FBI seeking to expand powers

[Passions]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7388717/

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Tuesday asked lawmakers to expand the bureau?s ability to obtain records without first asking a judge, and he joined Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in seeking that every temporary provision of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act be renewed.


This is exactly what the law enforcement of America needs, MORE POWER! We need to fight this war on terrorism aggressively, not with our agents hands tied to their backs. I highly approve of such a measure. Liberal treemongers will say that this is striping our country of freedoms, but we are at war and measures must be taken to counter it.

I will just state this fact. Ever since 9/11 and the Patriot Act, have you seen any terrorist act in America since? YEAH I THOUGHT SO. Liberals speak words, while Republicans protect our country. RECOGNIZE.

 

[Orsorum]

How would the expanded powers of the Patriot Act have prevented 9/11?

 

[conjur]

T to the R to the O to the L to the L to the I to the N to the G

 

[Passions]

Originally posted by: conjur
T to the R to the O to the L to the L to the I to the N to the G

If you have nothing worth of value spewing from your mouth, please leave.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Darkhawk28]

So under which President did 9/11 happen under?

How many warnings was Bush and Co. given before 9/11?

So how many terrorists attacks were there (on our soil) between 1993 and 2001?

What has Bush done to make us safer?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Passions

Originally posted by: conjur
T to the R to the O to the L to the L to the I to the N to the G

If you have nothing worth of value spewing from your mouth, please leave.

Thank you kindly.

Ever since 9/11 and the Patriot Act, have you seen any terrorist act in America since? YEAH I THOUGHT SO. Liberals speak words, while Republicans protect our country. RECOGNIZE.

You call that something "worth of value"?

 

[StageLeft]

but we are at war

LOL, who exactly is the US at war with? I'd love to hear this one.

 

[conjur]

Patriot Act's 'sneak and peek' searches nearly double
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/218816_patriotact05.html

WASHINGTON -- Justice Department investigators nearly doubled the rate at which they used a controversial new search-and-seizure power allowed under the USA Patriot Act during the past 22 months, according to data released by the Bush administration yesterday on the eve of congressional testimony by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Formally called delayed-notification searches, the warrants are known as "sneak and peek" because they allow investigators to search a person's home or business and to seize property without disclosing for weeks or months that they were there. Although investigators must convince a judge that there is a "reasonable suspicion" that the investigation would be harmed if the subject were notified, no judge has ever denied a request for those searches.

Although the warrants are codified in a law enacted to fight terrorism, they are not limited to terrorism investigations. And, according to the Justice Department, investigators have increasingly resorted to the power since the Patriot Act became law shortly after Sept. 11, 2001.

The Justice Department said yesterday that the power was a valuable law enforcement tool for a "wide spectrum of criminal investigations, including those involving terrorism and drugs."

But the American Civil Liberties Union said the release "confirms our worst fears" that the use of the law is expanding beyond terrorism investigations, and called for greater oversight.

The Senate Judiciary Committee today intends to question Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller about how the Justice Department has been using its Patriot Act powers, setting the stage for a year of political debate over whether to make the Patriot Act permanent or to scale it back.

In May 2003, the Justice Department released its initial data on how often it had used the search power, covering Oct. 26, 2001, to April 1, 2003.

During those roughly 17 months, it asked for and got sneak-and-peek warrants 47 times, or about 2.7 times a month. According to data released yesterday, investigators sought the warrants 108 times in 22 months -- from April 1, 2003, to Jan. 21, 2005, a rate of 4.9 times a month.

The Justice Department said in its statement that sneak-and-peek searches are a very small fraction of the total number of search warrants it uses in its investigations.

[...]

The law also allows the clandestine seizure of property when a judge finds that it is "reasonably necessary." The Justice Department said it has sought such authorization 45 times since the Patriot Act became law.

But the ACLU said the "highly intrusive" searches "are being used primarily outside of the terrorism arena. Congress must insist on receiving more detailed information on each of these searches and why each was necessary."

:thumbsdown:

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Passions
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7388717/

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Tuesday asked lawmakers to expand the bureau?s ability to obtain records without first asking a judge, and he joined Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in seeking that every temporary provision of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act be renewed.


This is exactly what the law enforcement of America needs, MORE POWER! We need to fight this war on terrorism aggressively, not with our agents hands tied to their backs. I highly approve of such a measure. Liberal treemongers will say that this is striping our country of freedoms, but we are at war and measures must be taken to counter it.

I will just state this fact. Ever since 9/11 and the Patriot Act, have you seen any terrorist act in America since? YEAH I THOUGHT SO. Liberals speak words, while Republicans protect our country. RECOGNIZE.

I have a few facts that I would like to state. Ever since 9/11 and the Patriot Act:

- 13 demons riding Nightmares as black as night with fiery manes have not ascended from the darkest pits of Hell.

- My cereal still tastes the same.

- IMG LOLOL WTF god is better NOOB

- There is still no cure for cancer.

I give the Republicans and the Patriot Act credit for all these things.



Oh wait. Specious Reasoning. PWNED.

 

[Rainsford]

Edit: This is a reply to the OP, I just took too long to write it

As someone who's field is security (as opposed to whatever the hell you do), I would feel bad if I didn't point out a few problems with your post.

First, security and freedom aren't some kind of trade-off where you can have more of one at the expense of the other. It's not a coincidence that some of the countries that historically have the worst problems with terrorism are also countries that have the fewest freedoms. There are a number of reasons why this is the case, but the biggest one is that information gathering isn't the problem. The problem is that they don't have the manpower and setup to deal with the information in an effective way. Investigations after 9/11 showed that if the government could have put the pieces together, they could have stopped 9/11. They already had all the information they would need to do this, they just didn't put it all together until too late. Giving them more power to gather information would make the problem worse, because while Agent Johnson is reading the list of books I've checked out of the library, he can't be checking other, possibly useful, information.

Second, even beyond that reason, the whole concept of protecting America by giving up what makes us great is moronic. I mean think about it, this country is worth protecting because of what we have, and freedom is at the top of the list. If we are willing to throw that away at the slightest hint of danger, why are we even bothering to protect it in the first place. Besides, despite your whining about "liberal treemongers", we don't need to take "measures" to counter terrorism, we need to take effective and intelligent measures. Just doing something may make you idiots feel better, but I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I actually want something effective. The fact that what's being proposed is both ineffective AND anti-freedom just makes the whole thing that much worse.

Finally, your reasoning on the success of the Patriot Act lacks, well, reasoning. And I feel the need to share a scene from the Simpsons with you.

Homer looks around with satisfaction at the "Bear Patrol" doing their job in Springfield...
Homer: Well, no bears around, the bear patrol must be doing their job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning.
Homer: Why thank you, honey.
Lisa: No Dad, what I mean is that by your logic I could claim this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: ...Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

In other words, there is nothing to suggest the Patriot Act or the Republicans have made us safer. Just because we haven't been attacked isn't an argument, we might have avoided attack if we did something else, or nothing at all. Maybe the Republicans really have saved us, but I'll need a little more than whatever the hell you are talking about.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Edit: This is a reply to the OP, I just took too long to write it

As someone who's field is security (as opposed to whatever the hell you do), I would feel bad if I didn't point out a few problems with your post.

First, security and freedom aren't some kind of trade-off where you can have more of one at the expense of the other. It's not a coincidence that some of the countries that historically have the worst problems with terrorism are also countries that have the fewest freedoms. There are a number of reasons why this is the case, but the biggest one is that information gathering isn't the problem. The problem is that they don't have the manpower and setup to deal with the information in an effective way. Investigations after 9/11 showed that if the government could have put the pieces together, they could have stopped 9/11. They already had all the information they would need to do this, they just didn't put it all together until too late. Giving them more power to gather information would make the problem worse, because while Agent Johnson is reading the list of books I've checked out of the library, he can't be checking other, possibly useful, information.

Second, even beyond that reason, the whole concept of protecting America by giving up what makes us great is moronic. I mean think about it, this country is worth protecting because of what we have, and freedom is at the top of the list. If we are willing to throw that away at the slightest hint of danger, why are we even bothering to protect it in the first place. Besides, despite your whining about "liberal treemongers", we don't need to take "measures" to counter terrorism, we need to take effective and intelligent measures. Just doing something may make you idiots feel better, but I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I actually want something effective. The fact that what's being proposed is both ineffective AND anti-freedom just makes the whole thing that much worse.

Finally, your reasoning on the success of the Patriot Act lacks, well, reasoning. And I feel the need to share a scene from the Simpsons with you.

Homer looks around with satisfaction at the "Bear Patrol" doing their job in Springfield...
Homer: Well, no bears around, the bear patrol must be doing their job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning.
Homer: Why thank you, honey.
Lisa: No Dad, what I mean is that by your logic I could claim this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: ...Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

In other words, there is nothing to suggest the Patriot Act or the Republicans have made us safer. Just because we haven't been attacked isn't an argument, we might have avoided attack if we did something else, or nothing at all. Maybe the Republicans really have saved us, but I'll need a little more than whatever the hell you are talking about.

Your post is dead on, but it's unlikely to be well received by those who've bought into Bush's idea of this amorphous "war" that the US is currently engaged in.

 

[mordantmonkey]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'll need a little more than whatever the hell you are talking about.

:laugh:

 

[BDawg]

Passions is the best parody poster, evah!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Edit: This is a reply to the OP, I just took too long to write it

As someone who's field is security (as opposed to whatever the hell you do), I would feel bad if I didn't point out a few problems with your post.

First, security and freedom aren't some kind of trade-off where you can have more of one at the expense of the other. It's not a coincidence that some of the countries that historically have the worst problems with terrorism are also countries that have the fewest freedoms. There are a number of reasons why this is the case, but the biggest one is that information gathering isn't the problem. The problem is that they don't have the manpower and setup to deal with the information in an effective way. Investigations after 9/11 showed that if the government could have put the pieces together, they could have stopped 9/11. They already had all the information they would need to do this, they just didn't put it all together until too late. Giving them more power to gather information would make the problem worse, because while Agent Johnson is reading the list of books I've checked out of the library, he can't be checking other, possibly useful, information.

Second, even beyond that reason, the whole concept of protecting America by giving up what makes us great is moronic. I mean think about it, this country is worth protecting because of what we have, and freedom is at the top of the list. If we are willing to throw that away at the slightest hint of danger, why are we even bothering to protect it in the first place. Besides, despite your whining about "liberal treemongers", we don't need to take "measures" to counter terrorism, we need to take effective and intelligent measures. Just doing something may make you idiots feel better, but I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I actually want something effective. The fact that what's being proposed is both ineffective AND anti-freedom just makes the whole thing that much worse.

Finally, your reasoning on the success of the Patriot Act lacks, well, reasoning. And I feel the need to share a scene from the Simpsons with you.

Homer looks around with satisfaction at the "Bear Patrol" doing their job in Springfield...
Homer: Well, no bears around, the bear patrol must be doing their job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning.
Homer: Why thank you, honey.
Lisa: No Dad, what I mean is that by your logic I could claim this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: ...Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

In other words, there is nothing to suggest the Patriot Act or the Republicans have made us safer. Just because we haven't been attacked isn't an argument, we might have avoided attack if we did something else, or nothing at all. Maybe the Republicans really have saved us, but I'll need a little more than whatever the hell you are talking about.

Your post is dead on, but it's unlikely to be well received by those who've bought into Bush's idea of this amorphous "war" that the US is currently engaged in.

Maybe not, but I hope people will start thinking for themselves about what is actually going on instead of just listening to the PR from people have have a vested interest in it.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: BDawg
Passions is the best parody poster, evah!

It fails to be effective parody once his posts no longer differ from posts made by people seriously touting that rhetoric.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: BDawg
Passions is the best parody poster, evah!

It fails to be effective parody once his posts no longer differ from posts made by people seriously touting that rhetoric.

im not so sure that he isn't being serious....

 

[arsbanned]

If Passions can respond to Rainsford intelligently and without resorting to name calling and gross generalizations, I'll be impressed. I'd like to see a reasoned discussion of this issue.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Passions
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7388717/

FBI Director Robert Mueller on Tuesday asked lawmakers to expand the bureau?s ability to obtain records without first asking a judge, and he joined Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in seeking that every temporary provision of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act be renewed.


This is exactly what the law enforcement of America needs, MORE POWER! We need to fight this war on terrorism aggressively, not with our agents hands tied to their backs. I highly approve of such a measure. Liberal treemongers will say that this is striping our country of freedoms, but we are at war and measures must be taken to counter it.

I will just state this fact. Ever since 9/11 and the Patriot Act, have you seen any terrorist act in America since? YEAH I THOUGHT SO. Liberals speak words, while Republicans protect our country. RECOGNIZE.

STFU lame-o, you can't prove any of that crap you're spewing.

 

[jackschmittusa]

We must also remain aware that laws enacted for one specific purpose usually morph into a wide array of new purposes.

I live in Ohio, and I have seen the law against possesion of "criminal tools" change from crowbars and hammers to rolling papers. Kidnapping charges are applied if someone threatening violence orders someone out of a room for thier own safety. The rational is that someone has been forced to go somewhere by threat of force.

Probably the biggest reason for this is the "piling on of charges" threat that leads to a plea bargin. This has been abuse here quite often when the state has a weak case. They charge a person with so much that the penalties if you lose are so great that it is an inducement to plea bargin instead of defend yourself in court.

We have already seen the new anti-terrorist laws being used against non-terrorists. The guy shining the laser is a recent example. What he did is stupid. The penalty for committing a terrorist act if convicted is too great a threat to defend against if offered some kind of plea bargin.

The sneak-and-peek, wiretap, and "library" provisions will also morph into new, unintended, uses. The old joke that a prosecuter "can get a ham sandwich indicted" is often true. Weak, circumstantial evidence can be gathered to gain an indictment, charges with extreme penalties will be applied; and if you are not rich, you will lose.

I know this is kind of a rant, but I never see anyone discuss the evidence gathering and penalty parts of the anti-terrorism laws together. When combined, they produce an almost insurmountable impediment to the average guy's ability to defend himself.

Police powers for search have already degraded from probable cause to reasonable suspicion to almost "just because".

It truly is time to take stock of what we might gain from the anti-terrorists laws, and what we might lose.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: BDawg
Passions is the best parody poster, evah!

It fails to be effective parody once his posts no longer differ from posts made by people seriously touting that rhetoric.

im not so sure that he isn't being serious....

Yeah, well, me neither. But for the sake of argument...

 

[Tylanner]

I'm fine with it.

:thumbsup:

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Tylanner
I'm fine with it.

:thumbsup:

If I may, a quote:

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

 

[Passions]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
If Passions can respond to Rainsford intelligently and without resorting to name calling and gross generalizations, I'll be impressed. I'd like to see a reasoned discussion of this issue.

Attacks against America after 9/11: 0.
Attacks against America after George W Bush re-elected: 0.
Attacks against America after Patriot Act: 0.

If this is not an effective argument, then I don't know what is. Spacious Reasoning? Call it anything fancy you want, the truth is there. Maybe it is by pure luck we haven't been attacked, maybe giving the FBI more power is going to create a convoluted mess, but the facts stand. America is safe with Bush, Rice, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld leading the helm.

Prove it wrong. List me terrorist attacks on our homeland after 9/11 please. That's right, you can't. And as much as your blind hatred for our leadership leads you astray, you must admit that your freedom is safer with Republicans in house.

 

[TerribleTerryTate]

Originally posted by: Passions
Liberal treemongers will say that this is striping our country of freedoms, but we are at war and measures must be taken to counter it.

stop all the tree-ing, damn liberals!

 

[Kibbo]

Good god, I hope passions is parodying.