Obama signs one-year extension of Patriot Act

[RandomGuy]

I believe the patriot act was supposed to expire today (well yesterday, since its past midnight)...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation's main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.
Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama's signature Saturday.
The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government's ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security.
Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:
-Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
-Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
-Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.
Obama's signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.
The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.

The same patriot act that he criticized



discuss.

[Vteckidd]

Personally i see no problem with it if its meant to keep us safe and is not a gross intrusion of privacy.

The fact is simple IMO that there are people that want to kill us, and they are within our population. I see no huge deal here with the current provisions.

[big mac]

same thought as mike

[81911SC]

Doesn't matter if he criticized it or was against it. That's never stopped him before.

[preferredduck]

Personally i see no problem with it if its meant to keep us safe and is not a gross intrusion of privacy.

The fact is simple IMO that there are people that want to kill us, and they are within our population. I see no huge deal here with the current provisions.

it actually is a gross invasion of privacy. the gov't can come into your home and look around without a warrant or even your knowledge, that's pretty scarry if you ask me. there is more in the act but it is another tool to slowly take all of our rights away. notice in the news now how broad "domestic terrorist" is used now. it puts alot of law abiding citizens in this category for no reason.

[Vteckidd]

I've heard the argument by the right and left, but you can either turn a blind eye or choose safety.

IMO I have seen NO EVIDENCE that big brother is crossing into gross intrusion of privacy. The CIA and FBI have had scare words for decades. They monitor peoples reading habits, website visits etc

homeland security was always around in some form we may just not have known about it. I'm not for a police or nanny state, but I believe listening on suspected terrorists or domestic terrorists phone lines in the interest of greater national security is warranted.

As long as the people deciphering the intel aren't morons.

[Vteckidd]

If they are lawabiding they have nothing to worry about then

[RandomGuy]

As long as the people deciphering the intel aren't morons.

the same people who found WMD's in Iraq?

[Vteckidd]

That was CIA not homeland. You realize intelligence is information that you interpret. Based upon the information provided there was good possibility there were WMD in Iraq. And we know based upon satellite photos there were WMD there at one point.

How did not finding WMD have any effect on American citizens

[RandomGuy]

How did not finding WMD have any effect on American citizens

you serious?

So going to war under false pretenses with over exaggerated misinterpreted inteligence, cutting spending to fund a ridiculously expensive war does not affect the law abiding tax paying citizens?

(i'm not saying that the iraqis were benign, but I'm saying was the evidence/intelligence gathered enough to justify our spending there?- I'm sure there will be differing opinions on this, but its the principle)

just like that, those pushing agendas will find it much easier to abuse the system.
The patriot act tapdances on the 4th amendment.


Just my

[Vteckidd]

you serious?

So going to war under false pretenses with over exaggerated misinterpreted inteligence, cutting spending to fund a ridiculously expensive war does not affect the law abiding tax paying citizens?

(i'm not saying that the iraqis were benign, but I'm saying was the evidence/intelligence gathered enough to justify our spending there?- I'm sure there will be differing opinions on this, but its the principle)

just like that, those pushing agendas will find it much easier to abuse the system.
The patriot act tapdances on the 4th amendment.


Just my

revisionist history.

We DID NOT GO TO WAR OVER WMD, WE DID NOT GO TO WAR OVER 9/11

We went to war because Saddam had defied the UN for 12 years and we KNEW he was giving safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. WMDs was a bonus, a bonus we never found.

Funny how back then everyone was for it. Do you agree with the War in afghanistan?

Look its simple, we were attacked, and we went after a country/dictator to
1) prove a point
2) establish a democratic state in a large muslim populated area (think domino effect)
3) Remove Saddam from power

[Vteckidd]

my question was clear

HOW DID NOT FINDING WMDs effect the AMerican Citizen, i didnt say how did the war in iraq effect the american citizen.

Your point was about morons not interpreting information correctly and its effect on citizens. Im saying it doesnt really matter to us

[Total_Blender]

revisionist history.

We DID NOT GO TO WAR OVER WMD, WE DID NOT GO TO WAR OVER 9/11

We went to war because Saddam had defied the UN for 12 years and we KNEW he was giving safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. WMDs was a bonus, a bonus we never found.

Funny how back then everyone was for it. Do you agree with the War in afghanistan?

Look its simple, we were attacked, and we went after a country/dictator to
1) prove a point
2) establish a democratic state in a large muslim populated area (think domino effect)
3) Remove Saddam from power

Saddam and AlQaeda has also been disproven. Repeatedly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

That article is from 2004, only a year after the invasion. So its not exactly revisionist history like the B/S you're spouting.

Keep stackin' bro. Your tower of babble is almost complete.

[Vteckidd]

Intelligence is not certainty do you not get that?

