Patriot Act

[jarhead6073]

Can someone provide me with a list of actual, documented abuses of the Patriot Act? Not possibilities, not doors that it opens or anything else. I want actual instances of the terrible things the government has done with the powers granted it under the Patriot Act.

I ask this because I hear a lot of people talking about how awful it is and how the government has abused it and how terrible it is for civil rights but when asked for examples they're stuck. Although Jose Padilla's name comes up sometimes as an example but I have a hard time getting worked up over his particular case.

[retired]

Originally posted by jarhead6073
Can someone provide me with a list of actual, documented abuses of the Patriot Act? Not possibilities, not doors that it opens or anything else. I want actual instances of the terrible things the government has done with the powers granted it under the Patriot Act.

I ask this because I hear a lot of people talking about how awful it is and how the government has abused it and how terrible it is for civil rights but when asked for examples they're stuck. Although Jose Padilla's name comes up sometimes as an example but I have a hard time getting worked up over his particular case.

I'll see what In can do for you. But Padilla isn't the issue since he is a known scumbag. The issue is should the government be allowed to ignore the 6th and 5th amendments of the constitution, regardless of who the defendant is. Tomorrow it could be you!

Like all abuses with government, it starts with something small and with someone no one cares about, an then it eacalates. The government is here for us, not the other way around. The BOR's are restraints against the government, not against the people.

[Stratman]

Retired,

Please explain how the USA Patriot Act, as it is commonly referred to, infringes upon or allows the government to ignore, the 5th and 6th Amendments to the US Constitution?

Stratman

[retired]

Originally posted by Stratman
Retired,

Please explain how the USA Patriot Act, as it is commonly referred to, infringes upon or allows the government to ignore, the 5th and 6th Amendments to the US Constitution?

Stratman

For starters Padilla is being held without benefit of a trial. Padilla has been held incommunicado in a naval brig in South Carolina

[retired]

edit

[JB]

In the wake of September 11, I can understand why the Patriot Act is necessary. In times of national crisis throughout American history, the federal govt has had to assume a higher level of leadership than they normally would. One term for this is called executive perogative.An example in history was when, during the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended Habea Corpus and declared martial law. Obviously, these measures were temporary.

I think the Patriot Act falls into the same boat. I can understand why the Justice Dept. needs the measures to crack down on Al Queada since, unlike previous wars, our enemy now lives among us as opposed to living overseas. At least foir the time being, we need the Patriot Act as a tool to root them out from among us. With that said, I firmly beleive that the act must have a sunset law. Sure this administration is using it as a tool to go after our attackers but what happens when future administrations have it at their disposal? They could very well use it to attack political opponents. For this reason, the Patriot Act must either #1 Have a sunset law or #2 Must be renewed by Congress every four years.

[retired]

Originally posted by JB
In the wake of September 11, I can understand why the Patriot Act is necessary. In times of national crisis throughout American history, the federal govt has had to assume a higher level of leadership than they normally would. One term for this is called executive perogative.An example in history was when, during the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended Habea Corpus and declared martial law. Obviously, these measures were temporary.

I think the Patriot Act falls into the same boat. I can understand why the Justice Dept. needs the measures to crack down on Al Queada since, unlike previous wars, our enemy now lives among us as opposed to living overseas. At least foir the time being, we need the Patriot Act as a tool to root them out from among us. With that said, I firmly beleive that the act must have a sunset law. Sure this administration is using it as a tool to go after our attackers but what happens when future administrations have it at their disposal? They could very well use it to attack political opponents. For this reason, the Patriot Act must either #1 Have a sunset law or #2 Must be renewed by Congress every four years.

I don't agree that we are at great risk from within by the AQ, or whatever you want to call them. We have had more bombings and acts of "terrorism", and I am getting tired of using that word, by domestic groups then by any foreign group.

Rooting out terrorists is like saying you are going to get rid of drug dealers, it'll never happen. They come in many forms and shapes, and the least of my worries is the AQ (if they really exist).
I'm more concerned about domestic groups like the ELF, or AOG, etc carrying out terror acts then by a foreign group. But even if an American group does perpatrate a bombing etc, they still should be afforded the protections of the BOR's.

Lincoln suspended Heabus Corpus under different circumstances, which is permitted by the Constitution. I can find no mention in the constitution of "executive perogative", nor can I find any authority in the constitution for the executive branch of government to suspend the Bill of Rights.

[jarhead6073]

I don't think it's fair or accurate to compare ELF to Al Queda. Burning down a construction site is hardly the same threat as a hijacking a plane, dirty bomb, or chem/bio attack.

I would still like to see some abuses of the Patriot Act.

[retired]

Originally posted by jarhead6073
I don't think it's fair or accurate to compare ELF to Al Queda. Burning down a construction site is hardly the same threat as a hijacking a plane, dirty bomb, or chem/bio attack.

I would still like to see some abuses of the Patriot Act.

In my opinion one abuse is too many. But here is just one that you can read at your leisure. I beleive that you are too young to remember the FBI and Coinintelpro. I'm not, and I was there to watch their abuse of the BOR's. It has started all over with the Patriot Act. There are more abuses out there, why not take the time and find them and read them?

Research Dr. Al-Badr Al Hazmi and see how his rights were abused. And you don't think that the rights of Padilla are being abused?

[SomeGuy]

I've heard of people who get caught with a meth lab being charged with making chemical weapons. Regardless of what you think about these people, it still seems like an abuse.

Also, with alot of the provisions in the patriot act, very few people will know when they're abused. If the FBI starts using the various expanded search powers granted by the act, it's not like they're going to issue a press release about it.

[jarhead6073]

Originally posted by retired
I'll see what In can do for you. But Padilla isn't the issue since he is a known scumbag. The issue is should the government be allowed to ignore the 6th and 5th amendments of the constitution, regardless of who the defendant is.

And Al-Hamzi was held for a week in September 2001. A Saudi national got arrested the day after September 11 and was released with no charges. No punishment? No torture? No nothing? That's your big awful abuse of the Patriot Act? I'm not saying it's ok for the government to randomly go around abusing anyone's civil rights. But come on. A Saudi national, on a student visa, received large money transfers, bought plane tickets on-line, basically everything the other what was it 15 Saudi nationals did. And was arrested on September 12. Then released a week later. Sorry but to me that doesn't sound like wanton rampant civil rights abuses to me.

To me it sounds like you're the one stirring people's fears. Not John Ashcroft. At least he has 3,000 dead people to back up his position. You've got some foreign nationals who were inconvienced for a week after 9/11. If you want me to get worked up over the tyrant George Bush and psycho John Ashcroft you're going to have to do a little better than that. I'm open to legitimate critiques of the administration but I'm not hearing it so far.

[jarhead6073]

Originally posted by SomeGuy
I've heard of people who get caught with a meth lab being charged with making chemical weapons. Regardless of what you think about these people, it still seems like an abuse.

Also, with alot of the provisions in the patriot act, very few people will know when they're abused. If the FBI starts using the various expanded search powers granted by the act, it's not like they're going to issue a press release about it.

You heard some rumors about some meth labs? Again, someone show me some real documented abuses. Not rumors or conjecture.

How many mobsters had their phones tapped and never new it? Are you telling me that up until the Patriot act everyone who was ever under surveillance was told about it ahead of time?

[retired]

Originally posted by jarhead6073
And Al-Hamzi was held for a week in September 2001. A Saudi national got arrested the day after September 11 and was released with no charges. No punishment? No torture? No nothing? That's your big awful abuse of the Patriot Act? I'm not saying it's ok for the government to randomly go around abusing anyone's civil rights. But come on. A Saudi national, on a student visa, received large money transfers, bought plane tickets on-line, basically everything the other what was it 15 Saudi nationals did. And was arrested on September 12. Then released a week later. Sorry but to me that doesn't sound like wanton rampant civil rights abuses to me.

To me it sounds like you're the one stirring people's fears. Not John Ashcroft. At least he has 3,000 dead people to back up his position. You've got some foreign nationals who were inconvienced for a week after 9/11. If you want me to get worked up over the tyrant George Bush and psycho John Ashcroft you're going to have to do a little better than that. I'm open to legitimate critiques of the administration but I'm not hearing it so far.

Suit yourself jarhead, unless or until you are the target of a federal abuse, you'll probably support the company policy. I'm not trying to stir up anyones fears, I don't have to, I'm retired and have seeen a hell of lot more than you with the government. You have no idea of how abusive the government can be. Your'e a young guy, and as the years pass, perhaps later in your life as you gain experience, you'll see things in a different light.

Oh by the way, he only spent a week in jail for doing nothing wrong. Wonder how you would feel spending "just" a week in a jail? Would you like to spend a week in the Los Angels County jail and then tell me it was only a week, no big deal?:rolleyes:

[SomeGuy]

Originally posted by jarhead6073
You heard some rumors about some meth labs? Again, someone show me some real documented abuses. Not rumors or conjecture.

How many mobsters had their phones tapped and never new it? Are you telling me that up until the Patriot act everyone who was ever under surveillance was told about it ahead of time?

Meth now a chemical weapon. (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031770123475&path=!frontpage&s=)


Forsyth DA will also try new law
Anti-terrorism statute may fight meth labs

By David Ingram
JOURNAL REPORTER

Frustrated by drug laws that he thought were not tough enough on methamphetamine producers, prosecutor Jerry Wilson decided to examine the books.

Wilson, the district attorney for Watauga County, and members of his staff started flipping through legal texts and precedents in the past few weeks until they found what they were looking for - a law with more teeth.

Instead of a drug law, though, Wilson turned to the state's antiterrorism laws when prosecuting accused methamphetamine producers. The laws, specifically a statute passed in November 2001, detail the penalties for manufacturing a nuclear or chemical weapon. Wilson's office filed what are believed to be the first charges using that law last week.

'We sat down and began looking for something more that we could use as a weapon against these people, and that's the statute we found,' Wilson said.

Since Wilson's decision other prosecutors have followed his lead and said that they will also prosecute methamphetamine producers under antiterrorism laws.

'The policy now will be that we will put B1 felonies on anyone having anything to do with methamphetamines. These things are very dangerous,' said Tom Keith, the district attorney in Forsyth County.

B1 felonies carry sentences ranging from 12 years to life in prison.

The first person who will be prosecuted under the antiterrorism laws is Martin Dwayne Miller, 24, of Todd. Miller was arrested July 11 and was charged with two counts of manufacturing a nuclear or chemical weapon, in connection with charges relating to methamphetamine production.Even if Miller were convicted of the most serious drug charge against him, he might have served only six months in prison, Wilson said.

To link the drug's production to chemical weapons, prosecutors referred to the toxic and combustible nature of the chemicals involved in methamphetamine production. They said that police officers and firemen who respond to calls involving the drug are at risk of serious injury, including lung damage.

Keith said he decided to use the antiterrorism laws after a visit last week to Ashe County, where he talked to drug-enforcement officials.

He said that the use of the antiterrorism law to stop the growth of methamphetamine laboratories is necessary to prevent problems that have plagued other states, including neighboring Tennessee.

'We're not going to let them get a foothold,' Keith said. 'If we catch them, we want to take their life away, put them away for as long as we can.'

In explaining his decision to use the antiterrorism law, Wilson called the current statute 'woefully insufficient to address the epidemic of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories that Watauga County is experiencing.' The county has had 24 labs raided this year.

Several defense lawyers, however, reacted to the news that prosecutors would use antiterrorism laws with a mix of skepticism and concern for the rights of the accused.

'It seems to me to be a real stretch of the imagination, that this would be covered under the antiterrorism law,' said Wallace Harrelson, the public defender in Guilford County. 'It seems to me that the antiterrorism law was designed with a specific purpose in mind, to prosecute people who are threatening to hurt the safety of the general public.'

Harrelson and others also said that they doubted whether a judge would allow prosecution under the law for drug-related activity that does not terrorize the public.

The law defines nuclear, biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction as, in part, 'any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury and ... is or contains toxic or poisonous chemicals or their immediate precursors.'

Pete Clary, the public defender in Forsyth County, said that Wilson might be overstepping his bounds as a prosecutor.

'I think it's up to the legislature to decide whether the law is 'woefully insufficient,'' Clary said. 'The DA is charged with enforcing the laws on the books, not as he wishes they were.'

Wilson said that despite the legislature's intent in passing the law just two months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the text of the law is on his side.

'I understand the title of the statue is antiterrorism, but the statute is much more broad than that,' Wilson said. 'There's nothing in the statute that requires any organized terrorist effort. There's nothing in the statute that requires that these chemicals be used as a weapon.'

Keith said that the General Assembly has been slow in responding to an influx of drug manufacturers, and that legislators are hesitant to add prisoners to already-burgeoning prisons.

'I've probably got eight or 10 bills before the legislature,' Keith said. 'It is extremely difficult, with all the defense attorneys in the General Assembly, to get tougher bills passed when they also have to vote on prisons.'

Though they did not go as far as Keith in promising to prosecute methamphetamine producers under antiterrorism laws, district attorneys Stuart Albright of Guilford County and Garry Frank of Davidson County said they would consider such action if the facts of a case warranted it.

'He's a wonderful DA up in that neck up the woods, and the facts must've warranted the charge,' Albright said of Wilson's decision.

Albright also expressed confidence that the charge would hold up at trial.

'The person will either plead guilty, or we'll have a trial and a judge and jury will look at the case,' he said. 'Certainly I don't know how a DA could take their discretion too far if they either plead guilty or they're found guilty.'


There's some proof. Now, don't get me wrong here, I think meth is a pretty bad drug, and those who make it should be prosecuted. However, the intent of the patriot act was to fight terrorism, not fight meth labs. The part where the DA says 'I understand the title of the statue is antiterrorism, but the statute is much more broad than that,' shows exactly why laws that can be abused should not be passed.

[jarhead6073]

retired,

Since you're the one who has been ranting and raving about abuses of the Patriot Act, I figured that there must be some news out there that I'm missing. That I must be uninformed. But if Dr. Al-Hamzi is the best you can do then it seems to me that you're making a big fuss over nothing. The Patriot Act wasn't even law yet when Al-Hamzi was arrested so it's irrelevant in his case anyway.

Sure there is potential for governmental abuse. There is every single day from every single law enforcement officer out there. And so far as I can tell they've kept the Supreme Court pretty busy Patriot Act or no.

I guess my main question is how is the Patriot Act substantially any different from the laws used to go after the Mafia? Substitute mobster for terrorist and it seems to me like the government has about the same powers. The possibility for abuse was still there. They could tap your phone, or follow you, and investigate you all they wanted. All they had to do was say you had mob ties. Now it's terrorism. I don't see a big difference. In reality we both know that nobody, not even the FBI, just picks names at random out of the phone book to go arrest. They still have to have probable cause, they just don't have make it public.

[jarhead6073]

some guy,

Thanks for story. I get the point but, this case is North Carolina's "state's antiterrorism laws", not the Patriot Act

[SomeGuy]

Originally posted by jarhead6073
some guy,

Thanks for story. I get the point but, this case is North Carolina's "state's antiterrorism laws", not the Patriot Act

Eh, true. I don't know alot about the legal system, but the article said that the act the guy got prosecuted under was passed in November 2001. I've got to think that it was passed to mirror the patriot act at the state level.

[retired]

Originally posted by jarhead6073
retired,

Since you're the one who has been ranting and raving about abuses of the Patriot Act, I figured that there must be some news out there that I'm missing. That I must be uninformed. But if Dr. Al-Hamzi is the best you can do then it seems to me that you're making a big fuss over nothing. The Patriot Act wasn't even law yet when Al-Hamzi was arrested so it's irrelevant in his case anyway.

Sure there is potential for governmental abuse. There is every single day from every single law enforcement officer out there. And so far as I can tell they've kept the Supreme Court pretty busy Patriot Act or no.

I guess my main question is how is the Patriot Act substantially any different from the laws used to go after the Mafia? Substitute mobster for terrorist and it seems to me like the government has about the same powers. The possibility for abuse was still there. They could tap your phone, or follow you, and investigate you all they wanted. All they had to do was say you had mob ties. Now it's terrorism. I don't see a big difference. In reality we both know that nobody, not even the FBI, just picks names at random out of the phone book to go arrest. They still have to have probable cause, they just don't have make it public.

jarhead,

Obviously you are not a leo and have never worked with the FBI, nor have read the Patriot Act. You are not really familiar with coinintelpro either, are you? You may think it isn't an infringement on the BOR's but I do. How about you spend a week in Rikers for doing nothing and tell me about it. Tell me that you think it is okay to detain someone for two years without bringing charges. Have you ever read the 4,5,and 6th amendments?

I'm not attempting to be sarcastic, but I hope you don't go into LE. I probably have a greater respect for the BOR's than you do. I don't believe in violating anyones rights, including the bad guys I put in jail for many years.

[retired]

jarhead,

Since you support the Patriot Act, can I assume you support secret government warrants, non-court approved warrants, etc? Here are some excerpts from the PA. I'd be interested if you really support this in America.
Under the Patriot Act, the definition of terrorism is expanded to cover anyone or any group that tries to bring about change for political or ideological reasons and uses any kind of force to bring it about. This could range from nailing a poster to a courthouse door to carrying a picket sign. Thus, the government now has the authority to harass a broad range of political dissenters, ranging from Greenpeace to anti-abortion protesters to environmental activists to the National Rifle Association.

Under the Patriot Act, the government can, and most likely already has, conducted black bag and sneak and peak searches. In other words, government agents -- much like other authoritarian regimes -- can now enter your apartment or home and look through your documents, computer files and possessions ("sneak and peak") or take documents, files and possessions ("black bag") without giving you notice that they've ever been on your property.

Also under the Patriot Act, the government has routine access to your educational and financial/banking records as long as the government asserts that snooping through your records is "related to a terrorism investigation." What this means is that all a government agent has to say to get access to your records is, "We're conducting a terrorism investigation." And, believe it or not, your school or bank cannot inform you that the government has gotten this information.

The Patriot Act allows government agents to conduct document searches and seizures of businesses as well. Moreover, any company, including employers, libraries, Internet providers, banks, bookstores and video stores must provide all records relating to the subject under investigation. Again, these entities cannot inform anyone, including the suspect or the media, that they have been rifling through their files. A violation of this provision is a federal offense that can result in imprisonment

[retired]

jarhead,

according to the governments Inspector general there have been 34 cases of abuse. Now he said that, I didn't make it up.



Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)

July 29, 2003 Tuesday SOONER EDITION

SECTION: EDITORIAL, Pg.A-14

LENGTH: 355 words

HEADLINE: WATCHING THE WATCHERS;
EVEN A FEW ABUSED DETAINEES ARE TOO MANY

BODY:
"If I was in charge, I would execute every one of you ... because of the crimes you all did."

-- a physician in a federal prison, addressing an inmate detained on suspicion of ties to terrorists

That comment, which rightly led to a reprimand for the doctor from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, is one example of abuse cited by Justice Department investigators in a new report required by the USA Patriot Act. The good news is that such incidents have been few and far between, according to a report by the Justice Department's in-house watchdog.

The department's inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, investigated more than 1,000 complaints, mostly from detainees of Arab or Islamic background, about mistreatment during federal detention. Mr. Fine concluded that there were only 34 credible claims of abuse. Even one is too many, of course, but the overall picture is encouraging.

So, of course, is the fact that Mr. Fine is keeping Congress and the public apprised of official wrongdoing that does take place. The Patriot Act, enacted in response to the outrage of Sept. 11, gave the federal government more powers in investigating potential terrorists. Many in Congress who voted for it also worried that those powers might be abused. That is why Mr. Fine's function is so important.

In an earlier report, he concluded that, after picking up 800 illegal immigrants, federal officials "made little attempt to distinguish" between detainees with possible ties to terrorism and those with no such connections. Mr. Fine proposed changes to prevent such abuses in the future, and the Justice Department embraced some of his ideas.

After the catastrophic carnage of Sept. 11, it was inevitable that in responding to the threat of terrorism federal authorities would err on the side of protecting Americans. Most of us wouldn't have it any other way. But the operative word is "err." Precisely because of the possibility of error created by new powers, federal officials need to be scrupulous to prevent and punish abuses by everyone from FBI agents to prison guards to a bully who happens to possess a medical degree.

;)

[jarhead6073]

I think "supporter" of the Patriot Act is a little strong. I certainly don't support every provision of the Act. Especially "sneek and peek" searches. The point of this thread was not about what the Patriot theoretically allows LE to do, but what they have done and how they have abused the powers granted them. Many, many, many people rant about how it's being abused but nobody has specifics. Al-Hamzi's rights were violated just fine without the Patriot Act.

I would much rather see a terrorism equivalant of the FISA court set up instead of the Patriot Act. A secure court the feds had to go to to get warrants for people they want to investigate. In many ways though the Patriot isn't that much different from current police work. Hell undercover agents are much more duplicitus than a sneek and peek search.

The Patriot Act allows government agents to conduct document searches and seizures of businesses as well. Moreover, any company, including employers, libraries, Internet providers, banks, bookstores and video stores must provide all records relating to the subject under investigation. Again, these entities cannot inform anyone, including the suspect or the media, that they have been rifling through their files. A violation of this provision is a federal offense that can result in imprisonment

Show me where it says that. From what I've seen nowhere does the Patriot Act even mention libraries. Here is one article I read dealing with just that concern http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/610jkoha.asp

[retired]

jarhead,

I would think that even you would recognize that when 215 mentions books, it doesn't exclude a library. Libraries contain books.

Prior to 215 the agent requesting the warrant had to show probable cause, now they don't. Isn't that nice?

Section 21521 is one of several provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act that relaxes the requirements, and extends the reach, of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).22 Under Section 215, the Director of the FBI or a designee as low in rank as an Assistant Special Agent in Charge, may apply for a court order requiring the production of "any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)" upon his written statement that these items are being sought for an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."23 A judge presented with an application under Section 215 is required to enter an order if he "finds that the application meets the requirements of this section."24


Notably absent from Section 215 is the restriction in the FISA provision it amends that had required the government to specify in its application for a court order that "there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."25 Under Section 215, the FBI may obtain sensitive personal records by simply certifying that they are sought for an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." The FBI need not even suspect the person whose records are sought of wrongdoing. Furthermore, the class of persons whose records are obtainable under Section 215 is no longer limited to foreign powers and their agents, but may include United States persons.26 While Section 215 bars investigations of United States persons "solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution," it does nothing to bar investigations of United States persons based on other activities that appear to tie them - no matter how loosely - to an international terrorism investigation.27
:rolleyes:

[retired]

jarhead,

I'm not going to do anymore research for you.;) If you don't have a problem living under the PA, that's your choioce, and I'm not trying to change your mind. If you don't have a problem with giving the government almost unlimited power, that's your choice. It's just not mine. I assume you remember from your history classes what happens to countries where the government takes away the power of the people.

Incidently, from 1993 until 2004, we have had two attacks in the U.S. from a foreign terrorist organization, both AQ. And I include 911 as one attack. I wouldn't say that there is or has been any epidemic of imminent terorist threats, except the ones created by our federal government.

Take care. By the way, or you now or plan to be a LEO?

[Stratman]

Well, unfortunately I have been too busy to visit the board for a few days and respond and will be away for a few more days in case anyone wonders why I am not responded to responses of my post.

As for if I have posted under a different name, not on this board I have not, however, on other boards I post as Swat1.

Retired, I am amazed as a former LEO your' paranoia about the government. I am sure you served at a different time and place, because after 12 years in LE and the intelligence field, I have only observed and exercised due diligence in carrying out my duties. I have been nothing but impressed with my co-workers and have conducted operations using FISA (before the PA) and recently contemplated a "sneak and peek" warrant for a residence. When I say contemplated, I mean actually drafted the required warrant and supporting documentation.

Having said that, I am quite satisfied with the safeguards in place to protect those of us who are not involved in criminal behavior. Let's get something straight real fast. WE COULD CARE LESS ABOUT PEOPLE'S PRIVATE LIVES IF THEY ARE NOT INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, NOR DO WE HAVE THE TIME, RESOURCES OR ENERGY TO CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE READING AT THE LIBRARY, THE PORNO SHOP, THE INTERNET CAFE, BORDERS, ETC., ETC., AD NAUSEUM. I can barely keep up with the cases I have involving, yep, real criminals, let alone "SPY" on every day average joe.

The systems of checks and balances in place is a good one. NONE of the things opponents of the PA cite as being abusive, infringing, etc., etc., happen without judicial oversight. NOT ONE THING. The sneek and peek warrants that even jarhead doesn't agree with are EXACTLY THE SAME AS ANY OTHER SEARCH WARRANT law enforcement has been using for decades and decades. As a matter of fact, the requirements are more stringent. Really for a sneek and peak you the level of articuable suspicion is Probable Cause +. Not only do I need to show probable cause that a crime has been or is about to be committed, and that items subject to seizure will be present at the location, but I also have to articulate that other less intrusive investigative means have been exhausted, would compromise the investigation, or have been completed. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WITH A SNEEK AND PEAK WARRANT IS THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT. We can DELAY again I say DELAY the notice up to 6 mos. And when I say up to that means again I need judicial review to delay it that long. Generally notice would have to be given at 90 days and an inventory of property seized accompanies that notice.

Other provisions of the PA purely allow us to keep up with current technology and methods of operation of the bad guys. Bad guys knew the issues surrounding Title III monitorings of cell phones and would change cell phones every other day and move through multiple jurisdictions. Prior to the PA, I would have to obtain a T3 court order everytime the cell changed and in the new district the cell was in. Talk about a huge waste of time and manpower. Now under the PA the T3 court order is for the person not the phone and is valid in any district as long as it is issued by a US Federal District Court Judge. So in essence the exact same monitoring is being used, but the agents time management is much more beneficial to the investigation and to the tax-payer. Because I don't know about you, but I want agents working cases effectively. The old addage, "Work smart, not hard," comes into play.

I will tell you matter of factly, that in MY experience, the agents, other agency LEO's and Assistant United States Attorneys that I work with strive to ensure that we are upholding the Constitution and laws of the United States. Can I say that every LEO across this nation is never going to abuse ANY of the powers granted to him/her? Of course not, as we have all seen cases of officers who abuse their positions of trust. That unfortunately, would happen with, or without the Patriot Act.

Stratman

[Invisiblecop]

Stratman

I thought "I" was the only one who noticedretired has a Governmental Paranoia. He seems to raise "Holy Hell" when mentioning anything Government related. Further for a retired L.E.O. his anti-firearm. I respect everyone's position but to vehemently oppose CCW for retired L.E.O.'s and/or civilians I find it unusual. Moreover likening such a privilige to the SS or Gestapo is ridiculous.

Believing there aren't any Islamic Terrorist Cells in the United States is another fantasy. It's been "proven" these cells exist. There's no doubt we've "our own" internal terrorists and have had them for years in one form or another. To completely eradicate them is a horse of another color. As long as you have Liberals and the groups that shelter these people like the A.C.L.U. I seriously doubt that anything will be done to rid this country of these parasites.

A week past 9/11 the Feds came to Rikers Island. They took with them a good 40% of the inmate population. Why? Because the were Middle Eastern illegals awaiting a variety of charges including "Conspiracy."
In my housing area I had Bin Ladens' brother, one of many blood brothers. He went to the Feds. I had noticed the "surge" in Middle Eastern inmates and "joked" about putting up "Camel" stalls to accomodate the visitors. Little did anyone "know" what was to come.

To say there is no such thing as "Al Qaida" Terror Cells here in the U.S. is comparable to saying Hitler and the Holcaust never existed!

[retired]

Originally posted by Invisiblecop
Stratman

I thought "I" was the only one who noticedretired has a Governmental Paranoia. He seems to raise "Holy Hell" when mentioning anything Government related. Further for a retired L.E.O. his anti-firearm. I respect everyone's position but to vehemently oppose CCW for retired L.E.O.'s and/or civilians I find it unusual. Moreover likening such a privilige to the SS or Gestapo is ridiculous.

Believing there aren't any Islamic Terrorist Cells in the United States is another fantasy. It's been "proven" these cells exist. There's no doubt we've "our own" internal terrorists and have had them for years in one form or another. To completely eradicate them is a horse of another color. As long as you have Liberals and the groups that shelter these people like the A.C.L.U. I seriously doubt that anything will be done to rid this country of these parasites.

A week past 9/11 the Feds came to Rikers Island. They took with them a good 40% of the inmate population. Why? Because the were Middle Eastern illegals awaiting a variety of charges including "Conspiracy."
In my housing area I had Bin Ladens' brother, one of many blood brothers. He went to the Feds. I had noticed the "surge" in Middle Eastern inmates and "joked" about putting up "Camel" stalls to accomodate the visitors. Little did anyone "know" what was to come.

To say there is no such thing as "Al Qaida" Terror Cells here in the U.S. is comparable to saying Hitler and the Holcaust never existed!

Your opinion about me, even though severely flawed, and unsubstantiated, is so very important to me!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Invisiblecop]

retired

We all have quirks and opinions. I'm not singling you out for anything other that what you have previously stated. Those statements you've aleady claimed you're opposed to :

1) The Passage of H.R. 218

2) Anything the Government intervenes in

3) Refuse to believe "Terrorist Cells" with ties to Al Qaida reside in the United States.

4) Believing "armimg" the citizens, or L.E.O.'s is likening this country to the Gestapo or SS

Further any statement I post you highlight it in its entirety as if I were directing it toward you personally, which isn't the case. You "appear" to be "intellectualizing" your position about the United States when in reality it appears abhor the Government and all it stands for. Quite an unusual position for an American, wouldn't you say?

From my "first" posting concerning H.R. 218 you've "ridiculed" every post therein. If this makes you "happy" then So Be It

[Nobody]

.

[retired]

Originally posted by Nobody
Retired Posted: "jarhead,

according to the governments Inspector general there have been 34 cases of abuse. Now he said that, I didn't make it up."
(retired)

so you distrust the federal agents but cite them as a source to prove abuse? When I was a local cop we weren't perfect either, and when one of us screwed up we got called on it - ie: shooting, state officers did the investigation. So the feds are watching their own...

Believe me - the checks and balances are WAY more stringent at the federal level. Almost to the point of choking off any effort to enforce anything. You make it sound like any Fed can get a 'sneak and peek' warrant on a whim... not a chance. Just like the fearsome wiretap (Title III) you must prove that you have exhausted ALL OTHER methods of moving an investigation forward / the investigation will stop cold without the order. And you do indeed need to prove there is credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing

Were you ever a fed? I assume you were, since you are so knowledgeable about all of the agencies and procedures. Of course you seem to treat your retirement as all the proof you need to back up your expertise.

If you don't like my opinions, don't read them or comment on them! ;) ;) Ignore them!

[retired]

Originally posted by Invisiblecop
retired

We all have quirks and opinions. I'm not singling you out for anything other that what you have previously stated. Those statements you've aleady claimed you're opposed to :

1) The Passage of H.R. 218

2) Anything the Government intervenes in

3) Refuse to believe "Terrorist Cells" with ties to Al Qaida reside in the United States.

4) Believing "armimg" the citizens, or L.E.O.'s is likening this country to the Gestapo or SS

Further any statement I post you highlight it in its entirety as if I were directing it toward you personally, which isn't the case. You "appear" to be "intellectualizing" your position about the United States when in reality it appears abhor the Government and all it stands for. Quite an unusual position for an American, wouldn't you say?

From my "first" posting concerning H.R. 218 you've "ridiculed" every post therein. If this makes you "happy" then So Be It

Have a nice day officer. You obviously didn't read what I said about CW. I am not opposed to offers or civilians carrying. I just don't think the feds shold be involved. If you don't like that, I'm sorry.:(

[Invisiblecop]

Gotta know:confused: ? What's with repeating my entire posts in BOLD?:confused: :eek:

[jarhead6073]

Since there is a presumption of reasonablness for searches conducted with a warrant, it seems that Fourth Amendmet issuses with the PA have be fairly addressed.

That does still leave Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues. So far as I can tell this issue really hinges on the definition of "enemy combatants". I don't think that Padilla or anyone else is being held under the Patriot Act. Isn't he being held under military rules based on the President's determination that he is an enemy combatant? I don't know how the PA affects this definition or people who are called enemy combatants by the government. Maybe Stratman could address this issue since he seems to be well versed in the working of the PA.

I did a search through the text of the PA and didn't come up with a mention of enemy or combatant. So I don't know how it is related to Padilla's case if it is at all.

[SomeGuy]

Gotta know:confused: ? What's with repeating my entire posts in BOLD?:confused: :eek:

When you use the quote feature at the bottom of each post, instead of doing the vb code yourself, it automatically puts the text of the quote in bold.

I did a search through the text of the PA and didn't come up with a mention of enemy or combatant. So I don't know how it is related to Padilla's case if it is at all.


Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act)

The USA PATRIOT Act is not why the American citizens Jose Padilla and Yaser Kemal are being held; they are being held as enemy combatants, a term from the World War II era. The U.S. government is relying on a 1942 Supreme Court decision, Ex parte Quirin...

And the original description of the distinction between lawful combatant, and unlawful (enemy) combatant, taken from the Ex parte Quirin decision:

"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

However, this seems to apply to noncitizens only, making Bush's use of it questionable, although completely seperate from the issue of the patriot act.

[jarhead6073]

Which was my basic understanding of the situation. But that only increases my puzzlement with the severe critics of the PA. If it has nothing to do with Padilla, if the feds still have to get warrants to do anything under the PA, and 1 of 34 so called "abuses" of the PA is a doctor saying that prisoners should be killed. And how that counts as an abuse of the PA I have no idea. That really makes me question what the other "abuses" really were.

[Stratman]

Someguy is exactly right. I just returned from a few days away and was going to post something similar. The liberals like to blame everything on the Patriot Act when the Patriot Act is not the law used for several items it is being blamed for. Good article in yesterdays (2/25) USA Today about what the Patriot Act is and ISN'T.

Stratman