Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Momentum growing against Patriot Act, government tries to shore up support
Associated Press ^ | 08-16-03

Posted on 08/16/2003 4:28:02 PM PDT by Brian S

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:43:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

The Sept. 11 attacks convinced Congress that the federal government needed enhanced legal and investigative powers to pursue terrorists.

Yet in the two years since passing the Patriot Act, lawmakers have grown uneasy over Attorney General John Ashcroft's use of the expanded surveillance and detention powers. Not only are they leery of his requests for even greater authority, they are moving to curtail some of the tools they granted in the law.


(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: homelandsecurity; mediabias; patriotact

1 posted on 08/16/2003 4:28:02 PM PDT by Brian S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brian S
The liberal press says that America has turned into a police state, but has it really?

Does anyone here know someone who's rights have been violated by the Patriot Act? I didn't think so.

Privacy issues with the government? Please. Every ten years you're required to answer personal questions to Census Bureau - or you could go to jail. Is that a violation of privacy too? Under the estate tax, the government has a say in how a person's (already taxed) wealth is divided. I'd call that a privacy issue, though I'm sure liberals believe otherwise.

We live in a world where our privacy is violated - because we want it that way. Would you feel safer flying if baggage checks were done away with? Would you feel safer going into a bank where there are no security cameras? You go up to an ATM machine and your photograph is taken - that's for your benefit. You drive on an interstate and your speed is monitored without you knowing it. You put in a security alarm system in your house, and people are monitoring what goes on inside your house - even while you're in it.

Abraham Lincoln suspended part of the Constitution during the Civil War. FDR did the same during World War II. And before he became mayor of NYC, Rudy Guiliani was an attorney in the Reagan admiministration, prosecuting mafia members under the RICO act - which allowed phones of suspected mob members to be wiretapped.

We're quick to blame intelligence officials for failing to stop the attacks of 9/11, and then we want to tie their hands so they can't do their job. We can't have it both ways.

2 posted on 08/16/2003 4:57:59 PM PDT by mwfsu84
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mwfsu84
We can't have it both ways.

Nothing to excess. We can have it both ways.

3 posted on 08/16/2003 5:01:10 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Scrap the Patriot Act and secure the borders.
4 posted on 08/16/2003 6:53:17 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Yep. Ashcroft lost his last race to a dead dude.

Go figger.
5 posted on 08/16/2003 7:00:20 PM PDT by lodwick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Yeah, we need to get back to the good old days when we were safe from jackbooted thugs.



6 posted on 08/16/2003 7:07:54 PM PDT by hemogoblin (The few, the proud, the 537.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
The .guv can get the data it needs on the black market for far cheaper and less hassle from dark-side data miners rather than try to give birth to this atrocity which no American is for - not even the Rats.

Black Ops funding is still available, as I understand.

7 posted on 08/16/2003 7:08:53 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mwfsu84
You said:

"The liberal press says that America has turned into a police state, but has it really?"

I say:

It's the Future danger of the act that is so troubling.
The act has a 4 year life span EXCEPT for section 802 which goes on and on. Have you read Clauses 5B of section 802?
I know A, B & C are conjunctive, but, someone (a government czar?) has to make the judgement of the "intent" of demonstrators/dissidents who disagree with given government policy(s).

The argument that you and many others make relative to violation of our rights is a weak one.
The danger of any law is not its immediate impact, rather, it is the future mis-use by people like Ashcroft and his ilk.
Any new law passed takes another freedom away from us whether it's in the name of "security" or whatever. These laws are supposed to "protect" us from the bad guys, however, it's quite possible the bad guys just may be the ones passing these laws. In addition, these draconian laws can be used against anybody. What if you lost your temper for just a moment and made a remark that could be considered a "hate" crime? Bingo, you're under arrest!

Do you see the danger?

Just be very careful of whom you place your trust in because as H/L/ Mencken said and I quote"

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."-- H.L. Mencken"

You said:

"Abraham Lincoln suspended part of the Constitution during the Civil War. FDR did the same during World War II. And before he became mayor of NYC, Rudy Guiliani was an attorney in the Reagan admiministration, prosecuting mafia members under the RICO act - which allowed phones of suspected mob members to be wiretapped."

I say:

And these acts are just as wrong. Saying that everybody violates their trust doesn't solve anything. What is past is past and we can't do anything about those violations, however, we can do something about the Gestapo act of 2001 and that is rescind it along with the draconian RICO act.

Isn't it intersting that the Gestapo act was formulated so quickly after 9/11? According to columnist Michelle Malkin, it was written by a guy named Dinh! Does anyone have any background info on this guy?

