You Were Warned...Pat. Act

[Quantum Windbag]

Civil libertarians and liberals have been railing against the Patriot Act since its inception. You were told that you like it under a Republican but would hate it under a Democrat, but you didn't listen.

One Senator told you back then EXACTLY what would happen under these new laws...

Watch The One Senator Who Voted Against The Patriot Act Warn What Would Happen

One provision that troubles me a great deal is a provision that permits the government under FISA to compel the production of records from any business regarding any person, if that information is sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism or espionage.

Now we're not talking here about travel records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, which we all can see can be highly relevant to an investigation of a terrorist plot. FISA already gives the FBI the power to get airline, train, hotel, car rental and other records of a suspect.

But under this bill, the government can compel the disclosure of the personal records of anyone -- perhaps someone who worked with, or lived next door to, or went to school with, or sat on an airplane with, or has been seen in the company of, or whose phone number was called by -- the target of the investigation.

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.​

You were warned...

The sad part is that some idiots think he is the only one that voted against the Patriot Act, and that he is the only one that said this would happen.

 

[Seawytch]

Civil libertarians and liberals have been railing against the Patriot Act since its inception. You were told that you like it under a Republican but would hate it under a Democrat, but you didn't listen.

One Senator told you back then EXACTLY what would happen under these new laws...

Watch The One Senator Who Voted Against The Patriot Act Warn What Would Happen

One provision that troubles me a great deal is a provision that permits the government under FISA to compel the production of records from any business regarding any person, if that information is sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism or espionage.

Now we're not talking here about travel records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, which we all can see can be highly relevant to an investigation of a terrorist plot. FISA already gives the FBI the power to get airline, train, hotel, car rental and other records of a suspect.

But under this bill, the government can compel the disclosure of the personal records of anyone -- perhaps someone who worked with, or lived next door to, or went to school with, or sat on an airplane with, or has been seen in the company of, or whose phone number was called by -- the target of the investigation.

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.​

You were warned...

The sad part is that some idiots think he is the only one that voted against the Patriot Act, and that he is the only one that said this would happen.

He was the ONLY senator to oppose it in 2001.

 

[Trajan]

what? Romrom supported the PA and such actions. He is no different from Obama/Bush, and the fact you are rolling your eyes just proves my point you people would make excuses for him. He's not even in office and you already are.

You people are quite predictable and well partisan.

look you imbecile, I rolled my eyes becasue your whole post is do angels dance on pinheads, what if, holding folks responsible for what if , rom-rom would have done this, KG would have done that, then the old 'you people' would have, you ( meaning me) would have said this or that... yada yada yada.......... your shit is so weak you have to engage in fantasy....... isn't there enough that has actually HAPPENED to chew on?

I already told you, you cacophonous colostomy bag of bilious bushwah- I don't care about the program, I had no issue with it under bush and don't have one here under Obama.....so my what if Romney means do-do....get back on your meds.

um..again you are part of the problem, but i guess you didnt want to talk about the overall perspective of politics and this issue.

I guess i'll leave you with the simple people.

I am more than willing to discuss my view, in fact I already posted my views on one of the threads on this....I started a thread too...feel free to answer. Just get off the " you would have angle", its meaningless at this point.

 

[PredFan]

Civil libertarians and liberals have been railing against the Patriot Act since its inception. You were told that you like it under a Republican but would hate it under a Democrat, but you didn't listen.

One Senator told you back then EXACTLY what would happen under these new laws...

Watch The One Senator Who Voted Against The Patriot Act Warn What Would Happen

One provision that troubles me a great deal is a provision that permits the government under FISA to compel the production of records from any business regarding any person, if that information is sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism or espionage.

Now we're not talking here about travel records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, which we all can see can be highly relevant to an investigation of a terrorist plot. FISA already gives the FBI the power to get airline, train, hotel, car rental and other records of a suspect.

But under this bill, the government can compel the disclosure of the personal records of anyone -- perhaps someone who worked with, or lived next door to, or went to school with, or sat on an airplane with, or has been seen in the company of, or whose phone number was called by -- the target of the investigation.

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.​

You were warned...

Correction, Libertarians have been since then, but the liberals stopped when obama became POTUS.

 

[dblack]

Civil libertarians and liberals have been railing against the Patriot Act since its inception. You were told that you like it under a Republican but would hate it under a Democrat, but you didn't listen.

One Senator told you back then EXACTLY what would happen under these new laws...

Watch The One Senator Who Voted Against The Patriot Act Warn What Would Happen

One provision that troubles me a great deal is a provision that permits the government under FISA to compel the production of records from any business regarding any person, if that information is sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism or espionage.

Now we're not talking here about travel records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, which we all can see can be highly relevant to an investigation of a terrorist plot. FISA already gives the FBI the power to get airline, train, hotel, car rental and other records of a suspect.

But under this bill, the government can compel the disclosure of the personal records of anyone -- perhaps someone who worked with, or lived next door to, or went to school with, or sat on an airplane with, or has been seen in the company of, or whose phone number was called by -- the target of the investigation.

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.​

You were warned...

Correction, Libertarians have been since then, but the liberals stopped when obama became POTUS.

That's exactly what needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Seeing so many of them now pushed into doing a complete about-face, to the point of literally mimicking the talking points of those they claimed to oppose, is utterly disgusting.

I tend to be open to most opposing posters - I try to at least hear something of value in what they have to say. But this issue has forced me to write off several posters here as soulless, partisan tools, with no real convictions at all. It's sad to see, honestly.

 

[Oddball]

That's exactly what needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Seeing so many of them now pushed into doing a complete about-face, to the point of literally mimicking the talking points of those they claimed to oppose, is utterly disgusting.

I tend to be open to most opposing posters - I try to at least hear something of value in what they have to say. But this issue has forced me to write off several posters here as soulless, partisan tools, with no real convictions at all. It's sad to see, honestly.

They've stolen the neocon talking points on this one.

I can't tell the "liberals" from Ashcroft or Chertoff!

 

[Seawytch]

Civil libertarians and liberals have been railing against the Patriot Act since its inception. You were told that you like it under a Republican but would hate it under a Democrat, but you didn't listen.

One Senator told you back then EXACTLY what would happen under these new laws...

Watch The One Senator Who Voted Against The Patriot Act Warn What Would Happen

One provision that troubles me a great deal is a provision that permits the government under FISA to compel the production of records from any business regarding any person, if that information is sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism or espionage.

Now we're not talking here about travel records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, which we all can see can be highly relevant to an investigation of a terrorist plot. FISA already gives the FBI the power to get airline, train, hotel, car rental and other records of a suspect.

But under this bill, the government can compel the disclosure of the personal records of anyone -- perhaps someone who worked with, or lived next door to, or went to school with, or sat on an airplane with, or has been seen in the company of, or whose phone number was called by -- the target of the investigation.

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.​

You were warned...

Correction, Libertarians have been since then, but the liberals stopped when obama became POTUS.

No, we didn't. We still oppose it. I can even oppose it and still support the President in other areas.

 

[Oddball]

Civil libertarians and liberals have been railing against the Patriot Act since its inception. You were told that you like it under a Republican but would hate it under a Democrat, but you didn't listen.

One Senator told you back then EXACTLY what would happen under these new laws...

Watch The One Senator Who Voted Against The Patriot Act Warn What Would Happen

One provision that troubles me a great deal is a provision that permits the government under FISA to compel the production of records from any business regarding any person, if that information is sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism or espionage.

Now we're not talking here about travel records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, which we all can see can be highly relevant to an investigation of a terrorist plot. FISA already gives the FBI the power to get airline, train, hotel, car rental and other records of a suspect.

But under this bill, the government can compel the disclosure of the personal records of anyone -- perhaps someone who worked with, or lived next door to, or went to school with, or sat on an airplane with, or has been seen in the company of, or whose phone number was called by -- the target of the investigation.

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.​

You were warned...

Correction, Libertarians have been since then, but the liberals stopped when obama became POTUS.

No, we didn't. We still oppose it. I can even oppose it and still support the President in other areas.

Not according to the polls (which I find suspect, BTW) that otherwise make you lolberls jizz all over yourselves when they come out in favor gubmint meddling.

 

[P@triot]

Civil libertarians and liberals have been railing against the Patriot Act since its inception. You were told that you like it under a Republican but would hate it under a Democrat, but you didn't listen.

One Senator told you back then EXACTLY what would happen under these new laws...

Watch The One Senator Who Voted Against The Patriot Act Warn What Would Happen

One provision that troubles me a great deal is a provision that permits the government under FISA to compel the production of records from any business regarding any person, if that information is sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism or espionage.

Now we're not talking here about travel records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, which we all can see can be highly relevant to an investigation of a terrorist plot. FISA already gives the FBI the power to get airline, train, hotel, car rental and other records of a suspect.

But under this bill, the government can compel the disclosure of the personal records of anyone -- perhaps someone who worked with, or lived next door to, or went to school with, or sat on an airplane with, or has been seen in the company of, or whose phone number was called by -- the target of the investigation.

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.​

You were warned...

Correction, Libertarians have been since then, but the liberals stopped when obama became POTUS.

No, we didn't. We still oppose it. I can even oppose it and still support the President in other areas.

Then why don't you scream about it instead of going "but.....but.....Bush did it!"

 

[dblack]

Correction, Libertarians have been since then, but the liberals stopped when obama became POTUS.

No, we didn't. We still oppose it. I can even oppose it and still support the President in other areas.

Then why don't you scream about it instead of going "but.....but.....Bush did it!"

Some of them are. Greenwald is a Democrat and a liberal, and he's the one who broke the story. Mostly what we're seeing on here are the authoritarian/statist Democrats, who are no better than their neo-con brethren.

 

[Plasmaball]

look you imbecile, I rolled my eyes becasue your whole post is do angels dance on pinheads, what if, holding folks responsible for what if , rom-rom would have done this, KG would have done that, then the old 'you people' would have, you ( meaning me) would have said this or that... yada yada yada.......... your shit is so weak you have to engage in fantasy....... isn't there enough that has actually HAPPENED to chew on?

I already told you, you cacophonous colostomy bag of bilious bushwah- I don't care about the program, I had no issue with it under bush and don't have one here under Obama.....so my what if Romney means do-do....get back on your meds.

um..again you are part of the problem, but i guess you didnt want to talk about the overall perspective of politics and this issue.

I guess i'll leave you with the simple people.

I am more than willing to discuss my view, in fact I already posted my views on one of the threads on this....I started a thread too...feel free to answer. Just get off the " you would have angle", its meaningless at this point.

Why? i always consider the source.It isnt meaningless when certain people have an agenda. You can basically dismiss their argument because of past statements.
See people like Oddball will have a little more cred than someone like Allie. He has always been against this shit, while Allie has been a team player. Her angle is to bash the left regardless of the hypocrisy.

So no i won't stop. Feel free to move on.

 

[Seawytch]

Correction, Libertarians have been since then, but the liberals stopped when obama became POTUS.

No, we didn't. We still oppose it. I can even oppose it and still support the President in other areas.

Not according to the polls (which I find suspect, BTW) that otherwise make you lolberls jizz all over yourselves when they come out in favor gubmint meddling.

The polls show that the same percentage of people that supported this crap in 2006, supported it in 2010 and still support it now. I'm not among them.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The USA PATRIOT Act is not now and never was the problem.

Lack of proper oversight (think "checks and balances") remains the problem.

If you think we'd have been better off without the NSA Surveillance program and The Patriot Act even if that resulted in our inability to have intercepted the plot to take out the NYC Subsays, then I think you have another think coming.

 

[Billo_Really]

So you're saying that to Obama, his job and his power were more important to him than doing the right thing and you agree with that? Wow....

On this particular issue, Obama is worse than Bush.

During his campaign, he talked about transperancy in government. However, once he became President, he's done the complete opposite.

 

[Billo_Really]

The USA PATRIOT Act is not now and never was the problem.

Lack of proper oversight (think "checks and balances") remains the problem.

If you think we'd have been better off without the NSA Surveillance program and The Patriot Act even if that resulted in our inability to have intercepted the plot to take out the NYC Subsays, then I think you have another think coming.

The Patriot Act did away with the 4th amendment.

You don't consider that a problem?

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm not willing to give up 1 civil right to fight this bullshit war on terror!

 

[Oddball]

The USA PATRIOT Act is not now and never was the problem.

Lack of proper oversight (think "checks and balances") remains the problem.

If you think we'd have been better off without the NSA Surveillance program and The Patriot Act even if that resulted in our inability to have intercepted the plot to take out the NYC Subsays, then I think you have another think coming.

You sound just like a liberoidal trying to rationalize and justify socialistic central control.

If only we had the right thugs and despots in charge of it all!

BTW, you did notice that all of this snoopery didn't prevent the Boston Marathon bombing, didn't you?

 

[koshergrl]

No, we didn't. We still oppose it. I can even oppose it and still support the President in other areas.

Then why don't you scream about it instead of going "but.....but.....Bush did it!"

Some of them are. Greenwald is a Democrat and a liberal, and he's the one who broke the story. Mostly what we're seeing on here are the authoritarian/statist Democrats, who are no better than their neo-con brethren.

You do realize that neo-cons are democrats too, right?

Most of the yahoos who use the term don't even know what it means.

 

[dblack]

Then why don't you scream about it instead of going "but.....but.....Bush did it!"

Some of them are. Greenwald is a Democrat and a liberal, and he's the one who broke the story. Mostly what we're seeing on here are the authoritarian/statist Democrats, who are no better than their neo-con brethren.

You do realize that neo-cons are democrats too, right?

Most of the yahoos who use the term don't even know what it means.

Yes, I do.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The USA PATRIOT Act is not now and never was the problem.

Lack of proper oversight (think "checks and balances") remains the problem.

If you think we'd have been better off without the NSA Surveillance program and The Patriot Act even if that resulted in our inability to have intercepted the plot to take out the NYC Subsays, then I think you have another think coming.

You sound just like a liberoidal trying to rationalize and justify socialistic central control.

If only we had the right thugs and despots in charge of it all!

BTW, you did notice that all of this snoopery didn't prevent the Boston Marathon bombing, didn't you?

Ah bullshit. I never made any such claim and it's not a coherent reading of anything I ever have said. You imagine that the fact that we didn't prevent the Boston Marathon bombings means we should toss up our hands on even trying? That sure doesn't seem even marginally intelligent. THAT, in fact, is the kind of crap that the libs argued when Booosh was the guy in the Oval Office.

I have noticed that The USA PATRIOT Act calls for oversight.

I have noticed that it has been claimed (I of course cannot verify) that the so-called "snoopery" prevented the shitbirds who were bent on bombing the NY City Subways from succeeding.

As you know, I have (unlike you, to be sure) always been a proponent of the Patriot Act.
It does not come as a shock or a surprise that it can be misused.

The question is NOT, however, contrary to your contention, simply to prefer that somebody else be at the helm. I don't give a shit if it's a filthy liberal Democratic at the helm at the time of the abuse of the law or if it's some asshole Republican doing it.

The FACT is, they cannot be trusted on their own. This is why I have always called for oversight. I believe firmly in checks and balances.

That said, it does bother me a LOT that the folks who should be providing close scrutiny are evidently sitting with their thumbs up their asses. If we take checks and balances out of the equation (i.e., no valid oversight), then any law can be misused or abused. It's not just the Patriot Act. Even a simple eavesdropping statute can be abused if the judges who review the applications fail to scrutinize them or if the agents who swear them out commit perjury and never get subjected to the kind of scrutiny that would show what they are doing.