Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do you support extending PATRIOT act provisions?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 05:14 PM
Original message
Poll question: Do you support extending PATRIOT act provisions?
This poll was inspired by the following thread in Latest Breaking News.

President Obama supports extending Patriot Act provisions

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wtbymark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. That shit needs to go away
it spits in the face of the constitution and the people who wrote it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. no, on this I disagree with the Administration.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. Were all provisions extended or just some of them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Only three of them according the article in the thread I liked to.
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 05:36 PM by ZombieHorde
"From 2004 to 2007, the business records provision was used 220 times, officials said. Most often, the business records were requested in combination with requests for phone records.

The lone wolf provision was created to conduct surveillance on suspects with no known link to foreign governments or terrorist groups. It has never been used, but the administration says it should still be available for future investigations.

The roving wiretaps provision was designed to allow investigators to quickly monitor the communications of a suspects who change their cell phone or communication device, without investigators having to go back to court for a new court authorization. That provision has been used an average of 22 times a year, officials said."

I personally don't know how I feel about these provisions.

eta this link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
insanity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. Get rid of the whole damn thing.
It is legislative, bureaucratic, and legal nightmare.

Also, it flies in the face of the Constitution.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimmyflint Donating Member (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
6. Obama needs to stick to his promise.
and scrap it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aloha Spirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
38. You're incorrect
He promised to revise it, not dismantle it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimmyflint Donating Member (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. I don't know what he said for sure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. No.
It needs to be repealed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. Even Feingold spoke of agreeing with some pretty high percent
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 08:59 PM by karynnj
of even the original bill (I think he said 80%). The second bill removed some, but not all of the bad things. (In fact, when it passed some senators even wrote a new bill that was introduced that would make those changes - that could not have passed with a veto proof margin then. Now is the time to fix it and, with a President, who is a Constitutional Law expert make it 100% Constitutional.

An example of things that were needed was legislation against international money laundering that provided the tools to act against international crime rings and terrorists. This was legislation that the banks and their allies fought in the 1990s. Kerry wrote it after his work on BCCI. It's importance was seen after 911.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. Yes, I heard Feingold
talking about this with the FBI director yesterday in a hearing. I do not remember the exact details but he sounded quite satisfied with the process of cleaning the act up before it has to be voted on.

I guess that "fix it" is too complex an option, "hell no" is much easier....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
9. If Bush had done this, we would all be howling with outrage.
When Obama does it the board nannies and the Kool-Aid peddlers will accuse us of whining.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #9
22. Yep.
Because, to some people, the letter in front of the name means more than what they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
10. Unconstitutional bullshit, written under false pretenses
And passed by a Congress that didn't even read the piece of shit.

What else needs to be said about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. Hell no!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
12. Depends on the provision
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
13. A bill to amend the Patriot Act is introduced
A bill to amend the Patriot Act is introduced:

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S . 2369
To require a more reasonable period for delayed-notice search warrants, to provide enhanced judicial review of FISA orders and national security letters, to require an enhanced factual basis for a FISA order, and to create national security letter sunset provisions.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 6, 2006
Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SALAZAR, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. OBAMA, and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. PATRIOT should be repealed outright, not given Band-Aids
Our liberties are not for Congress to throw under the bus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. You will have a hard time convincing Congress
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Administration Secretly Seeking Information on 3501 Americans Last Year

April 29, 2006

"I am pleased that one 'sunshine' provision in the Patriot Act reauthorization has given the public a chance to see how often the administration has obtained the business records of Americans. It should not have taken an Act of Congress for this information to be made public. But it does demonstrate why Congress must make a few more critical changes to the Patriot Act, including a check on the government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records. Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter has introduced legislation containing those modifications, and I hope that we can pass that bill this year."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Our corrupt Congress passed PATRIOT without reading it
They also gave immunity to telecoms, and gave the green light to military kangaroo courts and warrantless searches.

We should really storm Congress and the White House and install a truly people's democracy, before the other side (from both parties) succeeds in installing a fascist dictatorship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Yell all you want to, the bill has its purpose.
Kerry wrote the money laundering sections of the current bill:

In 2000, Kerry introduced legislation to provide the federal government with the authority to make the laundering of money more difficult for criminals and terrorists. That legislation became Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which provides the federal government with the authority to leverage the power of United States financial markets to move countries like Syria and Lebanon to reform and enforce their counter-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing laws.

