Bush Pushes for Expanded Patriot Act

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-19 08:39pm

CNN wrote:HERSHEY, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- President Bush urged Congress to renew the anti-terrorist USA Patriot Act and strengthen it before the law expires next year, saying it gives investigators the tools to stop "terrorist monsters."

"There's only one path to safety, and that's the path of action," Bush said. "Congress must act with the Patriot Act. We must continue to stay on the offense when it comes to chasing these killers down and bring them to justice."

Bush credited the law, which passed overwhelmingly in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania, with the ability of federal agents to break up "terrorist supporters and operatives" in eight states.

He urged Congress to make permanent all the act's provisions and to add others that he said would strengthen the law.

Those include provisions expanding the federal death penalty for terrorist attacks, restricting bail for suspects facing terrorism charges and allowing administrative subpoenas to be issued without a judge's or a grand jury's approval in cases "where speed is of the essence."

"We can't return to the days of false hope," he said. "The terrorists declared war on the United States of America, and the Congress must give law enforcement all the tools necessary to protect the American people."

Critics on both the left and right say the act already gives federal agents too much power to snoop on and limit the freedom of individual Americans.

A federal judge in California declared a portion of the statute unconstitutional in January, saying its ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" to groups designated international terrorist organizations was impermissibly vague.

Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said some of the Patriot Act's provisions make sense.

He cited those allowing government agencies to share intelligence and help intelligence services to translate intercepted documents.

"The provisions that are a problem are those that minimize judicial scrutiny of searches and surveillance and that increase government secrecy," Edgar told CNN in a weekend interview.

"We believe that the government shouldn't be able to go into your home without telling you, and that it shouldn't be able to get records about what books you've read, your medical records and other private records without any individual suspicion."

Edgar said the government had extensive surveillance and investigator powers before the September 11 attacks "that it failed to effectively use."

"It seems that the president is using this issue as a distraction from some of the findings of the 9/11 commission that show that under their existing powers and existing law, the government did not do enough to protect us from the attacks of September 11," he said.

Deputy Attorney General James Comey said Monday the law has suffered from "two years of confusion and misconceptions."

For instance, he said, no reference to libraries is in the Patriot Act, even though critics say it would allow investigators to probe a citizen's library records.

"There's a provision that allows counterterrorism investigations to get a court order to obtain documents from car rental places or hotels, or in theory, I suppose, libraries, although I can't figure out how libraries got mixed in this," Comey said.

"That's a power that regular criminal investigators have had for hundreds of years. It now applies to counterterrorism investigators. They have to go to a judge and get a court order to obtain the records."

And in other news, Bush is also leading in the latest polls against Kerry. If this isn't enough to convince you Bushites to vote Kerry on the next election, I don't know what will...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-19 08:40pm

I like the way the news article calls it the "anti-terrorist" Patriot Act instead of the "anti-civil rights" Patriot Act.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-04-19 08:44pm

You know, if one accepts Locke... If this passes we would have a moral right and obligation to rebel...

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2004-04-19 08:53pm

*Sigh* Bush gets re-elected and I move to Canada. Maybe not in 2004, but eventually. I'm not sticking around for four more years of this horseshit.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-04-19 09:02pm

On the other hand, more than a few members of congress (including Republicans) who voted for the original (watered down) Patriot Act admitted months afterward they regretted doing so. Although, a mid-term election has happened since then...

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-04-19 09:13pm

Translation:

I know I'm getting voted out in the fall, so I want the authority to become dictator before then

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-04-19 09:17pm

Solauren wrote:Translation:

I know I'm getting voted out in the fall, so I want the authority to become dictator before then

I've always thought it was more like this:

Bush's closest advisors: We want to give our idiot Texan puppet authority to become dictator through whom we will ruthelessly rule the former United States.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-04-19 09:21pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:You know, if one accepts Locke... If this passes we would have a moral right and obligation to rebel...

Well, that time-travelling looney did mention a renewed U.S. civil war, didn't he?

Seriously, though, this irks me...I actually drafted up a letter to my state's senator (Lieberman) last year requesting that something be done about the DMCA and Patriot acts, stating that I felt both were large threats to vital parts of what it meant to me to be an American. Never sent it, though.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-04-19 09:56pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:You know, if one accepts Locke... If this passes we would have a moral right and obligation to rebel...

