Yikes...

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by KinkGuy, May 18, 2005.

  1. KinkGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southwest US
    By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is working on a bill that would renew the Patriot Act and expand government powers in the name of fighting terrorism, letting the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury.

    Much of the debate in Congress has concerned possibly limiting some of the powers in the anti-terrorism law passed 45 days after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

    But the measure being written by Sen. Pat Roberts R-Kan., would give the FBI new power to issue administrative subpoenas, which are not reviewed by a judge or grand jury, for quickly obtaining records, electronic data or other evidence in terrorism investigations, according to aides for the GOP majority on the committee who briefed reporters Wednesday.

    Recipients could challenge the subpoenas in court and the Bush administration would have to report to Congress twice a year exactly how it was using this investigatory power, the aides said.

    The administration has sought this power for two years, but so far been rebuffed by lawmakers. It is far from certain that Congress will give the administration everything it wants this year.

    Roberts' planned bill also would make it easier for prosecutors to use special court-approved warrants for secret wiretaps and searches of suspected terrorists and spies in criminal cases, the committee aides said.

    Eight expiring sections of the law that deal with foreign intelligence investigations would become permanent, they said.

    So, too, would a provision that authorizes wiretapping of suspected terrorists who operate without clear ties to a particular terrorist network.
     
  2. Pecker

    Pecker Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    83,922
    Likes Received:
    34
    ... and who'll be among the first to complain that not enough was done to prevent the disaster the next time several thousand innocent Americans on our shores lose their lives to these fanatics?
     
  3. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
    dunno. not me, that's for sure. can't speak for anyone else, but I'd rather have raghead lunatics burying landmines in my backyard than cede a single iota of my freedom to the government. I'm fine with someone wanting to kill me; many have tried and I'm sure others will too. threats to my life I can deal with. threats to my liberty I sure as hell can't.
     
  4. MattBoyMA

    MattBoyMA Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    214
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    dunno. not me, that's for sure. can't speak for anyone else, but I'd rather have raghead lunatics burying landmines in my backyard than cede a single iota of my freedom to the government. I'm fine with someone wanting to kill me; many have tried and I'm sure others will too. threats to my life I can deal with. threats to my liberty I sure as hell can't.
    [post=312633]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]


    Freedom? Wait... do we still have those here?? I thought people in places like Ohio and Florida decided we didn't want those anymore....
    :(
     
  5. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    carolinacurious:
    I WILL!(although I imagine I will be a little bit behind those just itching to give up their freedoms) They had all the laws necessary to stop it the LAST TIME! and they haven't done "jack shit dick squat nothin'" since except make the problem worse, piss and obscene amount of money away, and enact a whole bulshel of unneccessary laws. So I'll be screamin' like a fuckin' banshee when they drop the ball AGAIN!
     
  6. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    Oh, you mean like how Bush gutted all of Clinton's counter-terrorism plans?

    Rock, tigers, Homer.
     
  7. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ah, glad to see someone wants to push my libertarian buttons. I have resisted starting this thread, but now that it's here...

    Many of my friends & family think I'm some sort of conspiracy-theorist nut. I'm not, I just simply want the first 14 amendments to MY US Constitution restored. I have actually written to my senators & congressmen, asking for the actual text of various laws. Mostly, they have been refused, citing "security issues." In particular, I asked for the specific verbiage of laws requiring (or even authorizing) TSA to break into and plunder checked bags on a commercial airline flight. None was provided. I requested the specific verbiage suspending Amendments V, VI, and XIV in matters concerning "enemy combatants", and criteria for the "enemy combatant" designation - again, refused, citing "security issues." I requested specific verbiage regarding secret trials and supression of counsel for the accused. Again, "security issues."

    It just amazes me, "the machine" tried to ruin Bill & Hillary Clinton based upon suspected wrongdoing in their Whitewater land deals. I&#39;m not saying they were completely innocent, but at least nothing was found. The Whitewater Special Prosecutor (that was his official title, folks) then decided/was instructed that since nothing was found there, he should investigate Bill&#39;s sex life. Excuse me, Whitewater was over - appoint a Sex Life Special Prosecutor. Anyway, the amazement arises from the fact that Bill was impeached because he lied about a blow job, and dubya and his entire cabinet wipe their asses with my US Constitution, and no one seems to care, because he whines "National Security&#33; National security is much more important that your 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendment rights." <sigh> Come on, folks, please re-read your US Constitution, especially the amendments I have listed above. See if you think our "commander in chief" lied when he promised to "uphold the Constitution of the United States."
     
