From
here
Bush administration officials compare national security letters to grand jury subpoenas, which are also based on "relevance" to an inquiry. There are differences. Grand juries tend to have a narrower focus because they investigate past conduct, not the speculative threat of unknown future attacks. Recipients of grand jury subpoenas are generally free to discuss the subpoenas publicly. And there are strict limits on sharing grand jury information with government agencies.
Data Banks
The burgeoning use of national security letters coincides with an unannounced decision to deposit all the information they yield into government data banks - and to share those private records widely, in the federal government and beyond. In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent American citizens, companies and residents when investigations closed. Late last month, President Bush signed Executive Order 13388, expanding access to those files for "state, local and tribal" governments and for "appropriate private sector entities," which are not defined.
There was another story, which I saw earlier today and can't find, about the use of Patriot Act provisions to investigate money laundering at a strip club. The article was from AP but appears to have disappeared.
I found another link to a different article on the strip club.But Rich, they're only using these new rules to catch bad people doing bad things.
We honest, church going, law abiding taxpayers have nothing to fear from the government. :rollanim:
Yeah, right. Actually, I fear this sort of thing more than most of the stuff this administration has come up with.
But Rich, they're only using these new rules to catch bad people doing bad things.
We honest, church going, law abiding taxpayers have nothing to fear from the government. :rollanim:
I was looking for the Bruce's :lol: of the day :thumb:
At least this time around they're issuing actual written invitations to The Inquisition.
But Rich, they're only using these new rules to catch bad people doing bad things.
We honest, church going, law abiding taxpayers have nothing to fear from the government. :rollanim:
You forgot to insert the word "Christian" between "abiding" and "taxpayers".
Hm. I don't know what your collective problem is. So long as you do as you're told--NO PROBLEM! It's when you start thinking for yourselves that things go wrong. Didn't Principal Skinner have an "Independant Thought" button he could push in times of turmoil? Run along, now. Nothing to see.
PS--when in doubt, which is often, I identify myself as a member of the Most Radical Extreme Capital-Punishment Backing Christians for Christ. It seems to work. Esp. in Cincinnati.
The irony is that, if Jesus were here now, I'd totally date him.
The irony is that, if Jesus were here now, I'd totally date him.
I won't throw the first stone.
Compare and contrast the Patriot Act with
France's response and notice how much stronger France's response is:
The lower house of France's parliament has approved plans to extend special powers by three months to try to bring a wave of urban rioting under control.
...
The state of emergency laws, allowing local authorities to impose curfews, conduct house-to-house searches and ban public gatherings, date from the Algerian war of independence in the 1950s.
President Jacques Chirac told cabinet ministers the extraordinary powers are "strictly temporary and will only be applied where they are strictly necessary".
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the Patriot Act was a permanent law; France's emergency measures are only temporary. Stuff like what Rich posted make me want to go out and acquire as many unregistered weapons as possible to use in the up-coming and much needed overthrow of the US government.
The Patriot Act sunsets on December 31st of this year if not extended.
IIRC (and I may not), that's only true of some of the clauses.
The Patriot Act sunsets on December 31st of this year if not extended.
Whatcha wanna bet that they extend it? When has a government ever willingly given up power?
Did you ask those questions of the French?
As we all know, the French are such wimps that even their government will surrender abjectly at the first hint of a citizen protesting the extension of its emergency powers. :lol:
Besides, bottom line, let the French take care of France. My concern is with what the US government is up to. Fine, so they have a dictatorship in Paraguay. So there is a horrible civil war in Sri Lanka, as well as Rwanda, so the French government takes on extremes of power in what they percieve to be an emergency. Does that mean its OK for the US to indulge in such behaviors?
Since when did this country start to aspire to the status of the lowest common denominator? :eyebrow:
The Patriot Act reauthorization bill has failed.
[SIZE=1]but i'm sure you all can find other things to waste your time being paranoid about[/size]
hmmm.. like Arab extremists. Paranoia comes in many flavors.
I'm gonna regret saying this but hooray for Russ Feingold.
[size=1]but i'm sure you all can find other things to waste your time being paranoid about[/size]
a) Frist voted against cloture so he would have the option of reopening the vote later.
b) It can probably be snuck into another bill later, as keeps happening with the ANWR stuff.
c) Regardless, I'm proud of 'em.
a) Frist voted against cloture so he would have the option of reopening the vote later.
b) It can probably be snuck into another bill later, as keeps happening with the ANWR stuff.
c) Regardless, I'm proud of 'em.
Let's be clear here, it only failed because of a filibuster, a 'privilege' that the majority party has threatened to take away.
Still, it's nice to see some senators have the guts to object. Of course, in the movies this usually results in the Death Star coming along and blowing up your planet.
They have only threatened to take it away in the case of judicial nominations. Of course, their rationalization for why judicial nominations are different from other laws is pretty flimsy. So if they do remove the filibuster in one instance, there's nothing stopping them from removing it in other instances.
hmmm.. like Arab extremists. Paranoia comes in many flavors.
I'm gonna regret saying this but hooray for Russ Feingold.
He was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2002, knowing he would have to stand for reelection in Wisconsin in 2004. How easy it would have been to go along with the herd and vote "yes" with all the rest of them.
Like him or not, Russ Feingold has the courage of his convictions and is one of the few senators who has the sand to stand up to Bushco and the neocons.
“None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas),
I wonder if he used to say "Better red than dead"? :rolleyes:
Bush is pissed because he got caught. This leak he doesnt like! Gonzales is making up the law.
I still think a lot of people don't understand how this power move is not about the President's need for the nimblest tools, (of course we want nimble tools!) its about the President's accountability for the use of his already existing way nimble tools. He legally has the power to tap any phone, gather any email, but the law says he has to eventually 'splain why- he can do that after the fact, no need to fuss during the chase, no time wasted with technicalities during terrorist tracking. Nimble.
But Bush has chosen to skirt this legal approach, this after-the-fact check, claiming executive power and privilege. Why? Why the fear of accountability? Unchecked power and privilege is not what the founding fathers had in mind. They didnt want a king or dictator. It is dangerous, as terrorism is dangerous. Good thing is the outrage is coming from both parties, with the exception of the good ol cronies that always hang with Bush.