FReegards

P.S. these laws were violated on 9/11:

Theft of aircraft, taking of hostages, hi-jacking, murder of passengers and airline personell, destruction of property, murder of 2300+ innocent Americans in those two towers, crossing State lines to commit a crime(s).

What good did these laws do on 9/11? Nothing, Nada, Nyet, Zip, Zero etc., etc.. The answer is not new laws, rather, it's the implementaion of present laws, which is to say, get rid of bleeding heart judges from the bench, get rid of parole for violent offenders. The great majority of us are law abiding, so, put the bad guys away.
8 posted on 08/17/2003 12:40:35 AM PDT by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
"and secure the borders."

Until this is done, I will not believe there is a "real war" on terror. The fact that this was not done immediately after 9/11 or since, exposes the lie of the "war" on terrorism.

Oops, I forgot, they (republicrats) actually believe they will receive the votes of 3,000,000 Mexican illegals!

Foolish me.

"Scrap the Patriot Act"

The "patriot act" is a Gestapo act as far as I'm concerned. The acronym has nothing whatsoever to do with patriotism. it stands for: "Providing Appropiate Tools to Resist & Obstruct Terrorism". Clever use of semantics, don't you think?

FReegards
9 posted on 08/17/2003 12:53:13 AM PDT by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Criticism of the Patriot Act always brings John Locke to mind (a favorite of Thomas Jefferson).

According to John Locke in "Treatise of Government", man in a natural state without any form of government has perfect liberty. The only purpose for individuals to gather under an organized government is to protect ourselves and fellow members from the "corruption and viciousness of degenerate men". By entering into a society, we give up some of our originally perfect liberty to that governing state... but that serves to better protect our general liberty, safety and property. While man would always prefer perfect freedom, we can never enjoy it fully while constantly in jeopardy of violence from our fellow man.

The primary purpose of our government, then, is to prevent violence done to us from abroad and within our own borders through a military and justice system. If we don't allow our government enough authority to prevent large-scale violence such as 9/11, then why even have a Constitution to begin with?
10 posted on 08/17/2003 1:00:45 AM PDT by Tamzee (I was a vegetarian until I started leaning toward the sunlight...... Rita Rudner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
According to John Locke in "Treatise of Government", man in a natural state without any form of government has perfect liberty. The only purpose for individuals to gather under an organized government is to protect ourselves and fellow members from the "corruption and viciousness of degenerate men". By entering into a society, we give up some of our originally perfect liberty to that governing state... but that serves to better protect our general liberty, safety and property. While man would always prefer perfect freedom, we can never enjoy it fully while constantly in jeopardy of violence from our fellow man.
The primary purpose of our government, then, is to prevent violence done to us from --

-- our fellow man, regardless of the powers granted to our various levels of government. We only grant governmental authority --

-- abroad and within our own borders through a military and justice system.

Which is limited by our constitution.

If we don't allow our government enough authority to prevent large-scale violence such as 9/11, then why even have a Constitution to begin with?

Because without it, we would live as slaves, not as free men.

11 posted on 08/17/2003 1:34:06 AM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
In CO they're starting up state police DUI checkpoints -- there are ads on the tv warning you that you may be asked to pull over for a random DUI check.

Random car checkpoints are UNCONSITUTIONAL and police-state-like gestapoism. Law abiding citizens should not be stopped and asked for their id, not even under the seemingly reasonable effort to decrease dui accidents and deaths. This is just another erosion of our rights. And it desensitizes us to Constitutional, legal resistance to such intrusions.
"Oh yes, officer, of course I'll cooperate," is what we're tempted to say just to avoid the inconvenience of the messy situation of standing up for our Constitutional rights. We need to stop these things NOW, SO THAT we don't go further down the slippery slope of giving up more of them on a regular basis.

The Patriot Act (and the much denied Patriot Act II) violate Constitutional rights NOW and should be repealed -- just as random car checkpoints should be refused. Same issue as "sneak and peak."

12 posted on 08/17/2003 1:38:28 AM PDT by bets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I tend to believe that the government should be allowed to view the contents of a terrorist's laptop :-)
13 posted on 08/17/2003 1:47:14 AM PDT by Tamzee (I was a vegetarian until I started leaning toward the sunlight...... Rita Rudner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: poet
Any new law passed takes another freedom away from us whether it's in the name of "security" or whatever. These laws are supposed to "protect" us from the bad guys, however, it's quite possible the bad guys just may be the ones passing these laws. In addition, these draconian laws can be used against anybody.

It is disturbing when public frenzy and hysteria empowers the government to chase down an entire class of citizens because of what they do. Look what they did to smokers. It is now safer to be a terrorist in training in this country than a smoker who is trying to save a few pennies by buying smokes on the internet or across state lines. We won't even bring up what happens when you light up in the wrong place.

