thereby striking a terrible blow to freedom. Thus causing greg to suffer a minor head explosion. He then will sell out and move to patagonia where he will raise sheep and Lamas. Bye Bye Next time Howie attempts to create links that go places. Stay tuned.

21 IM wrote "When the judiciary exceeds its legal bounds and begins to actively legislate from the bench with little or no regard for the Constitution or American legal and social tradition, then I think it doesn't matter what legislation Congress passes, we're screwed." Damn, you know it didn't register till just now, but I think I might have said those exact words about 5 years ago when the Florida recount was stopped! Though, Gore can wipe my ass with a thousand hanging chads 'cause I didn't like him either.

22 The government is more than welcome to investigate my private records. I can't see the harm. That is being a patriot I have nothing to fear. Perhaps, some others have something to fear. If looking into my personal records or library books I have read helps root out those who would kill innocent people I say more power to them.

23 GR: I don't think it's about that. I think most people are afraid of these powers being abused, or afraid to read something which might place them under suspicion. That's great that you have nothing to hide, but what if we lived in a country where your views expressed on these blogs got you arrested without trial or a lawyer to be held indefinitely? Many people who have no intentions on being or helping a terrorist have plenty to fear about the government intruding on their privacy.

24 What if? The truth is I don't live in a country like you describe. What if an elephant runs through my cattle fences tonight? Should I build an elephant proof fence just in case? The fact that Greg and Colon Babler haven't been arrested and hung for treason is proof that we do not live in a country where people are arrested for expressing their views. You have to come with a factual claim not an if to convince me. How many innocent lives can be saved? That should be the major concern.

25 Which innocent lives...the blacks killed by your KKK or the Iraqis killed by our "smart bombs"?

26 osamabeenthere: Neither of those. I'm far more interested in the number of whites attacked, robbed and killed by blacks today in the United States. Read the papers and face reality. The muggers are not white people wearing white sheets. There is more than a few areas of New Orleans I would like to drop you off in tonight. If you lived through it you would have a serious attitude adjustment. A real mind clearing experience. Reality will wake you up. A 38 slug through my stomach for not giving up my wallet 3 years ago woke me up. Result. 4 months in the hospital for me. One black mugger shot in the ass and now doing life in Angola. One black mugger escaped only to be killed a month later during a robbery. What happened in the past, if true I had nothing to do with. Nor do I hold todays Germans and Japanese responsible for what happened 60 years ago. Stupid to bring up or hold responsible todays Germans and Japanese for what happened under a different political climate. Also stupid to constantly remind them of it. This also applies to the stupid shouting of what the Glorious Knights of the Klu Klux Klan did nor did not do 60 years ago. As to the Iraqis killed by smart bombs. Pity. All they have to do is lay down their arms and turn in the terrorists and it would all stop. Pity they are too stupid and too stuborn to see the writing on the wall. If the scum bag islamic terrorists you feel pity for were not consentrating their efforts in Iraq they would be consentrating their resources in Europe and America. My personal opinion. Better them than mine. Better you than me. And I will do everything and anything to make it turn out that way. Also, so I am very clear. Muslims are the biggest threat to peace in the history of the world. More than the commies, more than the facists, more than the nazis. Everywhere this gutter religion is practiced. Nothing but trouble, killing, pain and suffering. Look around the world. Or are you as stupid and stuborn as the fucking islamofacists.