Yes, we do.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-04-19 09:56pm

Jefferson also agrees with this with:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Bush counts as a tyrant in my book.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-04-19 10:29pm

I wouldn't actively rebel against the government, but I would do my best to undermine their efforts to destroy civil liberties. I would simply refuse to relinquish my freedoms and those of others.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-04-19 10:58pm

Darth Wong wrote:I like the way the news article calls it the "anti-terrorist" Patriot Act instead of the "anti-civil rights" Patriot Act.

He should have done his presentation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where the city coucil has passed a resolution against the existing USA-PATRIOT Act. That would have made a better press conference.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-04-19 11:12pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:He should have done his presentation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where the city coucil has passed a resolution against the existing USA-PATRIOT Act. That would have made a better press conference.

No shit? Show! Show!

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-04-19 11:17pm

kojikun wrote:
Pablo Sanchez wrote:He should have done his presentation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where the city coucil has passed a resolution against the existing USA-PATRIOT Act. That would have made a better press conference.
No shit? Show! Show!

here

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-04-19 11:31pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:here

The article is slightly out of date. Currently Chicago is the largest city to pass an anti-PATRIOT resolution. A plethora of towns (272 IIRC) of wildly varying sizes have passed such resolutions, which usually call for police to avoid using the unconstitutional terms of the act and to refrain from assisting outside authorities (FBI, basically) in violating the constitution. Chicago, Detroit, Austin, and Philadelphia are the most 'important' cities I can think of which have put out such resolutions.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2004-04-20 12:22am

JME2 wrote:Jefferson also agrees with this with:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Bush counts as a tyrant in my book.

Jefferson was being naive, I think. People desire stability. A revolution is an earth shattering event that a populace would normally avoid at all costs and only undertake in the most extreme of circumstances. No healthy form of government undergoes regular upheavels.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-04-20 12:27am

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:
JME2 wrote:Jefferson also agrees with this with:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Bush counts as a tyrant in my book.
Jefferson was being naive, I think. People desire stability. A revolution is an earth shattering event that a populace would normally avoid at all costs and only undertake in the most extreme of circumstances. No healthy form of government undergoes regular upheavels.

Hey, a right-wing nutcase in office with aspirations of world domination sounds like an extreme circumstance to me.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-04-20 12:31am

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:*Sigh* Bush gets re-elected and I move to Canada. Maybe not in 2004, but eventually. I'm not sticking around for four more years of this horseshit.

Or just do this:

Hide with your head in your trunk until it's all over...

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2004-04-20 01:35am

JME2 wrote:Hey, a right-wing nutcase in office with aspirations of world domination sounds like an extreme circumstance to me.

Hmm... is superextreme a word?

Meest · Post by **Meest** » 2004-04-20 07:46am

What's scary is the civil war word being used more and more, dunno if that supposed time traveller was just a good political analyst but its coming up more and more.

Forgot who said it but it was during the Rice interview that a democrat tried to stop the crowd from cheering and mentioned that leads to civil war.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-04-20 08:35am

JME2 wrote:Jefferson also agrees with this with:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Bush counts as a tyrant in my book.

A-freakin'-men.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-04-20 08:39am

Mike, can you point me to a site detailing the requirements for canadian citizenship? Vympel, I need to know Australia's, too, just in case. Canada is just...*too* close....

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-20 10:11am

Pablo Sanchez wrote: and to refrain from assisting outside authorities (FBI, basically) in violating the constitution.

Much as I dislike the Patriot Act, is that really wise? What happens if they end up fucking up some investigation into real terrorists?

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-04-20 10:12am

EDIT to last post: I didn't mean it to sound like assisint gin violating the constitution, thats something they shouldn't, but I've heard of cities banning police from assisting an any case that uses any powers granted by the Patriot Act.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-20 10:20am

i'm all for LEGAL taxpayer revolt. If everyone in the country immediately stopped weekly tax deduction in favor of paying their taxes quarterly, the government would run out of money in a matter of days... and it is perfectly LEGAL. The best part is that it can be done by motivating only top 10% income bracket. FORCE the issue of fiscal conservatism and efficient foreign policy! Force the issue by cutting the purse strings!