http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...wh/patriot_act
Bush Aims to Expand USA Patriot Act
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Defeated in his bid to expand the USA Patriot Act, the law both praised as a weapon for fighting terror and criticized as intrusive in Americans' lives, President Bush (news - web sites) is raising his voice to persuade Congress to at least renew the measure.



He may not get all of what he wants, either.


Several conservative Republicans have joined liberal Democrats in threatening to allow portions of the law to die at the end of next year, saying they are too intrusive into Americans' lives.


But the war on terrorism needs such a tool, Bush told law enforcement officials and military cadets in Roswell, N.M., on Thursday.


"See, it's a different kind of war," Bush insisted. "We're in a different era. We need to view law differently. We'll always protect our Constitution and safeguard individual rights. But our law enforcement, those who collect information and share information and (are) expected to act on information, must be able to talk together."


While Congress rejected Bush's call last year to expand the Patriot Act, it also did nothing to roll back any of its provisions despite a flood of protests around the nation.


This year, Republican Sens. Larry Craig of Idaho, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and John Sununu of New Hampshire are among those joining with Democrats on legislation to put controls on some of its police powers.


Craig, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites), has gone so far as to say Congress will let portions of the Patriot Act expire if changes aren't crafted to impose more judicial oversight of how police and prosecutors conduct investigations.


The stalemate has continued, though election-year politics, terror alerts and the prospect of another Sept. 11 could change that. However, Bush isn't waiting until after the election to try to persuade Congress to renew the law as "an important part of fighting the war on terror."


Passed overwhelmingly by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act greatly expanded the government's surveillance and detention powers.


Concerned about possible abuses, lawmakers set a Jan. 1, 2006 expiration date on many of the wiretapping and surveillance measures, including a provision that gives federal officials access to records of what people check out from libraries or buy from bookstores.


Last June, Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) asked Congress to amend the law to give the Justice Department (news - web sites) expanded powers to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely before trials and to allow the government to seek the death penalty or life imprisonment for any terrorist act. He also sought new law to let prosecutors bring charges against anyone who supports or works with suspected terrorist groups.


The following month, Congress moved in just the opposite direction, with the House voting to prohibit the use of federal funds for "sneak and peek" searches that the law says can be conducted without a property owner's or resident's knowledge and with warrants delivered afterward.


Republican leaders, however, refused to include the language in the massive omnibus spending bill for the Justice Department and most other nonmilitary government agencies that the Senate passed Thursday and sent to Bush.


The only expansion of Patriot Act-like powers to get through Congress was a measure making it easier for FBI (news - web sites) terrorism investigators to demand financial records from casinos, car dealerships and other businesses.


Supporters said the measure, included in an intelligence bill, will further help authorities identify money laundering and other activities that fund terrorism. Opponents said it doesn't provide enough safeguards to ensure that authorities won't violate the privacy of innocent people.


GOP Rep. Butch Otter of Idaho, a leading critic of the Patriot Act, called the financial records measure an aberration. Many lawmakers and businesses didn't pay much attention to the provision, Otter said, and colleagues told him they would have tried to strip it out of the intelligence bill if they had known about it.





"We've really come a long way in two years, and we've really brought an awareness to the Patriot Act and its overreaches that we gave to law enforcement," Otter said. "We've also quieted any idea of Patriot II, even though they snuck some of Patriot II in on the intelligence bill."

These conspiracy theories belong to the national enquirer with the stories about sightings of Elvis and UFO's.

I just have one point, with the patriot act you could be held prisoner without being charged. before it was illegal, if they have one little inkling that you mave not like what goes on in this country, who can now be held captive indefinatly without any reason.

Personly, I have to say yes I am a bit paranoid, but this makes me angry.

http://home.frontiernet.net/newsdeta...=3&id=46333341
Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional
Associated Press


A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism statute unconstitutional, said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project.

In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.

John Tyler, the Justice Department attorney who argued the case, had no comment and referred calls to the department press office in Washington. A message left there was not immediately returned.

The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey.

The Humanitarian Law Project, which brought the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds' campaign for self-determination in Turkey.

The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals.

"The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature," the judge said.

Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

--Benjamin Franklin

or for a wider view of the current situation...

"Why, of course the people don't want war ... But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

--Hermann Goering,
Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

I just love the way it's called the 'Patriot' Act, for no discernable reason except that they think it sounds nice. Bizarre.

So they can brainlessly accuse people who don't support it of not being patriots (then refer to Goering quote above).

*yawn* not that old argument again

I think Sixgun best described my response to this...
otherwise, lazaruscorporat described it, for what it actually is;

I think that these quotes are better:

"Many so-called normal people are in fact very paranoid; they're just paranoid about the wrong things."
"The same guy who can't believe the army could ever do anything evil and anti-American may be convinced that the Devil sends heavy metal bands out to corrupt our youth. He's paranoid about 'Marijuana fiends' but drives drunk. He's paranoid about sex and violence on TV but thinks everyone should have their own automatic weapon. He's learned that the media are controlled by liberals, because he listens to right-wing blather all day long on the radio.
-Rev. Ivan Stang; from The big Book of Conspiracies

It's not point for point but it describes the same exact mentality.

The Patriot Act allowed for things normally considered infringments on civil rights. They also had plans to put in a second part to the Patriot Act, which would've gone much further into a far more infringment of said civil rights. In fact, the second part to the Patriot Act was considered one of the worst things ever thought up.

And the original Patriot Act passed as it did not because it was good, but due to the shock factor of 9/11. Carefully timed it was proposed when people were still struggling to get over the "horror" of terrorism having strucken America(even though terrorism has occured many times before).

Section 802 of the Act amends the criminal code, 18 U.S.C. § 2331, to
add a new definition of “domestic terrorism” to include activities that:
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the
criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
( appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping; or
(iii) to effect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States.

Any action you might make will be a potential terrorist action due to the Patriot Act.

If you don't understand why that is..let me explain:
(A) deals with any action which is dangerous to human life(or in violation of the criminal laws of the US or any of it's States) makes you a domestic terrorist. Now this can include such things as driving while drunk, smoking in public(second hand smoke IS dangerous) or even anything as simple as taking some money from someone's car(violation of criminal laws).

( helps us enforce even more restrictions..what with the "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;". That statement helps stop anyone who might attempt to even coerce a "civilian population"(1 to infinite civilians under the Geneva Convention is a civilian population) makes them a domestic terrorist. Yes..so if you try and coerce someone into doing something as simplistic as buying skim milk you are a domestic terrorist!


So there's one reason why the Patriot Act is complete and utter stupidity..

As of December 5, 2001, the State
Department, at the Attorney General’s request, had designated
thirty-nine groups as “terrorist organizations.” Under section 411,
any alien who is deemed to have made statements in support of, or
contributed funds to, such organizations, or associated with alleged
members thereof, is subject to deportation. As in the case of
prosecutions for “sedition,” the United States has frequently
deported aliens upon suspicion that they support unpopular political
positions. The additional authority granted by the Patriot Act raises
the very real specter of “blacklisting” as an accepted immigration
policy, reminiscent of McCarthyism in the 1950s. This activity could
have a devastating effect on the First Amendment rights of Muslims
in the United States to practice their religion and support the Muslim
faith.


Section 215 of the Act permits seizures from businesses,
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”), of
records and other tangible items, including computer systems, upon
the Attorney General’s certification that the seizure is in furtherance
of “an investigation to protect against international terrorism or
clandestine intelligence activities.” The Patriot Act further
prohibits persons from disclosing that they have any knowledge of
such seizures. In other words, the owners and officers of the
business are gagged from disclosing that they have been the subject
of an FBI search and seizure, presumably including disclosures to the
media. Moreover, the court issuing the subpoena is prohibited from
disclosing the purpose of the order.

HAHAHA

and you realise the discussions here can be considered violations of the patriot act...

As the internet discussions can now hold a person accountable for "suggested violence" against this nation....

This is my favorite one:

In spite of the Supreme Court’s cautions and the statutory mandate
for the “knock and announce” protocol, section 213 of the Patriot Act
permits federal law enforcement officials to delay giving notice of the
execution of a search warrant to the subject of the warrant, even until
after it has been executed, if notification may have an adverse
result.

Pretty much they can search your house and such without warning, not to mention under that same little bit of crap it deals with how they can seize your crap if "it is necessary" and inform you of how they seized it weeks/months later....and I haven't even covered everything that is considered wrong with the Patriot Act

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...iot_act_veto_4
Ashcroft: Bush to Veto Pared Patriot Act
By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration intensified its defense of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act on Thursday, threatening to veto legislation in Congress that would scale back key provisions.


Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites), in a letter to Senate leaders, said the changes proposed in the Security and Freedom Ensured Act, known as SAFE, would "undermine our ongoing campaign to detect and prevent catastrophic attacks."


Ashcroft told reporters that President Bush (news - web sites) would veto the bill if it reached his desk.


The threat came a week after Bush, in his State of the Union address, urged Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act before it expires in 2005. A few months earlier, Ashcroft embarked on a 32-city speaking tour in a bid to answer critics who contend the law threatens civil liberties and privacy rights.


Ashcroft said the political offensive "reflects the stakes America has in the war on terror. When American lives are at stake, we need to have all the capacities to disrupt and to defeat terrorism that we've been successfully using over the last 28 months."


The Patriot Act, passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, expanded the government's wiretap and other surveillance authority, removed barriers between FBI (news - web sites) and CIA (news - web sites) information-sharing, and provided more tools for terror finance investigations.


Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) and a staunch critic of the new law, said the veto threat shows that the Bush administration is on the defensive. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging a key portion of the law, and 241 state and local governments also have gone on record opposing it.


"The attorney general's attack on the SAFE Act shows how out of step the Bush administration is with growing national concern over the Patriot Act," Romero said.


Earlier this month in Los Angeles, a federal judge issued the first court ruling striking down a portion of the law. U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that provisions barring "expert advice or assistance" to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations was too vague, threatening First and Fifth Amendment rights.


The SAFE Act, which has not yet had a hearing in either the House or Senate, was introduced last fall by Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; and other lawmakers of both parties who say the Patriot Act has gone too far.