This was all before 9/11 too. While we may have failed to stop terrorists from flying planes into those towers I can assure you there was a concerted effort to prevent smoking in those buildings just prior to the attacks.

Isn't it convienent that we can rationalize using the government to go after those whose lifestyles we abhor but don't want to violate the rights of those who present a real and present danger to the country as a whole? We don't need more laws, public will is enough to start a pogrom today.

14 posted on 08/17/2003 2:06:00 AM PDT by this_ol_patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bets
Gestapo? A bit inflammatory, unless the police have the authority to shoot drivers on sight who happen to be of a certain religion?

And "seemingly reasonable effort to decrease dui accidents and deaths"? How can preventing deaths only be "seemingly reasonable"? You may personally feel that the trade-off of this much personal liberty is not worth the safety it generates for those on the road, but there is no "seemingly" about deaths versus no deaths. The "slippery slope" rumbles of doom are a tactic of the lefties. We are not inanimate bocce balls with no control over the physics of our future movement; humans are rational beings that can call a halt at any point and just stop there. Yes, we can move an inch without helplessly traveling an additional mile.
15 posted on 08/17/2003 2:06:37 AM PDT by Tamzee (I was a vegetarian until I started leaning toward the sunlight...... Rita Rudner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bets; tpaine; Tamsey; poet; txflake; hemogoblin; lodwick

Given powers are always abused! Stop giving power to others freely!

**************

Court: Fake checkpoints OK in search for motorists' illegal drugs
Sunday, August 17, 2003 Posted: 0759 GMT ( 3:59 PM HKT)

DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Colorado police can set up fake checkpoints in hopes of sniffing out illegal drugs, an appeals court ruled in a case where camouflage-clad officers spied on fans during a bluegrass festival in 2000.

Thursday's ruling, which reversed an earlier finding, was based on a federal appeals court decision last year in a similar case in Oklahoma.

Police at the Telluride festival had posted signs along the road saying, "Narcotics checkpoint, one mile ahead" and "Narcotics canine ahead." Officers wearing camouflage hid on a hill and watched for any people who turned around or appeared to toss drugs out of their windows after seeing the signs.

Police pulled over Stephen Roth, 60, for littering after they found a marijuana pipe tossed from his window. Two other pipes and mushrooms were found in a search of his car.

The appeals court said that while drug checkpoints are illegal -- because motorists are stopped at random and without reasonable suspicion of committing a crime -- the discovery of the first pipe gave the officers probable cause to stop Roth's vehicle.

Roth's lawyer said he planned to appeal.

Sheriff Jerry Martin said his department conducted four fake checkpoint operations before suspending them because of the lawsuit. The operation will probably be reinstated, he said.

"We didn't dream it would be that effective. I'm telling you, they tossed stuff out of there that you couldn't believe," Martin said.

In the Oklahoma case, Mack Flynn saw checkpoint warning signs in Muskogee County, quickly got off the interstate and dropped a large sack by the roadside. The 10th Circuit agreed with his lawyers that checkpoints are illegal but ultimately ruled against him because there really weren't any checkpoints.

"The posting of signs to create a ruse does not constitute illegal police activity," that court said.

16 posted on 08/17/2003 2:13:50 AM PDT by OutSpot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OutSpot
This will probably make you absolutely furious, but I highly approve ... not a single law-abiding citizen was inconvenienced or worried at all :-)
17 posted on 08/17/2003 2:22:26 AM PDT by Tamzee (I was a vegetarian until I started leaning toward the sunlight...... Rita Rudner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
Unfortunately the end result of accepting these "small hiccups" will be that law-abiding citizen who previously were never "inconvenienced" or "worried" will end up under the cold hard rubber of a government thug's boot.

(At that point crying "how could this happen to me" will be of little use and help.

18 posted on 08/17/2003 2:34:24 AM PDT by OutSpot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OutSpot
When I see little old ladies in the streets with necks pinned under... what was it?...."under the cold hard rubber of a government thug's boot".... you can say you told me so ;-)

As I said, we are not bocce balls. There is a long, long way between DUI check-points ("How are you this evening, Ma'am?") and a Saddam-style Iraq.
19 posted on 08/17/2003 2:51:26 AM PDT by Tamzee (I was a vegetarian until I started leaning toward the sunlight...... Rita Rudner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
"There is a long, long way between DUI check-points ("How are you this evening, Ma'am?") and a Saddam-style Iraq. "

I guess you have closed your eyes to Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian, Richard Jewel etc.

There are never many worries when your head is surrounded by grains of sand.

20 posted on 08/17/2003 3:50:44 AM PDT by OutSpot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
"Scrap the Patriot Act and secure the borders."