It is revisionist history. Read about it, we didn't go to war over WMD or 9/11. That's democrats trying to rewrite history

[Vteckidd]

Oh so let's take the word of 2 top bin laden officials lol

saddam bragged about it, whether it was true or not is not the point. Alqaeda , Iran, Iraq were all in cohoots together in one form or another. They nay have not coordinated together an attack but don't tell me they had nothing to do with each other

that's just delusional

[Total_Blender]

It is revisionist history. Read about it, we didn't go to war over WMD or 9/11. That's democrats trying to rewrite history

How is "We went to war with Iraq because of the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda" not the same as "We went to Iraq because of 9/11"? Its the same (false) statement. Al Qaeda = 9/11.

Al Qaeda and Iran are Shi'ites. Saddam and the power in Iraq were Sunni's. Saddam is widely known to have persecuted the Shi'ites in Iraq. If anything Saddam and Al Qaeda were more enemies than buddies, and Saddam could have even been an ally in going after them....

[RandomGuy]

We went to war because Saddam had defied the UN for 12 years and we KNEW he was giving safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. WMDs was a bonus, a bonus we never found.

The existance/evidence/presence of WMD's was (in my opinion, intentionally) OVERSTATED as a scare tactic to go to war, swiftly and before we knew what was going on.

The reality of it all, look at iraq now, and look at them before the war. Not only was the entire country's infrastructure trampled, it has produced a larger new generation of America-haters... Talk to any Iraqi you know. Screw Iraq i can care less about them, but do you really think that this will promote stability in the Middle East? Do you think this increased instability wont affect the US?

Lets not even go too far into the war dispute guys, calm down, this will never end when people have fundamental differences in opinions from the get-go.

I only cited that as one possible example of how those in power can abuse seemingly benevolent provisions to push agendas that they can not through the normal legal process.

IMO The Patriot act is a violation of our 4th Amendment...

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you mike.

Give up your liberties for safety and soon you'll have neither.

[Vteckidd]

How is "We went to war with Iraq because of the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda" not the same as "We went to Iraq because of 9/11"? Its the same (false) statement. Al Qaeda = 9/11.

Al Qaeda and Iran are Shi'ites. Saddam and the power in Iraq were Sunni's. Saddam is widely known to have persecuted the Shi'ites in Iraq. If anything Saddam and Al Qaeda were more enemies than buddies, and Saddam could have even been an ally in going after them....

Again you only read what you want you don't listen nor comprehend show me where I said we went to war solely because of alqaeda. I NEVER said that

what I said was


Look its simple, we were attacked, and we went after a country/dictator to
1) prove a point
2) establish a democratic state in a large muslim populated area (think domino effect)
3) Remove Saddam from power

[Vteckidd]

The existance/evidence/presence of WMD's was (in my opinion, intentionally) OVERSTATED as a scare tactic to go to war, swiftly and before we knew what was going on.

The reality of it all, look at iraq now, and look at them before the war. Not only was the entire country's infrastructure trampled, it has produced a larger new generation of America-haters... Talk to any Iraqi you know. Screw Iraq i can care less about them, but do you really think that this will promote stability in the Middle East? Do you think this increased instability wont affect the US?

Lets not even go too far into the war dispute guys, calm down, this will never end when people have fundamental differences in opinions from the get-go.

I only cited that as one possible example of how those in power can abuse seemingly benevolent provisions to push agendas that they can not through the normal legal process.

IMO The Patriot act is a violation of our 4th Amendment...




I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you mike.

Give up your liberties for safety and soon you'll have neither.

I totally see your point I'm just not articulating mine correctly. I also agree with you to a point, but I also believe in national security and ben Franklin lived in a different time

[SPOOLIN]

don't say the words "bomb" and "united states" over the phone and you'll be fine lol.

[bu villain]

Look its simple, we were attacked, and we went after a country/dictator to
1) prove a point
2) establish a democratic state in a large muslim populated area (think domino effect)
3) Remove Saddam from power

None of these are valid reasons to invade a soverign country in my opinion. Obviously you disagree.

As far as the partiot act goes, this country was founded by people willing to give their lives for liberty. Now, I mostly see people who can't wait to give up their liberty for their lives.

[Total_Blender]

Look its simple, we were attacked, and we went after a country/dictator to
1) prove a point
2) establish a democratic state in a large muslim populated area (think domino effect)
3) Remove Saddam from power

1.) And what point is that exactly... that we can burn 1 trillion dollars on a war, accomplish fuck-all at our objective of fighting the terrorists responsible for 9/11, and somehow be safer because of this?

2.) The middle east doesn't want democracy. You can't achieve it though nation building. Either they want it or they don't.

3.) There are many dictators in power now worse than Saddam. It was easy to make a bad guy out of him, but there are worse out there who "we" tolerate and even endorse.

[Vteckidd]

War doest bring results overnight last time I checked. The fruits of our labor won't be seem for another 7-10 years.

This thread is about the patriot act I don't want to ruin op thread arguing over the Iraq war I've stated numerous times the reasons why we went there you can go look it up if you want to debate it

[BanginJimmy]

How is "We went to war with Iraq because of the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda" not the same as "We went to Iraq because of 9/11"? Its the same (false) statement. Al Qaeda = 9/11.

Al Qaeda and Iran are Shi'ites. Saddam and the power in Iraq were Sunni's. Saddam is widely known to have persecuted the Shi'ites in Iraq. If anything Saddam and Al Qaeda were more enemies than buddies, and Saddam could have even been an ally in going after them....

I actually agree with this completely.



We didnt go to Iraq because of any 1 thing.
1. Iraq had WMDs, there really isnt a dispute about that. Did they have them at the time of the invasion? Probably not, remember, Saddam had about 4 months to get rid of them before we went in and there were records of the projects found.
2. Iraq had been financing terrorism for decades. Maybe they didnt finance Al-Qeada, but they did finance Islamic Jihad, Hamas and the PLO.
3. Bush wanted to finish what Daddy was too weak to do, get rid of Saddam.
4-? Things we will never know about. For all we know the largest stockpile of WMDs since WWI was found and it was decided that it was in American best interests to keep it secret.

[preferredduck]

I've heard the argument by the right and left, but you can either turn a blind eye or choose safety.

IMO I have seen NO EVIDENCE that big brother is crossing into gross intrusion of privacy. The CIA and FBI have had scare words for decades. They monitor peoples reading habits, website visits etc

homeland security was always around in some form we may just not have known about it. I'm not for a police or nanny state, but I believe listening on suspected terrorists or domestic terrorists phone lines in the interest of greater national security is warranted.

As long as the people deciphering the intel aren't morons.

ok last year out of the 800 people who this was used on, 3 were suspected terrorists and the others were drugs or something completely different. i have done my homework on this. with everything about "domestic terrorist" example if you own a gun, like ron paul etc, the patriot act automatically screws them and they are put in a terrorist category. the spin on this is getting out of control and has been becoming more and more a police state period. we can hardly peacefully protest anymore without being a "domestic terrorist" or in a militia or some legal circle jerk.

[preferredduck]

That was CIA not homeland. You realize intelligence is information that you interpret. Based upon the information provided there was good possibility there were WMD in Iraq. And we know based upon satellite photos there were WMD there at one point.

How did not finding WMD have any effect on American citizens

so we have spent how much on this war and been in iraq for how long now and looking to go to iran, those WMD's are there somewhere buried in the sand like a turd. we were lied to plain and simple because war=$$$ and profits. you have not seen where the mainstream media and others actually came out and said that was not the intel we gave, again we were lied to by big brother. also now obama can lock you up before you commit a crime for as long as he likes, so if there were no WMD's what kind of crystal ball are they looking into there. i didn't know we had people who could tell someone in 10 years was going to rob a bank.

[preferredduck]

revisionist history.

We DID NOT GO TO WAR OVER WMD, WE DID NOT GO TO WAR OVER 9/11

We went to war because Saddam had defied the UN for 12 years and we KNEW he was giving safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. WMDs was a bonus, a bonus we never found.

Funny how back then everyone was for it. Do you agree with the War in afghanistan?

Look its simple, we were attacked, and we went after a country/dictator to
1) prove a point
2) establish a democratic state in a large muslim populated area (think domino effect)
3) Remove Saddam from power

saddam did do some bad things but there was no connection between him and bin laden. also guess who put him in power, we did, he used to be a assasin type figure for us so taking him out we had to bomb the shit out of the place and hope he was there. also did you know that bush and cheney both did business with the bin laden family and flew them out of the country the day after 9/11, i think it's the carlisle group the bin laden family owns, they specalize in military stuff if i remember correctly. the connections suck and we were lied to and bullied into too many things over the last 9 years and something's gotta give before we borrow the economy into total waste.

[BanginJimmy]

You need to post some links with the proof that the patroit act was used against drug dealers, and further proof that those drug dealers were not part of a terrorism financing arm.

[preferredduck]

You need to post some links with the proof that the patroit act was used against drug dealers, and further proof that those drug dealers were not part of a terrorism financing arm.

i will see what i can do to get a good link for this, nothing AJ because he is fair and balanced like fox new.

[preferredduck]

You need to post some links with the proof that the patroit act was used against drug dealers, and further proof that those drug dealers were not part of a terrorism financing arm.

actually the gov't spin is any drug you do supports terrorism. i did not know hydro grown in an atlanta basement went to the middle east, heroin yes but only since 03. i always try to give you links etc that are good jimmy, you are a hard sell and well educated and have alot of good ideas on many things posted in the past.