Obama Supports Extending Patriot Act Business Records Snooping

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Obama Supports Extending Patriot Act Business Records Snooping


www.businessinsid er.com

The Obama administration supports extending a controversial provision of the Patriot Act that allows investigators to demand that businesses turn over sensitive financial records, without specifying the investigation's target or why the files are needed.

A company receiving a letter demanding the records is subject to a permanent gag order, prohibited from ever disclosing that the government asked for the records. The law doesn’t even specify whether the company can call a lawyer or appeal to a judge, although the feds claim they always allow a company to obtain legal counsel.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.amconmag.com




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Well this is what we call keep the change!

Obama will seek to extend the Patriot Act provisions for roving wire taps, and monitoring "lone wolf" terrorists.

This is proof that The Obama Administraion will enact a
National Security State.

This hit the news at the same time as the announcement that the Fusions Centers will be given access and State and local law enforcement officials will get access to classified Defense Department information from the DOD

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.globalsecuritynewswire.org...

www.businessinsid er.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 15-9-2009 by burntheships]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
With the business records aspect of it I can see him and his buddy Geithner leveraging companies to do what they are told and to cow-tow to the unions. Very dark days indeed.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 




This is proof that The Obama Administraion will enact a National Security State.


To be fair, my friend, as he is just extending the previously activated provisions of the 'Patriot' (barf) Act, could he really be considered as having ENACTED the 'Security State?'

Would you not think that he has instead, decided to allow this country to travel a road paved by a previous adminitration? He could certainly be adding nails, but did he build the coffin?

I'm no Obama fan, but it seems to me like the erosion of our rights and our shopping trip to Martial Fields was arranged quite a while ago and rather than the hope some of us had for change in a new president being realized, we have been told, as a nation that 'the check is in the mail,' and we are all learning to not hold our breath.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
First the tariffs, now extending a section of the PATRIOT Act. That's 2 things I can agree with him on.
I take it most on here despise the PATRIOT Act. I also bet few have actually read it.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by stevegmu
 


But sir...everyone is saying it is bad! I must follow the trend...

I have not read it so I will not comment on it.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by stevegmu
 


What is it about the Patriot Act that you find so comforting?

The fact that recently Ron Paul supporters were profiled as being suspected terrorists is a violation of our 1st and 4th Amendment Rights. www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can agree with Obama all day long, where is that going to land you?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist
 


As I suspected.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
reply to post by burntheships
 




This is proof that The Obama Administraion will enact a National Security State.


To be fair, my friend, as he is just extending the previously activated provisions of the 'Patriot' (barf) Act, could he really be considered as having ENACTED the 'Security State?'



To be fair I will say I was no Bush supporter either, and The Patriot Act was already there in a bare bones wish during the Clinton Aministration.

Bush Clinton Bush ObamBidenInton...
This is a empirical rule... to be fair...

More on the Security State here:

Obama Justice Department filed an astonishing document with a San Francisco court. Seeking the dismissal of Jewel v. National Security Agency, a suit brought by persons who had been subjected to warrantless—and thus presumably unlawful—intercepts by the National Security Agency, the Justice Department advanced two arguments. First, it fully embraced the discredited Bush Administration view that by claiming “state secrets” it could simply terminate the lawsuit. This is a position that Senators Obama and Biden both criticized and members of their campaign insisted would never be asserted by an Obama Administration. That promise has now been repeatedly broken. Still more pernicious was a second argument. Directly contradicting the assurances of the legislation’s sponsors that suits against the government could proceed undisturbed, the Obama Justice Department argues that FISA amendments giving immunity to the telecom service providers accidentally granted “sovereign immunity” to the government, shielding it from suits by Americans in American courts.
www.harpers.org...

[edit on 15-9-2009 by burntheships]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


It gives law enforcement agencies and the government the tools to fight terrorism, whether it be by cutting off their funding, or squelching their ability to conduct further attacks on US soil.


What sections specifically do you have a problem with? There's nothing the PATRIOT Act about political profiling.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by burntheships
 


What sections specifically do you have a problem with? There's nothing the PATRIOT Act about political profiling.


Perhaps taking a look below the surface will shed some light: What got this Federal Judge all riled up?


