It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Amethyst
Nope, not the only one. The Constitution Party is against the Patriot Act, and against the war in Iraq.
I'm a card-carrying CP member.
Constitution Party Site
Originally posted by Amuk
I would like to see the Libertarians the Constitution and the Personal Choice parties merge we are pretty close in our platforms and it would greatly increase our chances of winning
Originally posted by SiRiNO
Mmmmm helloooo police state. For a nation of freedom lovers you guys aren't putting up much of a fight. Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security
50 U.S.C. � 1842(a)(1) makes FISA pen registers [phone number capturers] available in investigations of non-U.S. persons to "obtain foreign intelligence information." But for U.S. persons, the standard is much higher. . . .This provision would amend � 1842(a)(1) by eliminating the stricter standard for U.S. persons.
You notice there is no time window/limit what-so-ever.
Under 50 U.S.C. �� 1811, 1829 & 1844, the Attorney General may authorize, without the prior approval of the FISA Court, electronic surveillance, physical searches, or the use of pen registers for a period of 15 days following a congressional declaration of war . . . This provision would expand FISA's wartime exception by allowing the wartime exception to be invoked after Congress authorizes the use of military force, or after the United States has suffered an attack creating an national emergency.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not specify the means for enforcement of orders issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Thus, for example, if a person refuses to comply with an order of the court to cooperate in the installation of a pen register or trap and trace device under 50 U.S.C. � 1842(d), or an order to produce records under 50 U.S.C. � 1861, existing law provides no clearly defined recourse to secure compliance with the court's order. This section remedies this omission by providing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has the same authority as a United States district court to enforce its orders, including the authority to impose contempt sanctions in case of disobedience.
It also would prohibit a subpoena recipient from disclosing to any other person (except to a lawyer in order to obtain legal advice) the fact that he has received a subpoena.
Originally posted by slank
.
Patriot 2 will allow electronic surveillance, physical searches, or the use of pen registers without prior notice to the FISA [Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act] court virtually anytime the government wants to:
You notice there is no time window/limit what-so-ever.
Under 50 U.S.C. �� 1811, 1829 & 1844, the Attorney General may authorize, without the prior approval of the FISA Court, electronic surveillance, physical searches, or the use of pen registers for a period of 15 days following a congressional declaration of war . . . This provision would expand FISA's wartime exception by allowing the wartime exception to be invoked after Congress authorizes the use of military force, or after the United States has suffered an attack creating an national emergency.
(2) Amend 18 U.S.C. � 2518(6), which provides that an electronic surveillance order may require periodic progress reports to the judge who issued the order "at such intervals as the judge may require." As amended, the provision would not allow reports to be required at shorter intervals than 30 days in investigations of terrorist activities.
It breaks down various sections explaining how the Act diminishes civil liberties.
The legal analysis can be found here - ACLU
Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
Second, i do not have anything to hide. The government has been doing these things anyway for several decades so it is nothing new.
Originally posted by Damned
Ah yes, the old "I have nothing to hide" defense. So, if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind if I come in and search your house whenever I feel like it? How about stopping you on your way to and from work and searching your car? Or maybe I'll set up checkpoints on the sidewalk and make you show me your license and social security cards whenever I feel it necessary. How about a background check? I'm pretty sure your credit isn't perfect, or maybe you bounced a check once? Can I see how much money you keep in the bank? I might even ask you to take off your clothes, because you could be hiding something under them. Would you mind if I just listen in on all your phone calls? You have nothing to hide, right? Maybe I'll just mount a camera on top of your TV so I can watch you in your living room. I can't see why you'd have a problem with losing your privacy, since you're doing nothing wrong. It's for your own good. If we watch everyone very closely, we're sure to catch a terrorist or two.
Originally posted by Kidfinger
I never understand why people use that argument.
Originally posted by Amuk
ANY law will be abused by those in power
Originally posted by Chakotay
The Freedom Checklist:
(Constitution? check)
(Bill of Rights? check)
Originally posted by Amuk
Our fore fathers did not intend for this country to become a police state and don't give me that argument that they couldn't understand todays world.
Originally posted by Damned
I'd rather feel unsafe, than give up every last ounce of freedom and privacy I have left for a feeling of false security. When it comes right down to it, nobody is ever safe from anything.