Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data

[ixion]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — For months, President Bush's advisers have assured a skittish public that law-abiding Americans have no reason to fear the long reach of the antiterrorism law known as the Patriot Act because its most intrusive measures would require a judge's sign-off.

But in a plan announced this week to expand counterterrorism powers, President Bush adopted a very different tack. In a three-point presidential plan that critics are already dubbing Patriot Act II, Mr. Bush is seeking broad new authority to allow federal agents — without the approval of a judge or even a federal prosecutor — to demand private records and compel testimony.



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/national/14PATR.html?ex=1064116800&en=e16be52435464c2a&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE


I know it comes as no great shock that the mad chimp is pulling this unconstitutional hogwash, but it's really annoying that sheeple continue to believe that he is something other than a lying sleaze.

[Sliverofhope]

1. Is this the same Patriot Act II leaked to Moyers?

Or is this really Patriot Act III?

[Maccagirl]

2. Something just occured to me

Even if "a person of interest" has the protection of needing judicial approval, who says that there aren't enough bizarro judges around to cause havoc? In today's world, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time you'd better have damn fine representation.

[liberalhistorian]

3. While this certainly comes as no surprise as far as the

Bushista Cabal is concerned, I'm infuriated that our sheeple representatives would even CONSIDER allowing ANY part of this to go through! Can't they see what that will do, in reality? Can't they see that, if any part of this is allowed to go through, we might as well just trash the Constitution that's in the National Archives, and just go ahead and officially declare this country to be under a dictatorship? Hell, we're already well on our way to becoming an oligarchy as it is!

How typical of the repukes to demand total secrecy and privacy for themselves, but expect everyone else to make their lives an open book and, if they don't, they're unpatriotic, treasonous bastards!

[Whoa_Nelly]

4. Reckon if I don't get an anonymous Internet cover

and surf wearing a cloak of invisibility, the Amerikan SS will be a-knockin' on my door :evilgrin:

Bush is a dumbass...narny narny narny narny :P Nyah! So there!

[Donna Zen]

5. Welcome to four more years

Just imagine how bad it will get....

[ewagner]

6. Augh!

I don't even want to think about it.

[alfredo]

7. So if anti war demostrators who damage government(defense) property could

be charged with terrorism and sentenced to death.

[Cappurr]

8. Yeah....that is the logical next step....

I love the hypothetical they gave for needing subpoena's without a judge...the one about the terrorist in a hotel in Boston? They say under this proposed law they could subpoena all the names of all the guests in all the hotels. (Which is pretty crazy and time consuming just to think about). But even crazier is the idea some terrorist would register in the local Hilton under his or her real name.

It takes absolutely no time to get a warrant from a judge. Judges are on call 24/7 and can always be reached to issue warrants and even set bail telephonically.

The whole thing is nuts and a cover up for something far more sinister, imho.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. right - under that hypothetical

everyone staying in Boston that night would be at risk for a false match in the database and being detained, arrested or even shot because they look like or have a name like suspected 'terrorist' who has been identified through a 'tip'.

[Guaranteed]

14. How about this...

...if you don't need a judge, why even bother with a subpoena? When you serve the guy, just have your thugs grab him by the collar and throw him in the trunk THEN. Cut out the middleman!
That's what's wrong with this damned bureaucracy. It's all the inefficiency and red tape.

[goforit]

9. He's MAD!!!!.......Totally insane!!

:wow:

[rustydog]

10. If this is good for the retarded geese (bush/cheny)

why isn't it good for the gander (us!)
Come on Cheny, give us the info on your private records of meetings with the energy industry.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

12. So much for the lie of conservatives wanting a less intrusive government.

:argh:

[Guaranteed]

13. I REFUSE to accept any "reassurances"....

...that my rights as a "law-abiding" American are not going to be violated. The moment I even have to WORRY that they're being violated, they're no longer RIGHTS...and they ARE being violated. THIS IS BULLSHIT.