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.

 

Obama signs temporary extension of Patriot Act

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by lastrebel

Originally posted by inkyminds
So we think the government shouldn't be able to tap a phone they know is being used by someone plotting against the homeland? Isn't that one of the main functions of government? To protect the homeland?


You need to be less obvious.............LOL

HOMELAND indeed.............LOL




So, you disagree that protection of the homeland is one of the most important responsibilities of the Federal Government?




posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by thorg
The potus also declared a national state of emergency today over Libias unrest. the dictatorship of our presidents continues.


I missed that little news item today. Thanks. Considering the magnitude of Union involvement, plus the involvement of Bill and Bernadine and Code Pink in the affairs of Egypt, I'd say it was engineered.



Are you REALLY spreading that completely nonsensical rumor about Code Pink working with the 'Muslim Brotherhood"?



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by inkyminds
"Privacy and Freedom"? Yes, those are phrases that attract stars and simplify complicated issues.

But tell me, how does this effect YOUR 'Privacy and Freedom" in any way?

This isn't the government putting a bug in your reading lamp. It's allowing them to track very specific foreign agents who are able to subvert basic wiretap laws by using several mobile deices.

To pretend that our government should be able to thwart potential terrorist attacks with their hands tied behind their backs seems self-defeating, at best.

I'd bet you'de be the first to blame the government if a bomb wen of in your state.

Of course, I'm sure there are SEVERAL folks posting on ATS trying to shape public opinion away from giving government the tools to do their job or protecting the homeland.


edit on 26-2-2011 by inkyminds because: (no reason given)
Are you seriously asking that? I mean really? This has been answered so many times that for you to miss it reveals an intentional blindness.

Very well, let's start with Franklin:

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


Now let's try Pastor Martin Niemoller:


First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.


Like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment has its origins in seventeenth-and eighteenth-century English common law. Unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment's origins can be traced precisely—it arose out of a strong public reaction to three cases from the 1760s, two decided in England and one in the colonies.


The two English cases are usefully treated as a pair. Both Wilkes v. Wood, 19 Howell's State Trials 1153 (C.P. 1763), and Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell's State Trials 1029 (C.P. 1765), involved pamphleteers charged with seditious libel for criticizing the king's ministers and, through them, the king himself. In both cases, agents of the king issued a warrant authorizing the ransacking of the pamphleteers' homes and the seizure of all their books and papers. (An aside is necessary at this point: Warrants are means of giving government officials permission to search or arrest someone whom they otherwise might not be allowed to search or arrest. In American practice, warrants are issued only by judges or magistrates after reviewing an application from a police officer. In eighteenth-century England, warrants were sometimes issued by agents of the Crown on their own initiative.) These searches were duly carried out. Wilkes and Entick sued for damages, claiming that the warrants were void and that the searches pursuant to them were therefore illegal. Both Wilkes and Entick won, with powerful opinions issued by Lord Camden, the judge in both cases. These decisions made Camden a hero in the colonies; a number of towns and cities were named after him because of his opinions in Wilkes and Entick.



The third case was the Writs of Assistance Case (see Dickerson, 1939). British customs inspectors seeking to stamp out smuggling in colonial Boston were given blanket search warrants, called writs of assistance, that permitted them to search anyplace where they thought smuggled goods might be. (The writs also allowed the inspectors to compel private citizens to help them carry out the searches—hence the writs' name.) Some Boston merchants, represented by James Otis, sued, seeking a holding that the writs were invalid. The merchants lost, but Otis's argument, with its ringing defense of individual privacy, became famous and strengthened opposition to British rule. John Adams later said of Otis's argument that "then and there the child Independence was born."
Note that this case is one of the main reasons for the 4th amendment and how closely it resembles the so called "powers needed" as claimed by the highly unpatriotic "patriot act".


Historians generally agree that the Fourth Amendment was designed to affirm the results in Wilkes and Entick, and to overturn the result in the Writs of Assistance Case. Three principles seem to follow. First, the government should not be allowed to search without some substantial justification, some reason to believe the place being searched contains the evidence being sought. That was the problem with the writs of assistance—they authorized searches based on no more than the unsupported suspicion of the inspector. Second, searches, particularly of private homes, should not go beyond their justification. That was the problem with the searches in Wilkes and Entick–the authorities did not simply search for and seize illegal writings, but took all the books and papers in the suspects' houses. Third, the government should not use blanket warrants to evade the first two principles. That was a problem in all three cases. English common law held it a trespass to invade someone's home without some kind of authorization; the warrants in Wilkes and Entick and the writs of assistance looked like efforts to evade that common law right. This explains why, at the time of the Founding era, search warrants—now viewed as a protection against police overreaching—were seen as more of a danger than a safeguard.


It is important to note that the 4th amendment was instituted specifically for the purpose of allowing dissent without reprisal.


Notice that none of these three cases involved ordinary criminal law enforcement. None stemmed from the investigation of a murder, or a robbery, or a rape. Rather, each involved the investigation and prosecution of what might fairly be called dissidents—ordinary law-abiding citizens who disagreed strongly with the laws they were disobeying, and who enjoyed some substantial support among the citizenry.


Lest we forget:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The "patriot act" specifically attacks and derails the 4th amendment. Thus it is in fact Un-Constitutional.


The first clause—lawyers usually call it the "reasonableness clause"–contains a simple prohibition: unreasonable searches and seizures are forbidden.



The second clause, usually called the "warrant clause," places a set of limits on the issuance of search or arrest warrants. Three limits are listed: the warrants must be supported by probable cause, they must define where the search is to take place, and they must define what the object of the search is—who or what is to be seized.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by inkymindsSo, you disagree that protection of the homeland is one of the most important responsibilities of the Federal Government?
Though you are not addressing me here, I feel I must interject.
I do believe it is one of the most import jobs of our federal government. So tell them to get their a** down to the Mexican border and protect us instead of ceding sovereign US territory to Mexican drug cartels. They also need to be enforcing current immigration laws and they need to get the hell out of the way of states like Arizona that try to protect themselves when the feds fail to enforce the laws.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by inkymindsSo, you disagree that protection of the homeland is one of the most important responsibilities of the Federal Government?
Though you are not addressing me here, I feel I must interject.
I do believe it is one of the most import jobs of our federal government. So tell them to get their a** down to the Mexican border and protect us instead of ceding sovereign US territory to Mexican drug cartels. They also need to be enforcing current immigration laws and they need to get the hell out of the way of states like Arizona that try to protect themselves when the feds fail to enforce the laws.


Oh, agreed. Completely.

My question for you is, do you feel they should do one but not the other?

It's funny, I was called a neo-con for pointing out that many aspects of these wire taps were necessary for security, and now that Obama is smart enough to recognize their use, everyone assumes I'm an obama apologist.


Roving wire taps give necessary tools to law enforcement. Do you think law enforcement should be forced to do their job with their hands behind their back?

Or is the assumption that 'terrorism' is entirely made up so that the FBI can listen to you have phone sex with your girlfriend?
edit on 26-2-2011 by inkyminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by inkyminds
 
I do happen to believe that most of this "terrorism crap" is total bs and 9/11 was either a false flag or at minimum we pulled a Roosevelt and allowed the attack to occur. So yes, I think this is a naked power grab. Either way, giving up our liberties is a very bad idea.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by inkyminds
 
I do happen to believe that most of this "terrorism crap" is total bs and 9/11 was either a false flag or at minimum we pulled a Roosevelt and allowed the attack to occur.


Well, if we ALLOWED it to occur, then 'terrorists' do exist.



So yes, I think this is a naked power grab. Either way, giving up our liberties is a very bad idea.