The measured use of Section 311 authority against Syria and Lebanon provides the United States an opportunity to demonstrate leadership in the fight against international terrorism and money laundering.

The Secretary of State has designated Syria as a state whose government has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism and has provided designated foreign terrorist organizations, such as Hamas and Hizballah, with sanctuary. The International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR), a group of federal agencies with anti-money laundering responsibilities, has classified Syria as a country to be monitored for potential money laundering. There have been a number of published reports stating that individuals from Saddam Husseins Iraqi regime have attempted to move to Syria and may be using the its financial system to divert funds which have been stolen from the Iraqi people.

The Financial Crime Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has conducted an analysis of the Suspicious Activity Reporting System (SAR) related to Lebanon for the period of January 2002 through October 2003. The FinCEN analysis has revealed 286 SARs that could be linked to transactions associated with suspicious or fraudulent wire transfer activities between Lebanon and other countries. Many of these transactions were structured in an attempt to avoid reporting requirements. Two of the SARs describe the reason for their filing as directly related to possible terrorist activities.


People just scream stuff they know nothing about. The bad parts of the bill can be repealed and the weak parts strengthened.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
37. I agree; probably everything there needs a second look
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 05:19 PM by mvd
If there is a part of the Act that may be good, then pass it on its own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:48 AM
Response to Original message
15. Where's the HELL NO option?!
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
17. O.K., Who Voted "Yes"?
C'mon, tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. I did and I gave my reason for why an AMENDED Patriot Act is needed
The tools against money laundering by international crime rings and terrorists would be needed EVEN if it were just for money laundering by anyone. (ie tax evasion alone is enough a reason.) I see from the comments others who mention the same thing.

Your post sounds nearly bullying. I actually am disappointed that so many are siding with you, without bothering to wait to see what will be in the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Ok, show me how those provisions uncovered those who
sold the airlines short on 9-11. We all heard about piles of money being made on the day, and how we were going to find out who did it. The money was paid to them. And yet, and yet, I bet even those who support this crap can not tell me what they found, or name one person busted for that most vile form of 'trading'.
So while you suggest that those who do not agree with you are bullies, you are failing to deliver the detailed results that might support your claim that this law works in anyway. Who profited from 9-11 in the markets? When were they prosecuted?
Yep. You have no results to show. None. Just a painting of others with adjectives, coupled as always with a dose of self importance-you being disappointed is probably not an issue for anyone but you, you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
19. damn, 8 people voted yes?
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. Today must be Opposite Day in some counties.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EndElectoral Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
21. Against Single Payer, For Extending Patriot Act, Expansion of Troops Abroad - Dem or Repub ideas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
23. who are those 8 people that support that?
sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
24. K&R
8 votes for yes...

:wtf:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Umbral Donating Member (969 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
25. I would expect a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress to rescind the Patriot Act -
in its entirety. Apparently, I've been misled about the substance of Democratic values.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. I expected a Democratic Congress and President to restore our freedoms and give us universal health
but the view from the bottom of the bus is getting quite tiresome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeycola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. yup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Hard to see from under there,
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 02:57 PM by Autumn
all I see is flop flop flop,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. Not likely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Umbral Donating Member (969 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Congress can pass legislation to repeal previous legislation, it's a Fact.
Presidents can sign these repeals into law, another Fact. Democratic involvement (complicity) in the initial legislation doesn't change those Facts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
35. Depends on the provision
Wasn't it a gillion pages long? Maybe some of it didn't suck, or was even good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. "Maybe some of it didn't suck, or was even good."
This is very very possible in my opinion. Some of the provisions may be solid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
36. No, but amending it so that it is REALLY the Patriot Act would be appropriate.
We have a Patriot Act. It's called the Bill of Rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. Nice.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. We have a Patriot Act. It's called the Bill of Rights.
Yeah, it is kind of catchy.

Pass it around. Put it on bumper sticker or a sign.




Thirty five years ago, I studied Con Law as a first year law student. If you had told me in the 1970s that so many of our rights would have been so eroded by 2009, I could not have believed it. The preceding ten years had seen such dramatic gains in con law. Then the 80s came, and they started taking it all back through a right wing judiciary.

They've gutted the Bill of Rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
winyanstaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
39. The Patriot Act is unconstitutional....
and is simular to Hitler's Enabling Act.
It needs to go and it needs to go now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
44. Of course not!
The whole entire thing should be repealed and the small parts that may be useful and constitutional should be brought up individually and enacted into law in that manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 25th 2014, 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC