Anti Patriot Act - Fox News

[gtbro1]

ok lets say a DHS agent "abuses" his power.. what do you mean by that? what actions could he do to constitute abuse? do you mean like tapping into someones phone line just for fun?

 yep...or I mean by writing his own search warrant to search someones house just to be a dick. I am not saying they do that stuff...just saying that they could if they wanted..just like a cop can pull you over for no reason if they want..all they gota do is invent a reason.Again, I'm not saying they do this or will do it...just that they could if they wanted to and that's the part I don't like.

[Hugo Chavez]

HH6... Stop thinking so much in the now.  People have kids who will grow up in the world we leave them.  It really doesn't matter if abuse isn't occurring now... The foundation is being laid for massive abuse.  It's irrelevant that current people in power are or aren't abusing power.  You just absolutely can't say future individuals in power won't do so, especially when it's established law backing them.  The only way you can assure the next guys in power won't do this is not to lay the foundation for them to do it!!!

[Cap]

Okay.  Don't you watch the news?

Please WIKI the anthrax attacks, spend 5 min reading, then come back here and apologize, then challenge what you'd like.  You're questioning common facts reported on the news, cap.  Embarassing yourself here.

Lol.  I'm not disputing facts but your interpretation of them and saying that a group that was against a piece of legislation would vote for it because of anthrax scares.  Can you prove that one caused the other?  Is it solely because of the scare that a group who "was going to demolish" the legislation decided to do a 180? That is my problem with your posts, not your post of actual events.  Did the FBI destroy their anthrax for the purpose you stated?  Is that a fact as well?  Is there a sinister intention behind everything?

[240 is Back]

Lol.  I'm not disputing facts but your interpretation of them and saying that a group that was against a piece of legislation would vote for it because of anthrax scares.  Can you prove that one caused the other?  Is it solely because of the scare that a group who "was going to demolish" the legislation decided to do a 180? That is my problem with your posts, not your post of actual events.  Did the FBI destroy their anthrax for the purpose you stated?  Is that a fact as well?  Is there a sinister intention behind everything?

You're drawing all sorts of conclusons there.

I just stated the events.  It came to the place and decision makers, and prevented it from being debated on the floor. 

You can chalk that up to anything you wish.

[Cap]

You're drawing all sorts of conclusons there.

I just stated the events.  It came to the place and decision makers, and prevented it from being debated on the floor. 

You can chalk that up to anything you wish.

You drew two conclusions in your posts.  That is evident in the posts.

[headhuntersix]

Beserk I understand that...I can forsee a way that the Libs could use this to limit our ability to keep guns or limit free speech as they try to do on college campuses. I think that the threat has not been laid out effectivly by this govenrment. The dems will need to make a stronger case if they want maintain this law, after capturing the White House.

[gtbro1]

I'm for an ANTI- act.  We can pass it in the middle of the night before anybody reads it!

I second that nomination...

[Hugo Chavez]

Beserk I understand that...I can forsee a way that the Libs could use this to limit our ability to keep guns or limit free speech as they try to do on college campuses. I think that the threat has not been laid out effectivly by this govenrment. The dems will need to make a stronger case if they want maintain this law, after capturing the White House.

oh yea, because only a lib would abuse their power.  I got you, Dems will have the power removed if they don't make a "stronger case" than republicans...  OMG HH6... OMG... you clearly do not understand what I said.

[kh300]

 yep...or I mean by writing his own search warrant to search someones house just to be a dick. I am not saying they do that stuff...just saying that they could if they wanted..just like a cop can pull you over for no reason if they want..all they gota do is invent a reason.Again, I'm not saying they do this or will do it...just that they could if they wanted to and that's the part I don't like.

you cant do that! that is not the patriot act. not even close. have you read the whole act? or just going by misconceptions?

[gtbro1]

you cant do that! that is not the patriot act. not even close. have you read the whole act? or just going by misconceptions?

just commenting on what the man said in the video.

[kh300]

just commenting on what the man said in the video.

nothing has change for law enforcement in america.. the act is for FOREIGN INTELLEGENCE ONLY.. so people complaining about our rights being taken away are clueless. because LE isnt allowed to do anything they couldnt before. before the act, if we thought someone was involved in drug trafficking, we could go in and wiretap and do surveillance no problem,, but if we thought a terrorist in Afghanistan was planning an attack, we wernt allowed to do shit.. so what this does is use the same laws and rules weve used in america for decades, but now we can use them internationally.

i dont see how anyone who is educated in the matter can be against this
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/highlights.htm

[Hugo Chavez]

FOREIGN INTELLEGENCE ONLY..

LOLOLOLOLOL... yea, we've seen how this becomes an easy path to spy on Kevin Bacon from any terrorist in the world

[Dos Equis]

What specific provisions of the Patriot Act are people concerned about? 

[headhuntersix]

I know a guy who works in Cali as part of the FBI counter terrorism task force.  I asked him about all of this in the spring., He said that after 911 it was easy as hell to get anything u wanted, warrents, wire taps etc etc..now its near on impossible because of the oversight and how careful judges and the legal review is on making sure that the Feds aren't going nuts. The pendulum has swung the other way. Beserk I think ur safe.

[Dos Equis]

I know a guy who works in Cali as part of the FBI counter terrorism task force.  I asked him about all of this in the spring., He said that after 911 it was easy as hell to get anything u wanted, warrents, wire taps etc etc..now its near on impossible because of the oversight and how careful judges and the legal review is on making sure that the Feds aren't going nuts. The pendulum has swung the other way. Beserk I think ur safe.

So why are people sounding the alarm?  What has the Patriot Act done to take away anyone's freedoms? 

[Livewire]

So why are people sounding the alarm?  What has the Patriot Act done to take away anyone's freedoms? 

Hi beach bum,

Many fear that the patriot act is a bridge to major abuses.  It opens up door to 4th amendment being "flexible".

***IF*** you were going to take away rights of the people, you'd need a Patriot Act FIRST to pave the way.  That's what people who study history are worried about. 

[Dos Equis]

Hi beach bum,

Many fear that the patriot act is a bridge to major abuses.  It opens up door to 4th amendment being "flexible".

***IF*** you were going to take away rights of the people, you'd need a Patriot Act FIRST to pave the way.  That's what people who study history are worried about. 

What's up Livewire.  Thanks for the response.  I agree that it is easier to erode rights gradually and that one bad piece of legislation can be a gateway to abuse.  What I'm trying to determine is precisely what part of the Patriot Act people believe have eroded rights.  I confess I have not read the entire thing and I suspect many of the people complaining about it probably haven't read the entire Act either.  Here is a link (I think):   http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

[Livewire]

What's up Livewire.  Thanks for the response.  I agree that it is easier to erode rights gradually and that one bad piece of legislation can be a gateway to abuse.  What I'm trying to determine is precisely what part of the Patriot Act people believe have eroded rights.  I confess I have not read the entire thing and I suspect many of the people complaining about it probably haven't read the entire Act either.  Here is a link (I think):   http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

People on both sides of the issue always take extreme positions.

Far-right republicans will say the Act is great, we should have ten more just like it, and it doesn't hurt rights one bit.

Far-left alarmists will say the Act is horrible, that it opens up every door and email in America to secret searches, and FBI can abuse it (which I think it's shown 10% of cases show abuse with FISA).

The truth is in the middle.  Yeah, it gives Bush power to watch folks without them knowing.  yeah, there have been abuses.  Both sides are playing the best/worst case scanario to scare people into believing them.  Repubs say without it, we'll be attacked.  Dems was with it, we'll be Big Brother tomorrow.  They're both exaggerating.



Now, if Prez Rudy declares a Patriot Act II, with much greater and far-reaching powers, well then I hope some in the middle start to get a little nervous. 

[Soul Crusher]

Who said anything about a consipracy?

Did you even know that anthrax was the sole reason the patriot act (planned and completed right BEFORE 9/11 mind you), even passed?

The Act was so intrusive that even after 9/11, it was going to get demolished on the senate floor.  But, conveniently, anthrax shut down the building and they had to vote without debating it, or even READING all of it. 

Please tell me what facts I have wrong here.  Because if my facts are all correct, then I have a reality.  YOU would be the one with some crazy conspiracy here.  I'm just repeating facts. 

do you condemn your hero Obama for expanding the Patriot Act?