Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law

[Crimson]

(Puts on his aluminum foil hat).. This is getting good!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Cool, here's your chance. Let's hear your facts on this. Please explain why it's OK to sneak this into law. Explain why it's OK to dismiss the opposition of both parties and the public.

First off - was it voted on and passed by Congress like laws need to be?

CkG

You can find that out by reading the article, but I'll help you out. It was added in conference in spite of objections from both sides. But that really isn't the question, is it?

OK since voting isn't "the question" then what may I ask is the question?

CkG

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Which is why this month I've purchased over 2000 rounds of 5.56mm, a new nightvision system, and another backup sidearm. I can now effectively equip a 10 man multi-role team. The fight for this country is only just beginning, and some of us are ready for more than angry discussion forum responses to constitutional travesty.

Heh heh and yet PrinceofWands wonders why the local law enforcement likes to keep an eye on him.

Where you gonna get another 9 whack jobs to join your team? Let me guess...you are from Michigan

Actually local law enforcement tends to like me, because I help them out and because we've worked together for so long. Federal agencies likely want me gone, but that's no big surprise or worry to me. I would bet that should anything ever actually occur, as long as I maintain order and don't act to endanger non-participants most of the local law enforcement would refuse to come against me...in fact I'd fully expect to see half of them standing beside me. In my small sw washington town of 30,000+ our current unofficial militia numbers a little over 600 (and as a matter of fact at least two of them are law enforcement that I know of), but that number is twice what it was before Bush took office. If you want to carry that percentage out it means there are over 6 million armed militia ready to defend this country from itself. Add to that the fact that many peaceful non-militant types are becoming so fearful and disgusted that they're ready for action, even if they aren't yet joining existing groups. Almost all of my friends have started asking me various questions about firearm purchases, supply levels, thoughts on likely scenerios, etc. I don't think finding 9 will be a problem thanks.

 

[Bowfinger]

Guys, it really helps if you read the article.

On December 13, when U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush not only celebrated with his national security team, but also pulled out his pen and signed into law a bill that grants the FBI sweeping new powers. A White House spokesperson explained the curious timing of the signing - on a Saturday - as "the President signs bills seven days a week." But the last time Bush signed a bill into law on a Saturday happened more than a year ago - on a spending bill that the President needed to sign, to prevent shuttng down the federal government the following Monday.

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein was probed for head lice, few were aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism.

The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies tucked away these new executive powers in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a legislative behemoth that funds all the intelligence activities of the federal government.

[ ... ]

As I mentioned, this was done in conference and was presented on the floor as an all-or-nothing vote.

 

[dirtboy]

It doesn't look too sneaky to me:

On December 13th he signed this bill into law. On December 13th a press release was sent to the press. Perhaps you should ask why all the major news sources didn't care or mention it.

On December 13th the major news sources were covering the capture of Saddam, but neither Bush nor his administration was confirming the capture.

On December 14th Bush annouces to the public that our forces captured Saddam.

 

[glenn1]

As I mentioned, this was done in conference and was presented on the floor as an all-or-nothing vote.

And how exactly does this excuse their vote? While i disagree with the law, the whole of the blame for it can hardly be laid at Bush's feet. Your ire is more appropriately directed at your congress critter if he/she voted for it. See how your representative voted here

 

[Mavrick]

Originally posted by: Czar
Bitdog,
read about that to, very shocking
they also made a movie about something like that called Das Experiment

I saw that movie this summer. It was quite horribly realistic. It even made me (a stonehearted monster) feel bad for the victims

It's shocking to see how power con corrupt people.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: glenn1

As I mentioned, this was done in conference and was presented on the floor as an all-or-nothing vote.

And how exactly does this excuse their vote? While i disagree with the law, the whole of the blame for it can hardly be laid at Bush's feet. Your ire is more appropriately directed at your congress critter if he/she voted for it. See how your representative voted here

Sorry to be so repetitive, but it really, really helps if you read the article before posting. The Senate passed it on a voice vote so your link is useless.

(1) What if my Congress-critter didn't vote for it. To whom do I direct my anger in that case?

(2) I am not excusing their vote. I do recognize, however, that when one is faced with an all-or-nothing vote, there are all sorts of wasteful and repugnant things that slip through.

(3) Given that the Bush-lite administration sponsored this pile of steaming feces, I think I am well-justified in directing my ire at Bush. YMMV.

My question remains unanswered. How do Bush's supporters rationalize that this action by the Bush administration was in any way acceptable? I'm not asking about the legislation itself. I asking about the process used to sneak it into law.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dirtboy
It doesn't look too sneaky to me:

On December 13th he signed this bill into law. On December 13th a press release was sent to the press. Perhaps you should ask why all the major news sources didn't care or mention it.

