w1ld wrote:

] ] The terrorist threat will not expire on that
] ] schedule, he told lawmakers. Our law
] ] enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our
] ] citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act."
]
] Fuck you Ashcroft. We are not interested in more Patriot Act.
] We do not live in the middle east. We live in America. We
] have rights and civil liberties built by our forefathers. You
] strip those from us and leave us with only what our
] forefathers would be rolling in their grave to learn about.
] You are not making me safer from terrorism by reading my bank
] account statemets without court concent but by dropping bombs
] on tents where terrorist reside. Also, you are not providing
] due process to those terrorist that reside in the United
] States. You only lock them up and throw away the key. Why
] not show the world our court system and due process and what
] happens to people/groups that carry out evil deeds.
]
] Let the Patriot Act die is deserved death and bring on the
] guns and bombs where the real war of terrorism is fought.

Hear hear!!!

w1ld wrote:
] Let the Patriot Act die is deserved death and bring on the
] guns and bombs where the real war of terrorism is fought.

I agree with everything you said in spirit. However, I am 100% positive that it is not going to be allowed to expire or get repealed. If I judge the current political climate correctly, it would require evidence of abuse to start surfacing. And more then one case.. We will be lucky if any improvements or changes are made. We should focus on making sure it is not made permanent, as that's about the only outcome I can see actually happening.

Rattle wrote:
] w1ld wrote:
] ] Let the Patriot Act die is deserved death and bring on the
] ] guns and bombs where the real war of terrorism is fought.
]
] I agree with everything you said in spirit. However, I am
] 100% positive that it is not going to be allowed to expire or
] get repealed. If I judge the current political climate
] correctly, it would require evidence of abuse to start
] surfacing. And more then one case.. We will be lucky if any
] improvements or changes are made. We should focus on making
] sure it is not made permanent, as that's about the only
] outcome I can see actually happening.

My own opinion is that trying to attack the entire Patriot Act is a bad idea, but that it is worth focusing on getting specific provisions repealed or amended.

I've read large portions of the Patriot Act, and most of it is really unobjectionable, paperwork-streamlining stuff. But there has been an enormous amount of misinformation that has been distributed about just what it does. For example, there were lots of people screaming that the Patriot Act made hacking a terrorist activity, and that just wasn't true -- what it *did* do though was declare that if someone used a computer to affect systems in such a way that they caused a loss of life (like to turn off power to hospitals or cause a plane to crash), then that activity could be classified as terrorism. I don't have a problem with that definition.

There *are* specific parts of the Patriot Act though which do bother me, such as the possibility of putting librarians under gag orders and requiring them to divulge who checks out which book. To my knowledge that section of the Act has never been used, but every time I pass by a library, it's on my mind, and I don't like it. I don't like the idea of looking at a shelf of books and thinking, "Well, no one's probably going to care if I check out *that* book, but if I check out *this* book, then it may show up on an FBI agent's list somewhere." That crosses my Orwellian line of unacceptability.

I also have concerns about the recently-passed "Patriot Act 2" provision which allows federal investigators to access an enormous amount of personal financial information on anyone they want, and again placing the divulgers under gag orders, but with the investigators having to do no more than provide a letter saying it's related to national security. I agree with the Washington Post, in that it's too much power, with too little oversight.

My $0.02,

Elonka

Elonka wrote:
] Rattle wrote:
] ] w1ld wrote:
] ] ] Let the Patriot Act die is deserved death and bring on the
]
] ] ] guns and bombs where the real war of terrorism is fought.
] ]
] ] I agree with everything you said in spirit. However, I am
] ] 100% positive that it is not going to be allowed to expire
] or
] ] get repealed. If I judge the current political climate
] ] correctly, it would require evidence of abuse to start
] ] surfacing. And more then one case.. We will be lucky if
] any
] ] improvements or changes are made. We should focus on making
]
] ] sure it is not made permanent, as that's about the only
] ] outcome I can see actually happening.
]
] My own opinion is that trying to attack the entire Patriot Act
] is a bad idea, but that it is worth focusing on getting
] specific provisions repealed or amended.
]
] I've read large portions of the Patriot Act, and most of it is
] really unobjectionable, paperwork-streamlining stuff. But
] there has been an enormous amount of misinformation that has
] been distributed about just what it does. For example, there
] were lots of people screaming that the Patriot Act made
] hacking a terrorist activity, and that just wasn't true --
] what it *did* do though was declare that if someone used a
] computer to affect systems in such a way that they caused a
] loss of life (like to turn off power to hospitals or cause a
] plane to crash), then that activity could be classified as
] terrorism. I don't have a problem with that definition.
]
] There *are* specific parts of the Patriot Act though which do
] bother me, such as the possibility of putting librarians under
] gag orders and requiring them to divulge who checks out which
] book. To my knowledge that section of the Act has never been
] used, but every time I pass by a library, it's on my mind, and
] I don't like it. I don't like the idea of looking at a shelf
] of books and thinking, "Well, no one's probably going to care
] if I check out *that* book, but if I check out *this* book,
] then it may show up on an FBI agent's list somewhere." That
] crosses my Orwellian line of unacceptability.
]
] I also have concerns about the recently-passed "Patriot Act 2"
] provision which allows federal investigators to access an
] enormous amount of personal financial information on anyone
] they want, and again placing the divulgers under gag orders,
] but with the investigators having to do no more than provide a
] letter saying it's related to national security. I agree with
] the Washington Post, in that it's too much power, with too
] little oversight.
]
] My $0.02,
]
] Elonka

I would agree that most seems like paper-streamlining, in some ways cutting out the middleman. But, as with the rest of the act, it really comes down to whether or not we think this act will be abused. It does not make hacking terrorism per-se, but could it successfully be made out to be anyway? Unfortunately, the rules aren't usually as solid as they appear on paper. History also shows that the more freedom you give authority, the more authority will abuse it. I feel if you pass an act that steps over the bill of rights, you had better be in martial law over a real war and not one that is based largely in bull-shit which never ends. I dont even think congress has even declared we are at war.

Elonka wrote:
] My own opinion is that trying to attack the entire Patriot Act
] is a bad idea, but that it is worth focusing on getting
] specific provisions repealed or amended.
]
] I've read large portions of the Patriot Act, and most of it is
] really unobjectionable, paperwork-streamlining stuff. But
] there has been an enormous amount of misinformation that has
] been distributed about just what it does.

I think the patriot act has gotten a lot of focus because it has such an easy name. Often I find people who are up in arms about it and when I drill for specifics they are really concerned about enemy combatants and not the patriot act itself. I'm concerned about them too, and I'm much more interested in that question then I am in the patriot act. Of course, politicians will focus on what gets attention from the most people, rather then what those people a really concerned about.

For the most part the patriot act needs merely a bit of balancing to satisfy the problems that informed commentators like the ACLU have with it. Most of the real problems with it, in my view, stem from its application outside of what you and I would define as "terrorism." The money laundering is a simple example. A more complex example is the definition of the word terrorism itself. When you and I talk about it we are thinking of september 11th, but the law defines it as anyone who commits a violent crime with a political agenda. This, for example, would come into play in the context of anti-globalization protesters, who frequently destroy properly and attack police. What they are doing is wrong, but I don't think its elevated to the level where we would consider it terrorism. (Furthermore, lord only knows what examples of basically non-violent activity have been put under the definition of "violent crime" for political reasons.)

Striking a more reasonable balance here would satisfy most of the concerns with it. I don't really think you're a terrorist until you are attempting to murder people or seriously harm them, usually in large numbers.

w1ld wrote:
] ] Inside the United States, where the war began, we
] ] must continue to give homeland security and law
] ] enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend
] ] us, the president said, noting that key provisions
] ] of the Patriot Act were set to expire next year.
] ]
] ] The terrorist threat will not expire on that
] ] schedule, he told lawmakers. Our law
] ] enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our
] ] citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act."
]
] Fuck you Ashcroft. We are not interested in more Patriot Act.
] We do not live in the middle east. We live in America. We
] have rights and civil liberties built by our forefathers. You
] strip those from us and leave us with only what our
] forefathers would be rolling in their grave to learn about.
] You are not making me safer from terrorism by reading my bank
] account statemets without court concent but by dropping bombs
] on tents where terrorist reside. Also, you are not providing
] due process to those terrorist that reside in the United
] States. You only lock them up and throw away the key. Why
] not show the world our court system and due process and what
] happens to people/groups that carry out evil deeds.
]
] Let the Patriot Act die is deserved death and bring on the
] guns and bombs where the real war of terrorism is fought.

Amen!!!!! :)