  8. Dr Rock

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,696
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    who lives in the east &#039;neath the willow tree? Sex
    no surprises. you&#39;re pointing out things they would rather ignore, or pretend to have nothing to do with them. denial&#39;s first line of defense is always to traduce the mental ability / health of its opponents.

    "you&#39;re saying the government is NOT our buddy after all - hence you must be a nutcase, because we don&#39;t wanna think about the consequences to our own security if you&#39;re right."
     
  9. Supportive Female

    Supportive Female New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    [/quote]
    no surprises. you&#39;re pointing out things they would rather ignore, or pretend to have nothing to do with them. denial&#39;s first line of defense is always to traduce the mental ability / health of its opponents.

    "you&#39;re saying the government is NOT our buddy after all - hence you must be a nutcase, because we don&#39;t wanna think about the consequences to our own security if you&#39;re right."
    [post=312735]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/quote]

    "...traduce..."

    How DARE you send a wrinkled old hag digging into her dictionary&#33; I was reading Ayn Rand before you were a gleam in some pair of mischievous eyes&#33;

    (Absolutely no respect for the suffering elders...)
     
  10. ashlar

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,013
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Harrisburg, Pa.
    Ahh DC you saved me so much typing. Thank you.

    Ditto.
     
  11. D_Humper E Bogart

    D_Humper E Bogart New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,226
    Likes Received:
    2
    With a modern missile defence system costing billions of dollars, how could someone not notice 3 PLANES going off course?

    My 6 year old cousin isn&#39;t working at air traffic control y&#39;know.

    Anyway, terrorists are already killing thousands. Seen the murder statistics recently?
     
  12. Bananaman

    Bananaman New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western U.S.
    Let me add my thanks to ashlar&#39;s, DC. You&#39;ve said what I&#39;ve been thinking and said it better than I ever could.
    I will only add what I&#39;ve said before: It&#39;s a sad thing when anarchy begins to look appealing......

    B-man
     
  13. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    I wonder how many times Martha said, "George, just pay the goddamned taxes and let it go." Thank you, guys, for your compliments on my post. But please, take it a step farther and at least contact your House and Senate representatives, and let them know that this erosion of our rights and liberties is NOT acceptable. Encourage everyone you know to do the same. I&#39;m not letting it rest - I question everything, and almost always (even for non-important issues) get non-answer answers. I sometimes have to write 3 or 4 times on one issue to get anything out of these jerks here in Washington. I&#39;m exhausted, but I keep going. Please help me. I&#39;ll be glad to share insight and information about Constitutional issues, Bill of Rights, civil liberties, with anyone who cares, anyone who if afraid of the direction this administration is herding us. Plus - don&#39;t be a sheep. Don&#39;t let TSA be bullies when you fly. After about 12 confrontations, and probably as many complaints filed with their central office, I think I am finally off their "harrass" list. We have to be vigilant. If you don&#39;t believe me, read a couple of histories of Hitler&#39;s rise to power in Germany. He didn&#39;t overthrow the government, he was a very persuasive speaker in a former world power that was currently in a fiscal depression. He slowly (in the name of national security, so to speak) stripped the people of their rights, one by one. By the time the populace realized what was going on, it was too late. Anyone who spoke out after that point tended to disappear. Please don&#39;t be complacent.

    Oh, and don&#39;t forget - the "patriot" act is up for renewal vote, and the "national ID" thing is coming up - it is TERRIFYING. Check it out.
     
  14. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well, the only way to quantify this is in number of people dying. Guess what? Terrorism ranks DEAD LAST. Distant second- and third-to-last include natural disasters and murder. It just happens these are the only deaths which don&#39;t hurt corporate sponsorship.
     
  15. Hockeytiger

    Hockeytiger Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    82
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwestern US
    Overall I agree that it is good to be a little paranoid when it comes to the exercise of the government’s power or expansion thereof. However, why not actually educate ourselves on the subject rather than make snap judgments? The administrative subpoena is NOT a new thing. It has been around for years. It already applies to around 300 crimes. If you are going to argue that administrative subpoenas are inherently wrong and should be done away with, that is logically consistent argument. I just don’t see how it is more wrong of the Justice Department to want to use an administrative subpoena to search your business records for terrorist related activity than to subpoena those same records to search for evidence of money laundering.

    DC, I applaud your desire to make sure the government actually has the authority to do the things it does. The regulations concerning Trials by Military Commission seem to be covered under 32 CFR 9-18. The regs concerning airport and aircraft security seem to be covered under 49 CFR 1542-1544. Specifically, the reg concerning the searching of checked baggage seems to be 49 CFR 1544.203. (BTW I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with your concerns here. I just wanted to help you out in finding the appropriate regulations.)
     
  16. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    But Bush has this annoying habit of defining these "enemy combatants" as two contradictory classes of defendants at once, thus circumventing any and all regulations.

    Hmm . . . Quantum law. What a concept.
     
  17. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    You are correct, 49 CFR 1544.203 DOES specifically address screening of baggage; however, you should read that citation. It deals specifically with explosives and incendiaries, and places the responsibility upon the carrier to ensure that explosives and incendiaries are not loaded and transported. It does NOT indicate anywhere that TSA has the authority to damage and pilfer my baggage when I am travelling, nor does it excuse TSA or the airline from probably cause or due process restrictions. I did, once, ask a TSA agent why they wanted to search my bag physically; they refused to tell me and said for security reasons, they cannot tell my why my baggage garnered suspicion after X-ray. I am not educated? I make snap judgements? No, I think not. Just because a regulation is titled "screening and acceptance of baggage" that does not mean that it does what they say it does. You have to actually READ the text of the CFR.
     
  18. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Just another for-instance: I was elected treasurer of a 501-c(3) organization. When the accounts were to be amended to have me as primary signatory, the bank person told me they would need to have my social security number on the account. I told her "no, that is not my personal account, you will not be reporting any of the interest to my taxpayer ID number, so no, you may not have my SSN. You may identify me with my passport." She argued with me, and eventually told me that it was required by the Patriot Act. I researched it, and the Patriot Act (a very long and boring document) actually said nothing of the sort. I asked for a printout of the specific text, they "couldn&#39;t find it." I requested that their attorney find the information for me. He never returned any of my 7 calls. This whole process took about 3 weeks, during which time I was not able to get much of my work done. When I went back in and demanded to speak to the bank manager about it, the customer service person told me that on second thought, it was not law, but just the common bank policy, and she could amend the account without the SSN. I&#39;m still having battles with Virginia DMV regarding use of my SSN in getting a drivers license. SSN is NOT to be used for identification purposes. It no longer says that on the card, but it is still part of the Privacy Act. I just don&#39;t want to be in any of the national databases, nor do I just blindly follow like a sheep, and take "their" word for it.
     
  19. Hockeytiger

    Hockeytiger Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    82
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwestern US
    By definition they have the right open your baggage to inspect it for explosives and incendiaries, if that is what you are concerned about when you talk about “pilfering”. There is no least intrusive means requirement. Normal wear and tear in the handling of baggage has always been excused. Anything beyond normal wear and tear is compensable, but in reality is tough to recover.

    Those regulations would never deal with due process concerns. That is left to the courts, and in fact they have weighed in on the subject both directly and indirectly. There are three lines of reasoning permitting them.
    1) Implied Consent – A person can consent to a search and by doing so waives her Fourth Amendment protection that might otherwise require the person performing the search to prove that probable cause existed to warrant the particular search. Courts often refer to the implied consent doctrine in upholding airport searches as constitutional when the persons searched had the option to either resist the search and forgo the opportunity to enter the restricted area, or to undergo the search and proceed in the boarding process. See United States v. Miner, 484 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1973).
    2) Administrative Search – This approach was carried over to searches in the airport context by the court in United States v. Davis. This approach allows security officers to search passengers without a warrant provided that the following three requirements are met. First, the search must be “conducted as a part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose” (here, preventing weapons from being taken on planes). Second, the passenger must have consented in that she voluntarily advanced through the security checkpoint. Third, the search must meet the general Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement. Davis, 482 F.2d at 893. (Please remember that probable cause is only required for searches requiring warrants. Warrants are required to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. Airport screenings are considered reasonable under the circumstances, and as such do not require warrants and therefore do not need probable cause.)
    3) Critical Zone – This test, found in the Moreno and Skipwith line of cases, allows searches in airport boarding areas by analogizing these searches to the warrantless searches permitted at the nation’s borders on the theory that both are “critical zones.” United States v. Moreno, 475 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Skipwith, 482 F.2d 1272 (5th Cir. 1973).
     
  20. Hockeytiger

    Hockeytiger Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    82
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwestern US
    I&#39;m glad you did that. IMO people people shouldn&#39;t just take their word for it. If you find a certain requirement objectionable, make them prove it&#33;
     
Draft saved Draft deleted