|
|
socrateez
Stoned Philosopher
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 1162
Location: I'm the person to your right.
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: USA Patriot Act - Bye Bye Civil Liberties... |
 |
|
|
Next to the Constitution itself, this history making legislature desrves attention by everyone concerned about his or her freedoms and rights as set forth in our Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act(Gotta love Wiki)
An excerpt from wiki:
"Although the Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress, it has been criticized from its inception for weakening protections of civil liberties. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.
Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[1] [bold]The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by President Bush on March 9, 2006"[bold/]
What Fourth Amendment rights?
How can they even say they are protecting our rights and freedoms as they make laws to diminish or even negate them?!
   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
von
Activist
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
socrateez thanks, again you have pointed out a very important part. i think if the public was able to vote on the patriot act it would be scraped.
 peace & compassion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dagobaker
Antiprohibitionist
Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: victims to patriot act? |
|
|
|
| wondering if anyone has been busted using the patriot act while........sell......using.......transporting mjane only..........ie if u were also doing "real" drugs that doesnt count .......i figured they were using that act to catch terrorists.,not joint smokers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
socrateez
Stoned Philosopher
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 1162
Location: I'm the person to your right.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
From ACLU website:
Washington, DC – Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon attorney falsely linked to terrorism, sent a statement to Congress this month urging the body against legislation that would overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Mayfield was subject to unconstitutional surveillance under the Patriot Act and subsequently arrested and held without charge. Mayfield wrote a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee members Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Russell Feingold (D-WI) asking that they consider the effect that the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 would have on innocent Americans.
"Mr. Mayfield’s case is a cautionary tale," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "When we give the government too much power at the cost of our civil liberties, no one is safe. Mr. Mayfield’s experience has taught us that expanding government powers without checks and balances can actually effect and ruin people's lives. Congress has an obligation to make certain that innocent Americans and their rights are protected."
With both the House and Senate considering legislation to gut FISA, the ACLU is raising serious concerns about any proposed law that would not include individualized warrants and other Fourth Amendment protections. Mr. Mayfield was the victim of ill-conceived and hastily passed legislation. The ACLU noted that if major changes are not made to both the House and Senate bills, there will be many more like Mr. Mayfield in the future.
"When legislation is written that waters down the standard of the Fourth Amendment, it is not the guilty who suffer, but the innocent," said Mayfield in his statement. "The Patriot Act weakened the requirements the government needed under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to bug my home and office, and this weakening of the law – now found unconstitutional – caused the framework designed to protect the innocent to fail."
Also read:
http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/facts.html
Would you have wanted to have been one of this guys clients while he was under surveillance? Or, was he under surveillance because of his clientele? Are any attorneys now under surveillance?
I'm not the biggest fan of Lawyers, but attorney-client confidentiality seems null and void here.
Thats akin to having a guy in a black suit and sunglasses standing over you at the Doctors office, while you get a prostrate exam or Pap Smear!
[/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
von
Activist
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
that makes one think, HUMM i wonder how many terrorist were actually cought using the patriot-act. 
i think invasion of privacy is more the issue. we all want to catch the terrorist with the patriot act.  but they 'terrorist' do not use my cell phone, so why are they listening to my conversation?
peace & pot 
Last edited by von on Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
socrateez
Stoned Philosopher
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 1162
Location: I'm the person to your right.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
In another thread there is a story about the people that are caught at our airports. It isn't terrorists.
They end up catching petty crimes. More milking of the public for money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr.C
Do You Wanna Get High
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 596
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
in a related note
==========
House Passes Compromise Terror Surveillance Bill, Plan Heads to Senate
Friday, June 20, 2008
WASHINGTON — The House Friday easily approved a compromise bill setting new electronic surveillance rules that effectively shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits arising from the government's terrorism-era warrantless eavesdropping on phone and computer lines in this country.
The bill, which was passed on a 293-129 vote, does more than just protect the telecoms. The update to the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is an attempt to balance privacy rights with the government's responsibility to protect the country against attack, taking into account changes in telecommunications technologies.
"This bill, though imperfect, protects both," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., and a former member of the intelligence committee.
President Bush praised the bill Friday. "It will help our intelligence professionals learn enemies' plans for new attacks," he said in a statement before television cameras a few hours before the vote.
The House's passage of the FISA Amendment bill marks the beginning of the end to a monthslong standoff between Democrats and Republicans about the rules for government wiretapping inside the United States. The Senate was expected to pass the bill with a large margin, perhaps as soon as next week, before Congress takes a break during the week of the Fourth of July.
The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years after the Sept. 11 attacks without permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the 1978 law. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the telecommunications companies by groups and individuals who think the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails.
The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies.
The compromise bill directs a federal district court to review certifications from the attorney general saying the telecommunications companies received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. If the paperwork were deemed in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit.
It would also require the inspectors general of the Justice Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies to investigate the wiretapping program, with a report due in a year.
Critics of the bill say dismissal is a foregone conclusion.
"These provisions turn the judiciary into the administration's rubber stamp," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. She opposes the bill.
Opponents of immunity believe civil lawsuits are the only way the full extent of the wiretapping program will ever be revealed.
Key senators voiced strong opposition to the compromise, although they're unlikely to have the votes to either defeat or filibuster the bill. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, condemned the immunity deal. He said that nothing in the new bill would prevent the government from once again wiretapping domestic phone and computer lines without court permission.
Specter said the problem is constitutional: The White House may still assert that the president's Article II powers as commander in chief supersede statutes that would limit him actions.
"Only the courts can decide that issue and this proposal dodges it," Specter said.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California disputed that, saying FISA would from now on be the authority for the government to conduct electronic surveillance.
"There is no inherent authority of the president to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy, not a monarchy," she said.
Some civil liberties and privacy groups are also opposing the bill. They object not only to the immunity provision but to what they consider the weakening of the FISA court's oversight of government eavesdropping. For example, the government can initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost. It has a week to file the request for approval with the court, and the court has 30 days to act on it. But if the court objects to how the government is carrying out the wiretap, it could be weeks before those methods are changed or stopped.
"What we have here is the opportunity for the government to commit mass untargeted surveillance," said Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.
Opponents also contend the privacy of Americans who communicate with people overseas is not adequately protected. The bill would allow the government to tap the foreigner's calls without court approval, and critics contend that innocent American conversations can be swept up in that.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendment bill also would:
—Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.
—Prohibit targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop, without court approval, on an American's calls or e-mails.
—Require the government to protect American information or conversations that are collected when in communications with targeted foreigners.
—Allow the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
—Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
—Prohibits the president from superseding surveillance rules in the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group |
|
|
|