On December 13th the major news sources were covering the capture of Saddam, but neither Bush nor his administration was confirming the capture.

On December 14th Bush annouces to the public that our forces captured Saddam.

If you can show me that the press release mentions the piece of Patriot II buried deep in the bill, I will accept your suggestion. I will also point out that releasing news late on Friday or over a weekend is a time-honored ploy for burying unpleasant news. The media tend to overlook stuff that comes in over a weekend. That's just the reality of how they work.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It's fun living in Nazi germany

Well . . . everybody likes a winner . . . and unfortunately, the Nazis were winners for a long time.

 

[Zebo]

Well bow if it any relief to you, the courts, have smacked down every patriot act case they've heard.

Unforunatly poeple have sufffered and continue to suffer in the mean time.

This president *could* really be doing all this because he's been told it's the only way to catch them. I don't belive it and I question his dedication to the constitution as you, consitituionalists and many civil libertarians do, which is why he has our scorn. But it seems *most* people trust the governemnt and it's agents "to do the right thing" until the threat has passed.

 

[NogginBoink]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Where are all the YABAs to explain why it's OK for the neo-facists to sneak into law something opposed by both parties and the public? Does this give you any insight at all into why we do not trust GWBush and his minions? Ignoring the (de)merits of the legislation, how can one justify cynically sneaking this into law this way in what is supposed to be an open, participative democracy?

It is simply un-American.

I notice a very noticeable retreat on their parts lately and their numbers getting smaller. It's like witnessing deserters or Mutiny on the Bounty. All of the credit goes to those that have awoken and no longer "Brainwashed".

I'm going to be very pained come election time. I'm very Republican, but I just don't think I can vote for Bush and his fellow Nazis.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: glenn1

As I mentioned, this was done in conference and was presented on the floor as an all-or-nothing vote.

And how exactly does this excuse their vote? While i disagree with the law, the whole of the blame for it can hardly be laid at Bush's feet. Your ire is more appropriately directed at your congress critter if he/she voted for it. See how your representative voted here

Sorry to be so repetitive, but it really, really helps if you read the article before posting. The Senate passed it on a voice vote so your link is useless.

(1) What if my Congress-critter didn't vote for it. To whom do I direct my anger in that case?

(2) I am not excusing their vote. I do recognize, however, that when one is faced with an all-or-nothing vote, there are all sorts of wasteful and repugnant things that slip through.

(3) Given that the Bush-lite administration sponsored this pile of steaming feces, I think I am well-justified in directing my ire at Bush. YMMV.

My question remains unanswered. How do Bush's supporters rationalize that this action by the Bush administration was in any way acceptable? I'm not asking about the legislation itself. I asking about the process used to sneak it into law.

Here is the answer you are hoping for:
"Because we're all blind and fall in line. We don't think GWB can do any wrong and is a God send after Clinton."

Happy?

Now back to reality though - not that this excuses tactics like this but it has been used for ages to push things through. Don't like it - force the gov't to change the way it passes legislation. Force spending legislation to be separate frome other things. Do something - not just sit here whining and complaining. Calling this "sneaking" is a tad disingenuous as it was actually part of the bill and anyone who is supposed to represent me should have notice it and made a stink. I don't like the fact that they did it - just like I didn't when it has been done in the past. But the difference is - is that I have suggested and opined that we fix the way these sort of things happen instead of just whining and playing fear-mongering politics with it.

The fear mongering that is on display here is amazing...it looks like the left is just as guilty of it as they claim the right is.

CkG

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Where are all the YABAs to explain why it's OK for the neo-facists to sneak into law something opposed by both parties and the public? Does this give you any insight at all into why we do not trust GWBush and his minions? Ignoring the (de)merits of the legislation, how can one justify cynically sneaking this into law this way in what is supposed to be an open, participative democracy?

It is simply un-American.

If he keeps trying to take us down this road that non of us want to go down there will be backlash and it won't be in the form of civil protests. I'm with ya PrinceofWands. I don't understand how half the people of this country don't see what I see. If they keep pushing all of us "rats" further into our corners, I don't think they will like the outcome. I guess what one of the other posters said is very true, the people who support this man have not felt the pain yet. When they do, it will be too late and we will all be here to offer our heartfelt "told ya so's"

 

[NerdOfTheNorth]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Here is the answer you are hoping for:
"Because we're all blind and fall in line. We don't think GWB can do any wrong and is a God send after Clinton."

Happy?

Now back to reality though - not that this excuses tactics like this but it has been used for ages to push things through. Don't like it - force the gov't to change the way it passes legislation. Force spending legislation to be separate frome other things. Do something - not just sit here whining and complaining. Calling this "sneaking" is a tad disingenuous as it was actually part of the bill and anyone who is supposed to represent me should have notice it and made a stink. I don't like the fact that they did it - just like I didn't when it has been done in the past. But the difference is - is that I have suggested and opined that we fix the way these sort of things happen instead of just whining and playing fear-mongering politics with it.

The fear mongering that is on display here is amazing...it looks like the left is just as guilty of it as they claim the right is.

CkG

That's the answer I've come to expect anyway. However, your response was remarkably reasonable and level-headed. I hate Bush almost as much as the rest of these guys do, but I'm lucky enough that for the time being, I don't have to live under him. In any case, Bravo for a logical and reasonable response!

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dirtboy
It doesn't look too sneaky to me:

On December 13th he signed this bill into law. On December 13th a press release was sent to the press. Perhaps you should ask why all the major news sources didn't care or mention it.

On December 13th the major news sources were covering the capture of Saddam, but neither Bush nor his administration was confirming the capture.

On December 14th Bush annouces to the public that our forces captured Saddam.

If you can show me that the press release mentions the piece of Patriot II buried deep in the bill, I will accept your suggestion. I will also point out that releasing news late on Friday or over a weekend is a time-honored ploy for burying unpleasant news. The media tend to overlook stuff that comes in over a weekend. That's just the reality of how they work.

The press release had the bill number in, on, and around it. Look for the press release yourself. If you're going to argue that it was a sneaky bill, then you should be aware of something significant as a press release in order to prove your point.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dirtboy
It doesn't look too sneaky to me:

On December 13th he signed this bill into law. On December 13th a press release was sent to the press. Perhaps you should ask why all the major news sources didn't care or mention it.

On December 13th the major news sources were covering the capture of Saddam, but neither Bush nor his administration was confirming the capture.

On December 14th Bush annouces to the public that our forces captured Saddam.

If you can show me that the press release mentions the piece of Patriot II buried deep in the bill, I will accept your suggestion. I will also point out that releasing news late on Friday or over a weekend is a time-honored ploy for burying unpleasant news. The media tend to overlook stuff that comes in over a weekend. That's just the reality of how they work.

The press release had the bill number in, on, and around it. Look for the press release yourself. If you're going to argue that it was a sneaky bill, then you should be aware of something significant as a press release in order to prove your point.

In other words, you have no idea what it says. I suspect you don't even know the bill's name, its nominal purpose, its bill number. You are just trying to distract from the subject at hand. On the other hand, I already did my homework, including finding and reading Bush's announcement.

Here's a hint: the bill appears to having nothing to do with PATRIOT. Bush's letter mentions several specific sections of the bill, but it curiously never mentions the one really controversial piece, the piece to which both the left and the right objected. But as long as we aren't being sneaky, I guess that's OK.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: NerdOfTheNorth

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Here is the answer you are hoping for:
"Because we're all blind and fall in line. We don't think GWB can do any wrong and is a God send after Clinton."

Happy?

Now back to reality though - not that this excuses tactics like this but it has been used for ages to push things through. Don't like it - force the gov't to change the way it passes legislation. Force spending legislation to be separate frome other things. Do something - not just sit here whining and complaining. Calling this "sneaking" is a tad disingenuous as it was actually part of the bill and anyone who is supposed to represent me should have notice it and made a stink. I don't like the fact that they did it - just like I didn't when it has been done in the past. But the difference is - is that I have suggested and opined that we fix the way these sort of things happen instead of just whining and playing fear-mongering politics with it.

The fear mongering that is on display here is amazing...it looks like the left is just as guilty of it as they claim the right is.

CkG

That's the answer I've come to expect anyway. However, your response was remarkably reasonable and level-headed. I hate Bush almost as much as the rest of these guys do, but I'm lucky enough that for the time being, I don't have to live under him. In any case, Bravo for a logical and reasonable response!

"remarkably"? Why is it remarkable? I am most definately quite reasonable and level-headed But if nothing else I can fight with the best they have to offer

CkG

 

[Bitdog]

Is there a plan in place to reverse all the patriot act laws when the terrrorist threat goes down to that of PRE 911 ?

I believe oportunistic government officials have used 911 to dramiticly increase their powers to the point
that "we the people" are no longer free. And they have no intention of EVER GIVING UP THAT POWER.
Right now corrupt police officers can and are using the patriot act laws to promote their corruption.
Eliminating those who want an honest, law abideing government that is "by and for the we people"
are the people that get in a police officers way.

Some laws have a dead line, and become nul and void on that date,
unless a need to extend that date is shown,
then another dead line is established.

I haven't heard of this approach concerning the unconstutional patriot act laws.
There has been NO MENTION OF RESTORING OUR FREEDOM AND RIGHTS, at any point in time.
AND, if there was, I wouln't believe it unless it's in writing, hard wired into the patriot act laws NOW.
Talk is cheap, and not sufficient. Our government is set up on the checks & ballences principal.
Trust or faith is not an option that works.

 

[maluckey]

Yadda yadda yadda..................The same one sided arguments, with no alternative viewpoint offered. Never is an alternative offered from the "Bush is stupid" crowd. Let's hear how to fight this problem in your own words, then you have something to say. Otherwise, pipe down and think about it until then. Labels and accusations are worthless as far as fixing anything.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Crimson
(Puts on his aluminum foil hat).. This is getting good!

That's OK you can keep my hat , I gave it up for CAD & AT Co, Rush, Hannity etc... they're right, Bush is right, he and they have been right all a long, he and Ashcroft can't do any wrong, best President of all time. Heil to the 4th Reich.

Heil Dubya Fuhrer

*Note: On February 10, 2003 I discovered that not only was there a house version that had been covertly brought to Hastert, but that many provisions of the now public Patriot Act II had already been introduced as pork barrel riders on Senate Bill S. 22.

The bill itself is stamped "Confidential ? Not for Distribution."

It is important to note that no member of Congress was allowed to see the first Patriot Act before its passage, and that no debate was tolerated by the House and Senate leadership.

The secretive tactics being used by the White House and Speaker Hastert to keep even the existence of this legislation secret would be more at home in Communist China than in the United States.

The move to clandestinely craft and then bully passage of any legislation by the Executive Branch is clearly an
impeachable offence.

The second Patriot Act is a mirror image of powers that Julius Caesar and Adolf Hitler gave themselves. Whereas the First Patriot Act only gutted the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and seriously damaged the Seventh and the Tenth, the Second Patriot Act reorganizes the entire Federal government as well as many areas of state government under the dictatorial control of the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security and the FEMA NORTHCOM military command. The Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as the Second Patriot Act is by its very
structure the definition of dictatorship.

The government states that they must look at everything to "determine" if individuals or groups might have a connection to terrorist groups. As you can now see, you are guilty until proven innocent.

Of course the government has already announced in Section 802 of the first USA Patriot act that any crime is considered domestic terrorism.

Usually, corrupt governments allow their citizens lots of wonderful rights on paper, while carrying out their jackbooted oppression covertly.
>From snatch and grab operations to warantless searches, Patriot Act II is an Adolf Hitler wish list.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Crimson
(Puts on his aluminum foil hat).. This is getting good!

That's OK you can keep my hat , I gave it up for CAD & AT Co, Rush, Hannity etc... they're right, Bush is right, he and they have been right all a long, he and Ashcroft can't do any wrong, best President of all time. Heil to the 4th Reich.

Was this your new years resolution? To just be an annoying smart ass troll with Zero content? Since this is about your 10th post of this type. At least before you lied and manipulated, but provided some content and argument.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: dirtboy
It doesn't look too sneaky to me:

On December 13th he signed this bill into law. On December 13th a press release was sent to the press. Perhaps you should ask why all the major news sources didn't care or mention it.

On December 13th the major news sources were covering the capture of Saddam, but neither Bush nor his administration was confirming the capture.

On December 14th Bush annouces to the public that our forces captured Saddam.

If you can show me that the press release mentions the piece of Patriot II buried deep in the bill, I will accept your suggestion. I will also point out that releasing news late on Friday or over a weekend is a time-honored ploy for burying unpleasant news. The media tend to overlook stuff that comes in over a weekend. That's just the reality of how they work.

The press release had the bill number in, on, and around it. Look for the press release yourself. If you're going to argue that it was a sneaky bill, then you should be aware of something significant as a press release in order to prove your point.

In other words, you have no idea what it says. I suspect you don't even know the bill's name, its nominal purpose, its bill number. You are just trying to distract from the subject at hand. On the other hand, I already did my homework, including finding and reading Bush's announcement.

Here's a hint: the bill appears to having nothing to do with PATRIOT. Bush's letter mentions several specific sections of the bill, but it curiously never mentions the one really controversial piece, the piece to which both the left and the right objected. But as long as we aren't being sneaky, I guess that's OK.

Bowfinger: Since you already did the work, would you mind revealing the piece that was controversial?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Crimson
(Puts on his aluminum foil hat).. This is getting good!

That's OK you can keep my hat , I gave it up for CAD & AT Co, Rush, Hannity etc... they're right, Bush is right, he and they have been right all a long, he and Ashcroft can't do any wrong, best President of all time. Heil to the 4th Reich.

Was this your new years resolution? To just be an annoying smart ass troll with Zero content? Since this is about your 10th post of this type. At least before you lied and manipulated, but provided some content and argument.

I was working on putting the link but you couldn't wait - Heil alchemize.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bowfinger: Since you already did the work, would you mind revealing the piece that was controversial?

Let me dig up the links again, and I'll do that.