A federal court on Wednesday struck down two provisions of the Patriot Act dealing with searches and intelligence gathering, saying they violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures with regard to criminal prosecutions.

"It is critical that we, as a democratic nation, pay close attention to traditional Fourth Amendment principles," wrote Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in her 44-page decision. "The Fourth Amendment has served this nation well for 220 years, through many other perils."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, set up to review wiretap applications in intelligence cases under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, "holds that the Constitution need not control the conduct of criminal surveillance in the United States," Aiken wrote.

"In place of the Fourth Amendment, the people are expected to defer to the executive branch and its representation that it will authorize such surveillance only when appropriate."

The government "is asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. The court declines to do so," Aiken said.
www.cnn.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 



To be fair I will say I was no Bush supporter either, and The Patiot Act was already there in a bare bones wish during the Clinton Aministration.


I agree, and am glad you didn't misinterpret or take offense to my trying to remain objective, if that's even possible anymore.

Clinton was at least gettin' some while he was in office and used a lot of cruise missiles. Bush was a lousy liar. Obama WAS a pretty damn good liar. He's losing it though.

I appreciate you going through the trouble you have to document what you have brought to the table.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 



FISA was around long before the PATRIOT Act. It was incorporated into the PATRIOT Act, and was amended last year. Problem solved.
So I guess you still haven't read the PATRIOT Act?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


You know when people bitch at me for doing threads like this one below and then Obama supports extending the illegal Patriot Act, where Bush used September 11th to push through this corrupt bill through Congress, forcing them to back him up and not allowing them to read the bill they were signing, basically staging a coup on Congress, I have to wonder if those people are awake or asleep at the wheel.

Obamaland : Cotton Candy, Gumdrops, and Rainbow Smiles : This Is The Land of Collusion

You see, when Obama speaks and says all kinds of pretty words, yet reinforces crap bills like this, it is troubling, he is basically telling us as citizens we have no right to know what he is up to, which is not right.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


The House had 1 day to read it. The Senate 2 days. A person of average intelligence should be able to read the PATRIOT Act in less than an hour. Where's the problem?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I can't say I'm surprised. Obama already extended legal immunity to those doing the surveillance under the PATRIOT Act.

He also voted to renew the PATRIOT Act in 2006. HIS 'YEA' VOTE RECORDED. Although it did contain some updates by then.

It's really just more evidence that regardless of what Bush or Obama say and regardless of their political affiliation, they're heading towards the same result.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Yes, and very astute in pointing out that he granted immunity first.
This can be compared to the immunity granted to the vaccination makers, affording them protection for selling toxic vaccines.



[edit on 15-9-2009 by burntheships]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Allow me to throw this bit of admittedly biased info into the fray.
www.newsmax.com...

On Sept. 11, President Barack Obama said all the right words to commemorate the tragedy that took place eight years earlier.

“Nearly 3,000 days have passed, almost one for each of those taken from us,” Obama said outside the Pentagon. “Let us renew our resolve against those who perpetrated this barbaric act and who plot against us still. In defense of our nation we will never waiver; in pursuit of al-Qaida and its extremist allies, we will never falter.”

Yet, as when Obama claimed his budget moves America “from an era of borrow and spend” to one of “save and invest,” his actions belied his words.

Obama has turned the CIA into a personal punching bag, dealing one blow after another to the agency which is our first line of defense against another attack. After releasing Justice Department memos detailing the CIA’s enhanced interrogation tactics, Obama spoke to CIA employees. As if speaking to a kindergarten class, Obama said, “Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes. That’s how we learn.”


To me this a continuation of say one thing, act according to you're real agenda.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Policies like this are why I never feel represented and can't quite ever bring myself to vote. During Obama's primary campaign, I liked what he espoused. Once he was nominated, as he focused and refined his campaign platform and message, I began to find myself disagreeing more and more. Since taking office, things like this have made me disagree with him almost wholly.

During the 2008 election, there was not a single candidate I could agree with enough to vote for, not even in a third party or non-party ticket.


[edit on 9/15/2009 by AceWombat04]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kerontehe
 


Ah yes...the perfected practice of political doublespeak...
Obama has it down pat,

So you see through it, wise friend...



[edit on 15-9-2009 by burntheships]





top topics
 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join