"Attorney General Ashcroft's response today is an unfortunate overreaction to a reasoned and measured effort to mend the Patriot Act," Durbin said Thursday. "I believe it is possible to combat terrorism and preserve our individual freedoms at the same time.


"This legislation restores the necessary checks and balances to the system."


The bill would modify so-called "sneak and peek" search warrants that allow for indefinitely delayed notification when a person's property is searched, mandating such notice within a week's time.


In addition, warrants for roving wiretaps used to monitor a suspect's multiple cell phones would have to make sure the target was positively identified and was present at the site being monitored before information could be collected.


The legislation also would reinstate standards in place prior to passage of the Patriot Act regarding library and other business records by forcing the FBI to show it had reason to believe the person involved was a suspected terrorist or spy. The measure would impose expiration dates on nationwide search warrants and other Patriot Act terms, providing for congressional review
--


I wish our president was unbiased.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...84331075988737
New York City Wants Easing of Patriot Act
Jim Lobe, OneWorld US

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb 5 (OneWorld) -- New York, the city most affected by the 9/11 attacks almost two and a half years ago, has become the latest U.S. municipality to formally urge major reforms to the USA PATRIOT Act to eliminate threats to basic civil rights and due-process protections.


The New York City Council voted Wednesday to urge local agencies not to subject New Yorkers to secret detentions without access to counsel and the New York Police Department (NYPD), in particular, to protect the free-speech rights of individuals and refrain from enforcing federal immigration laws or engage in racial or ethnic profiling.


The measure, known as Resolution 60, was approved by voice vote and also calls upon the New York delegation in Congress to "actively work for the repeal of those sections of the USA PATRIOT Act (USAPA) and related federal actions that unduly infringe upon fundamental rights and liberties."


"The city of New York--perhaps more than any city in America--is keenly aware of why we are engaged in a war on terror," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, the local branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) (ACLU). "With its diverse population, it is fitting and proper that the nation's largest city has joined millions across the country in demanding that America can, and must, be both safe AND free," she added.


Passage of the resolution came two weeks after the Los Angeles City Council passed a similar resolution by a 9-2 margin. The Jan 21 vote was depicted as a direct rebuff to President Bush (news - web sites), who had called for extending and expanding the Patrioet Act during his State of the Union Address the night before.


In so doing, Los Angeles, the country's third largest city, and now New York have joined a growing list of 250 municipalities, counties and states encompassing nearly 50 million people across the country that have approved measures over the past two years that urge far-reaching reform of the USAPA to ensure basic rights and due process.


Other jurisdictions that have approved such resolutions include Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Seattle, San Francisco, and Chicago, the nation's second largest city, as well as small communities from Alaska to North Carolina and Maine. The state legislatures of Hawaii, Alaska, and Vermont have also approved similar measures.


The main focus of their objections includes the sweeping powers given to the Justice Department (news - web sites) to round up, detain, and summarily deport immigrants without filing charges or providing them with access to attorneys, or, in some cases, even to their family members; the use of racial and ethnic profiling by federal agencies in targeting suspects; and the granting of unprecedented powers to the FBI (news - web sites) to secretly obtain information with little or no judicial review about individuals, ranging from their financial records to their book-borrowing patterns from local libraries.


Late last year, the Bush administration indicated it will seek a further expansion of those powers in a new act, as well as an extension of the USAPA beyond its December, 2005, expiration date. At the same time, the administration managed to push through new powers for the FBI enabling it to search and seize business records without court approval from securities dealers, currency exchanges, travel agencies, post offices, casinos, pawnbrokers and any other business that, in the government's eyes, has a "high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters." Under the 2001 USAPA, such powers were limited to business records held by banks, credit unions and similar financial institutions.


The ACLU, a leader in national and grassroots efforts to oppose the USAPA's more far-reaching provisions and related legislation, has been joined by a wide coalition of other groups from across the political spectrum. Indeed, some of the strongest opposition to USAPA has come from the political right, including Americans for Tax Reform and the Eagle Forum, among others.


The coalition's common denominator has been the fear that USAPA has upset the delicate balance between security and liberty and now threatens individuals' privacy and constitutional freedoms.


More than 90 organizations had endorsed the New York resolution, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (news - web sites) (NAACP), the New York Public Library Guild, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. At the council's hearings held earlier, a number of family members of NYPD and NYFD officers who died on 9/11 testified in support of the resolution.


"The fact that the resolution passed in New York City, site of the devastating 9/11 attacks, sends a resounding message that New Yorkers are now willing to trade their freedom for policies that do not make them any more safe," said Laura Murphy, head of the ACLU's Legislative office here. "The City of New York paid a higher cost than most cities, but New Yorkers are standing up and refusing to sacrifice their fundamental freedoms."


Among the 34 co-sponsors of the resolution was Council Member Alan Gerson, whose district includes the site of the World Trade Center.


The impact of the City Council's vote on security is likely to be put to a major test when the Republican National Convention meets in New York Aug. 30 to Sep 2. Large-scale protests are expected.


--

This is one of the few times I'm proud to be in the same state as NYC.