jeff_dammann

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

The tragedy of the 9/11 attacks should not be used to strip away the fundamental rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution. Unfortunately, that’s just what happened with the hasty passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001. It has become a rallying point for bipartisan concern about broad erosions of fundamental checks and balances against government abuse.

Congress insisted that several of the most contentious sections of the PATRIOT Act expire on December 31, 2005 unless members vote to renew them. Right now our elected leaders are examining the PATRIOT Act’s fate. It is critical for you to Take Action now in support of the SAFE Act.

The SAFE Act fixes flaws in the PATRIOT Act without weakening any of the new authority the law provides to fight terrorism.



I have taken the time to bring a few web articals together to promote the SAFE act which is a bill that will make revisions to the Patriot act that was passed after 9/11. The patriot act won with a 99-1 vote. The lone person who voted against this was deeply disturbed, as were 50 million freedom consious americans that this act was passed that took away forth amendment rights. Most think that the senators were bullied into passing the act, because if the voted against, they would be labeled as unpatriotic. Well in fact this act takes away freedoms, why be a patriot(supporter) to that? The safe act is not taking away the Patriot Act, because there are some good things about it, But it is revising some of the really concerning parts. Please take heart to look at some of the links i have provided.


HERE is a PETITION :: http://ga1.org/campaign/PATRIOT_sunset2005


http://ga1.org/campaign/PATRIOT_sunset2005/explanation
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004235.html
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveill...ct_analysis.php
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006146.html

davemo2us

* Place reasonable limitations on the government’s authority to obtain roving wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 by requiring that the warrant identify either the target of the wiretap or the place to be wiretapped an by requiring that surveillance be conducted only when the suspect is present at the place to be wiretapped.

So if party "A" is the suspect and party "B" confesses to committing said crime will being under surveillance, party "B" gets off because "A" wasn't around. Sorry that is stupid.

* Impose reasonable limits on the government’s ability to obtain sneak and peak warrants for physical evidence by limiting the instances when a court can authorize such warrants, set a reasonable time for notification of the covert search.

What is wrong with a S&P warrant? We used them for drug dealers and RICO cases even before 9/11, no one had a problem then.

* Provide privacy protections for library, bookseller and other personal records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 by requiring that the government specify that there are specific and articulable facts giving rise believe that the person to whom the records relate is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power and requiring that a court must find that there are such specific and articulable facts before a subpoena may be issued.

If someone is reading books on how to build pipebombs, maybe they should be getting checked up on.

* Provide privacy protections for computer users at libraries under national security authority by excluding libraries for the reach of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2709.

Privacy at a public library IT'S PUBLIC, research blowing kids up at home on your own dollar.


Look the PA may not be perfect, but neither are a lot of our laws. Does somethings need to be changed? Well, yes. Is it as bad as moveon.org says it is, no. There have been a lot of complaints about rights being violated and such, but when asked no one can give a name.

Lucky Bob

Except that EVERY "party" has a fifth amendment right against self incrimation, and if they're not the target of the wiretap warrant, then their right against "unreasonable search and seizure" is being violated.

Probably because nobody knew about them. I know I didn't, and would've objected to it regardless.

Ummm... maybe not. I can read whatever I want, for whatever reason I want. As long as the material itself isn't illegal, my media consumption, or what company I keep, should not be held against me.

Yes, it's public. But can Joe Sixpack go request my library records, and forbid the library from telling me it was requested? No. Therefore, it's not public in the sense that you're making it out to be. Moreover, if it was public as you are saying, then the government wouldn't need the PATRIOT Act to give them that power.

jeff_dammann

yes lucky bob, i agree. Something needs to be done, the goverment is getting to many powers. America is supposed to be about freedom, when infact it seems we are turning into a country that has more laws and restrictions now. Canada has less restrictions and is just as safe or more so than the united states. How can you call it the patriot act when it takes away freedoms.