A corrupt administration would use the Patriot Act against the population, a liberal administration would be more likely to use it than a conservative one (for liberalism tends toward socialism which tends towards communism, which by nature is all-controlling), and a conservative administration more likely to use it than a TRUE conservative administration. A TRUE conservative administration would not desire a Patriot Act, but would secure our borders and remove from our land any foreigner who is even slightly suspicious. Foreigners have no "right" to be here, thus, we can evict them at any time.

I dare suggest that supporters of the Patriot Act are either misguided "patriots" or non-patriots. If King George III had had a Patriot Act, it is quite possible that the revolution would have been stopped in its tracks before it really got started. What is there to stop us from home-grown tyranny?
21 posted on 08/17/2003 7:42:56 AM PDT by RaginCajunTrad (ask not what your government can do for you; ask your government not to do anything to you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OutSpot
Even before 9/11, I was and still am, more more afraid of the power of our own government against us than I was of Al Queda, terrorists in general, Saddam Hussein, etc. With a country as large and powerful such as ours, the enemy is always ourselves and our creations.
22 posted on 08/17/2003 7:46:01 AM PDT by RaginCajunTrad (ask not what your government can do for you; ask your government not to do anything to you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Brian S; All
Great thread.

You can have either (a) the illusion of perfect dometic safety or (b) the liberties the founding fathers envisioned.

But you can't have both.

If we value our safety over our liberty, we'll soon have neither.

I think the greatest effect in repealing Patriot Act on legislators and judges and activists has been that we become more and more aware of just how impossible it is to secure a country like America from terrorism.
23 posted on 08/17/2003 8:00:16 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Ensuring my safety is largely up to me. I do not need nor want the government to assume that role on my behalf. If terrorism gets out of hand then I will offer my services, and weaponry, to help. I don't need some GS-9 to defend me. I have no confidence in him. I don't want some government twinkie sneaking around my house because I said something they don't like or accessed some website on their banned list. People are just too scared for their own good.
24 posted on 08/17/2003 8:01:10 AM PDT by Movemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
I mean this sincerely and not to be a but: But, do you understand the importance of your Constitutional rights? This is why perfectly good criminals have cases dismissed -- yes, because of illegal search and seizures -- and I applaud that upholding of the Constitution.

The ends do NOT justify the means. You can't give up rights in order to put criminals behind bars OR to stop dui deaths. There have to be other ways found. Upholding the Constitution is currently the way our criminal justice system works - ask ANY lawyer, and he'll tell you how important it is for any policeman to avoid stepping on a Constitutional right, otherwise a case is CORRECTLY thrown out by the judge, instantly! There's a reason for that, even if you yourself do not understand it.

I repeat, the ends do not justify the means. You have to keep Constitutional rights intact.

25 posted on 08/17/2003 2:27:30 PM PDT by bets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I'll know this alleged war on terror is for real when I see troops, marshalls, Nat. Guard or whovever down at the southwest border shaking down illegals with the same intent they use on gray haired men and women in airports. It's totally insane for the fedov to take such a lame-brain approach to this whole effort. Yes, our airports need to be as secure as possible, but why is there so much $ and manpower utilized at airports at the same time parts of our borders are so porous that citizens on our border live in daily fear of their lives and property. Something stinks about the whole thing.
26 posted on 08/17/2003 3:03:59 PM PDT by american spirit (ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION = NATIONAL SUICIDE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bets
I agree and that's why is so important that we stop referring to this country as being a democracy when it was founded as a REPUBLIC...(remember what we pledge allegiance to?). Rights within a democracy are "civil rights" and can easily be manipulated by bureaucrats or even a massive voter turnout on an issue. DO WE REALLY WANT TO HAVE OUR RIGHTS IN THE FUTURE DETERMINED BY A MAJORITY OF VOTERS AND/OR THEIR REP'S WHO MAY HAVE AN AGENDA THAT MAY NOT BE IN OUR BEST INTERESTS? DOES ANYONE FORSEE PROBLEMS FOR OUR KIDS IN 20-30 YRS. WHEN WE COULD A MAJORITY OF VOTERS COMPRISED OF THOSE WHO HAVE NO ALLEGIANCE TO THIS COUNTRY AT ALL....DON'T THINK WE WANT TO TRAVEL THAT ROAD.

In a republic, we have God-given rights that are UN-A-LIEN-ABLE and cannot be voted away by those who believe in a will of the majority democratic style of gov't. It's absolutely imperative that we understand the battles that flourish around us on a daily basis and the ominous future for our loved ones if we cannot halt gov't by decree, NGO's, etc.
27 posted on 08/17/2003 3:15:19 PM PDT by american spirit (ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION = NATIONAL SUICIDE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson