White House Engaged in Patriot Act Misinformation (ACLU)

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Thank you, James. I agree.

I often don't agree with the ACLU, but in this case, I think they're right on. I've said before that the Patriot Act is the most dangerous infringement of our Consitutional Rights in memory.

Why didn't you care when most of it was enacted under Clinton? Is it because of the administration or the act? I think it's needed and the gains from it in the last few years have been immense.

-Rudey

[James]

The patriot act was passed under Clinton? I didn't know. But honestly, had I known that I was have thought he was as much a salad tosser for it as this group.

Rudey, I would have thought that you would believe in defending rights of privacy as well as freedome of speech? Thats not an attack. Just seeking clarification.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by James
The patriot act was passed under Clinton? I didn't know. But honestly, had I known that I was have thought he was as much a salad tosser for it as this group.

Rudey, I would have thought that you would believe in defending rights of privacy as well as freedome of speech? Thats not an attack. Just seeking clarification.

A, B, and C are legal.

I can talk about A, B, and C.

D is clearly illegal and E can be used for something illegal although it's legal.

Freedom of Speech allows me to talk about any and all of these things. The Patriot Act looks at if I'm doing D and if I'm using E in an illegal way as well. If I'm doing A, B, and C it won't matter.

Yes James I would like to have it that there won't be a need for this and I don't want anyone looking into my personal affairs, but I also don't want to be blown up at an airport because the records of some terrorist were protected.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

It may be that parts of what later became known as the Patroit Act were passed under Clinton -- although I never heard of any -- but the bill known as The Patroit Act was passed after 9/11.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
It may be that parts of what later became known as the Patroit Act were passed under Clinton -- although I never heard of any -- but the bill known as The Patroit Act was passed after 9/11.

Most...not parts.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

HR 3162 RDS

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3162
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 24, 2001


Above is the header from The Patriot Act.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
HR 3162 RDS

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3162
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 24, 2001


Above is the header from The Patriot Act.

The Name given as well as certain changes made would follow this but most of what is in the act was available because Clinton allowed for it.

Why is this a Republican or Democrat issue? It was passed 375-66in the House and 98-1 in the Senate - not too many Dems voted against eh (Kerry voted for it btw and still supports it)?

Much has been said about section 216 which only modified pen register and trap and trace.

The ACLU wants to talk about facts. Let's talk about them.

1) They acknowledge that most of what falls under the Patriot Act was available before.

2) The ACLU sued to find out what information the government had obtained from library records because it was so worried. Prior and during the suit, all sorts of audacious claims were made against Ashcroft. They went on to say 85 out of 1500 libraries had passed on information to the FBI. The result was (hold your applause) NOTHING because not once had there been an effort to obtain these library records.

-Rudey

[DeltAlum]

I never called it a Republican/Democrat issue. I called it an infringement on our Constitutional Rights.

I took a look at the act, and it does indeed bring forth, and in some cases amend, many pieces from Title 18 of the US Code -- some of which I saw were written as long ago as the Eisenhower Administration -- probably some before since I don't have the time to read the whole thing.

However, the most worrisome issues to me are the ones passed soon after 9/11 -- which is on President Bush's watch.

By the way, I'll just bet that Howard Stern has had his phone tapped. I mean if the Nixon era folks were worried about groups like the Boy Scouts...

Well, Howard ain't one of them.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I never called it a Republican/Democrat issue. I called it an infringement on our Constitutional Rights.

I took a look at the act, and it does indeed bring forth, and in some cases amend, many pieces from Title 18 of the US Code -- some of which I saw were written as long ago as the Eisenhower Administration -- probably some before since I don't have the time to read the whole thing.

However, the most worrisome issues to me are the ones passed soon after 9/11 -- which is on President Bush's watch.

By the way, I'll just bet that Howard Stern has had his phone tapped. I mean if the Nixon era folks were worried about groups like the Boy Scouts...

Well, Howard ain't one of them.

Everyone has their phone tapped in a way...but that's a whole other issue.

Since you're so worried about certain parts that were passed, let's ease your mind by talking about those parts and how they're different from before.

-Rudey
--And you didn't seem to care about Stern and freedom of speech before so let's not keep bringing him into this

[James]

Rudey, I think where people get upset is the parts the of the bill that were basically Law enforcements wish list . . a thing they could never get passed before. We are talking about parts that increase the latitude that law enforcement has when dealiing with situations that are not terrorist.

Just as the leeway for investigating suspected spies didn't bother most of us, investigating suspected terrorists doesn't phase us either. However, that shouldn't be used to just increase police powers across the board.

Generally you are not going to stop terrorists by turing all maericans into suspects that have to be watched.

9/11 was a simple elegant plan that took advantage of our "cooperate with hijackers and they won't hurt you mentality".

Adopting the Israeli apporach to cockpits would make that impossible.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by James
Rudey, I think where people get upset is the parts the of the bill that were basically Law enforcements wish list . . a thing they could never get passed before. We are talking about parts that increase the latitude that law enforcement has when dealiing with situations that are not terrorist.

Just as the leeway for investigating suspected spies didn't bother most of us, investigating suspected terrorists doesn't phase us either. However, that shouldn't be used to just increase police powers across the board.

Generally you are not going to stop terrorists by turing all maericans into suspects that have to be watched.

9/11 was a simple elegant plan that took advantage of our "cooperate with hijackers and they won't hurt you mentality".

Adopting the Israeli apporach to cockpits would make that impossible.

Again, James if you'd like to talk about what details bother you, we can - not a general "what's changed after 9-11".

-Rudey