Trumps 9th circuit judge nominee

[benenglish]

Perhaps you should remember the context.

I remember the context. The entire world was looking at America, expecting leadership, rationality, competence, resolve in the face of grief, and a re-affirmation that the basic societal principles upon which a free people agree will be upheld, will be strong enough to withstand a cowardly attack by a few murderous radicals.

And then our elected representatives ran around like their hair was on fire, passed the Patriot Act, actively supported every treasonous encroachment on civil liberties anyone wanted to propose, and demonstrated to the world that the American beacon on a hill would never again shine as brightly.

 

[Big Green]

I remember the context. The entire world was looking at America, expecting leadership, rationality, competence, resolve in the face of grief, and a re-affirmation that the basic societal principles upon which a free people agree will be upheld, will be strong enough to withstand a cowardly attack by a few murderous radicals.

And then our elected representatives ran around like their hair was on fire, passed the Patriot Act, actively supported every treasonous encroachment on civil liberties anyone wanted to propose, and demonstrated to the world that the American beacon on a hill would never again shine as brightly.

Well said.

 

[seeker_two]

Perhaps you should remember the context.

The Patriot Act legislation had been floating around for years before 9/11. That event just gave Congress an excuse to dust it off and enact it.

Are you actually claiming that our civil rights and security is better today than before we had TSA and rampant surveillance?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Calling BS on that.

Bush II was def a RINO. I never believed that until a couple of years ago. Was asked to give a talk on the UN Agenda 21. So I began my research, by the time I had to 143 slides I realized trying to give a one hour talk on Agenda 21 was more like shouting fire and providing no other info. But what did come out of my research was the involvement by Bush II, his name was all over it...he is a LONG ways from being a conservative.

 

[oldag]

In the face of increasingly heinous acts against us, is the solution really giving up our rights?

View attachment 140803


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I assume you are referring to the abuse of FISA warrants under Obama.

No denying it is an extremely hard call to make when faced with a 9/11, and an incredibly difficult balance. But remember the heinous acts to which you are referring (I assume) did not occur on W's watch. And Obama was never worried about laws anyhow, the FISA abuse problems would have happened anyhow.

W never intended for the Patriot Act to go on forever, anyway.

And after 9/11, not a single terrorist attack occurred on W's watch in the U.S. That is no small accomplishment.

Again, a very difficult balance.

 

[oldag]

Bush II was def a RINO. I never believed that until a couple of years ago. Was asked to give a talk on the UN Agenda 21. So I began my research, by the time I had to 143 slides I realized trying to give a one hour talk on Agenda 21 was more like shouting fire and providing no other info. But what did come out of my research was the involvement by Bush II, his name was all over it...he is a LONG ways from being a conservative.

The evidence of what was accomplished during his terms simply belies your statement.

 

[oldag]

The Patriot Act legislation had been floating around for years before 9/11. That event just gave Congress an excuse to dust it off and enact it.

Are you actually claiming that our civil rights and security is better today than before we had TSA and rampant surveillance?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

See post 25.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

The evidence of what was accomplished during his terms simply belies your statement.

Like I said for years I believed in him, but Google is your friend and as I peeled back the layers of Agenda 21 I found his name everywhere in and on it. Agenda 21 is one world GOVT and the Bushes are eyeball deep in that!

 

[LOCKHART]

Old man Bush especially!

 

[oldag]

Like I said for years I believed in him, but Google is your friend and as I peeled back the layers of Agenda 21 I found his name everywhere in and on it. Agenda 21 is one world GOVT and the Bushes are eyeball deep in that!

Make sure you have tin foil in your socks to match your tin foil hat.

 

[oldag]

I remember the context. The entire world was looking at America, expecting leadership, rationality, competence, resolve in the face of grief, and a re-affirmation that the basic societal principles upon which a free people agree will be upheld, will be strong enough to withstand a cowardly attack by a few murderous radicals.

And then our elected representatives ran around like their hair was on fire, passed the Patriot Act, actively supported every treasonous encroachment on civil liberties anyone wanted to propose, and demonstrated to the world that the American beacon on a hill would never again shine as brightly.

And had we not acted, who knows how many thousands more innocent American citizens would have been slaughtered by terrorists. 9-11 was more than "a few murderous radicals", as I know you are intelligent enough to realize. And more large scale attacks were in the works. AQ did not just kick up their heels on the desk after 9-11 and decide to retire.

Again, tough calls and tough to balance.

 

[easy rider]

Working at one of the biggest naval bases and the only one with nuclear facilities on the west coast, I know I was scared, but even then I knew we were giving up too much freedom. Yet the media kept saying it wasn't enough. I often felt that maybe I was the only one that could see what we were giving up for the cost of security.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Make sure you have tin foil in your socks to match your tin foil hat.

What wrong, can't handle the TRUTH?

 

[pronstar]

I assume you are referring to the abuse of FISA warrants under Obama.

No denying it is an extremely hard call to make when faced with a 9/11, and an incredibly difficult balance. But remember the heinous acts to which you are referring (I assume) did not occur on W's watch. And Obama was never worried about laws anyhow, the FISA abuse problems would have happened anyhow.

W never intended for the Patriot Act to go on forever, anyway.

And after 9/11, not a single terrorist attack occurred on W's watch in the U.S. That is no small accomplishment.

Again, a very difficult balance.

No sir.
I’m no extrapolating this to anything Obama did.

I’m looking strictly at constitutional protections that the patriot act wiped out...which shouldn’t even be possible under the law.

The fact that the patriot act “wasn’t designed to go on forever” is irrelevant.

We don’t have rights only when times are good.
Rights apply especially during times of difficulty.

It reminds me of LEO’s confiscating firearms in the aftermath of Katrina.
One can’t simply dismiss this as “well, we’re only taking their guns, their only means of protection, for a little while...we’ll give them back later.”

That’s not how it’s supposed to work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[LOCKHART]

The Patriot Act has been abused. A buddy gave a guy a ride home from a bar. After the guy got out, my friend was stopped one block down the street by an APD officer. Asked my friend what he was doing stopping at that house. He told the cop he gave a guy a ride. The cop got on his radio, then handcuffed my friend and placed him in the back seat. My friend thought he was being taken to jail. Instead he was taken to an office building in Oak Hill. He was taken to a room, and a guy in a suit came in to interview him. The suit asked him what he was doing at that house. Buddy told him just what he had told the APD officer. Suit says "You ever hear of the Patriot Act, cause if you don't tell me what you know about that house, you might not see the light of day for quite awhile". Now this naturally scared the living shit out of my friend! He repeated his story, and after about an hour of this abuse, the suit told the APD officer to take my friend back to his truck. On the way back, the APD officer told him that house was under surveillance by the Feds for being a major drug distribution center. Needless to say, this scared my friend so bad, you can believe he will never give a stranger a ride ever again. Yes, I know this would be " hearsay" in a court room, but I've known this guy all my life and have never known him to lie.

 

[oldag]

What wrong, can't handle the TRUTH?

Guess you believe in the Trilateral Commission as well.

Truth I have no problem with. Unfounded and silly conspiracies? Not so much.

 

[oldag]

I’m looking strictly at constitutional protections that the patriot act wiped out...which shouldn’t even be possible under the law.

Any specific citations there?

 

[LOCKHART]

LOL! "None so blind as he who will not see!", olddag!

 

[pronstar]

Any specific citations there?

Erosion of 1A
Dismantling of 4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[oldag]

Erosion of 1A
Dismantling of 4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don't see how the 1A was affected at all.

Sometimes I think it is helpful to get back to what the Patriot Act really says, as so much hype has occurred.

---
Some key provisions of the legislation consisted of amendments to the Wiretap Act (1968; amended 1986 and 1994), which had prohibited eavesdropping by the government on private face-to-face, telephone, and electronic communications except as authorized by court order in narrowly defined circumstances in cases of serious crimes. Sections 201 and 202 of the USA PATRIOT Act added computer and terrorist crimes to the list of serious offenses in connection with which law-enforcement officials could seek a court order to conduct eavesdropping. Section 209 established that voice mail was not entitled to the same protections that governed telephone conversations but only to the weaker safeguards applicable to telephone records and e-mail stored with third parties (usually an Internet service provider). In Section 210 the act added individual subscribers’ credit card or bank account numbers to records that could be obtained from a communication services provider through a subpoena.
So terrorist crimes were added to the list, I have no problem with that at all. I don't see much difference in voice mail and email, so I don't have a problem with the two being treated the same. Getting account information via a subpoena? They could do that anyhow with a subpoena just issued to a different company.
---

---
Section 216 permitted the use of trap-and-trace devices and pen registers—which record the source and destination, respectively, of calls made to and from a particular telephone—to monitor electronic communications, understood to include e-mail and Web browsing. Court orders for such surveillance did not require probable cause (a showing of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the surveillance would be likely to uncover evidence of criminal activity by the target) but only a certification by the government that the information sought was likely to be relevant to a criminal investigation.
Okay, I would tend to agree with you here.
---

---
To facilitate cooperation between law-enforcement and intelligence agencies in cases involving terrorism, Section 203 allowed government attorneys to disclose matters before a federal grand jury (whose investigations are generally secret) to “any Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official” when such matters concerned “foreign intelligence or counterintelligence.” Section 213 authorized so-called “sneak and peek” searches, in which notification of the target is delayed until after the search has been executed. (The length of the delay must be “reasonable” but could be extended indefinitely for “good cause shown.”)
Sharing information regarding foreign intelligence is not a problem to me. Section 213 could be dicey.
---

---
Other provisions of the act made changes to the operation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which was established by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to authorize electronic surveillance (and later physical searches) targeting foreign powers or their agents. Section 218 removed the requirement that the government certify in its applications for surveillance authority that “the” purpose of the surveillance was to collect foreign intelligence information. Instead, it was sufficient that the government state that collecting such information was “a significant purpose.” In other changes, Section 215 removed a FISA provision that limited the types of records that the government, with a FISA court order, could require certain businesses to produce, replacing it with a general authority to demand “any tangible things” of any third party, including “books, records, papers, documents, and other items.” This section also imposed a gag order that generally prohibited third parties from disclosing the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had sought or obtained such things.
I have no problems with surveillance of foreign powers and their agents.

---

---
A related provision, Section 505, authorized the FBI to issue subpoenas based on a certification that the information sought is relevant to a foreign intelligence or international terrorism investigation. Orders for such information, known as National Security Letters (NSLs), also imposed gag orders on their recipients. Other sections of the act permitted the FISC to authorize “roving” electronic surveillance, which could be carried out in any location and with any equipment (Section 206), and increased the number of judges on the FISC from 7 to 11 (Section 208).

One could be concerned about abuse of this. But then if one believes the FBI is going to break this law, why would one have any doubt that the FBI would do this regardless of whether or not the Patriot Act existed?
---

---
In other titles, the USA PATRIOT Act increased the powers of the Secretary of the Treasury to combat money laundering; tripled the number of border patrol, customs service, and Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) personnel along the northern U.S. border; established new terrorism-related grounds for detaining or deporting foreign nationals or denying them admittance to the United States; expanded the definition of “material support” for terrorist organizations to include “expert advice or assistance”; and created new terrorist crimes, including attacking a mass transit system. Finally, to allay the concerns of legislators who had questioned the constitutionality of some provisions, Section 224, titled “Sunset,” stipulated that 16 sections and two subsections of the act would cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.
Not sure that this does any damage to US citizens' rights.
----