How is this 'giving up our liberties'? Are you a foreign national who uses multiple cell phones to communicate with other foreign nationals?



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by inkyminds
Well, if we ALLOWED it to occur, then 'terrorists' do exist.
How is this 'giving up our liberties'? Are you a foreign national who uses multiple cell phones to communicate with other foreign nationals?
Are you being totally obtuse, or what?



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by inkyminds
Well, if we ALLOWED it to occur, then 'terrorists' do exist.
How is this 'giving up our liberties'? Are you a foreign national who uses multiple cell phones to communicate with other foreign nationals?
Are you being totally obtuse, or what?


I will take that as an acknowledgment that you really can't explain, SPECIFICALLY, in legal terms, how this will 'give up our liberties'.

Unless, of course, you are the type to also claim that, say, regulations in what a company can dump into the river is also 'giving up liberties'.

If you get pulled over for speeding, do you scream 'police state'??



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by kolcath
 


Why three months?

It just makes me feel like we are waiting for something. Perhaps something that will justify a more permanent adoption of the Patriot Act. So what are they waiting for? Unrest here in the US? Trouble in the mid east to spread to Iran? Aliens to invade?


Edit to add, I knew the little happy dances over the failure to extend the Patriot Act a while back were premature. They are up to something.





edit on 25-2-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)


Perhaps they are putting it for three months to see if the sheeple will say anything about it. Since the sheeple are busy watching TV and facebook I think this will become a permanent change.

A smart man once said:

"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
— Thomas Jefferson


Let me tell you something, the US spends more an security than any other nation in the world. It is pretty dumb to think the government really needs this to protect the people from terrorists. This wasn't around before 9/11 yet the government still had a pretty good idea that someone will try to blow up the trade centers. They had the intel yet they didn't stop it so there is a conflict of interest.

You slowly give up what little freedoms you were given by society to become a commucratic (communist/democratic) society.

Some people like to think the government should have more control but the truth is that the government is the people's servant. The bigger the government is the more lies, deception, and conflict of interest there will be. In example, Obama signing the law that abolishes the limits of how much corporations can contribute to a presidential candidate. SO now you have very wealthy people funding people to win presidency so they can repay the favor.

It is all corrupt now and if people think otherwise they are stuck in their money driven freedom fantasy world.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by inkyminds
 

Did you even read my post on the 4th amendment? That is how they are affecting me personally by trashing the Constitution which endangers every American.(This includes me, in case you cannot figure that out.)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by inkyminds
 


I fricken hate people who call America, "the homeland." You sound like Nazis.

Just my two cents.

There were channels of approval, courts to petition, etc.. to allow them to spy on suspected bad guys before the Patriot Act. They can use those channels again. They dont need some blanket ability to violate someones Constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by inkyminds
 


I fricken hate people who call America, "the homeland." You sound like Nazis.


First, Godwin's law.

Second, the phrase you are looking for is 'fatherland'.



There were channels of approval, courts to petition, etc.. to allow them to spy on suspected bad guys before the Patriot Act. They can use those channels again. They dont need some blanket ability to violate someones Constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.


Well, now you're only showing how little you understand the specific of this act. It if for specific modern communication devices that can be changed faster a court order.

It DOES NOT allow the government to tap YOUR phone.





posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by inkyminds
 

Did you even read my post on the 4th amendment? That is how they are affecting me personally by trashing the Constitution which endangers every American.(This includes me, in case you cannot figure that out.)

I read it.

I didn't respond because you didnt even attempt to explain how it ACTUALLY relates to this specific aspect of the Patriot Act.

I'll gladly response if you can actually do that.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
So, if I understand everyone's argument here, Terrorists don't exist, and wire tap laws that give law enforcement access to the cellular and internet-based communication devices of foreign nationals already being tracked for very specific involvement in terrorist organizations is the exact same thing as the cia buggin your phone.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by inkyminds
 


First, shove Godwin's law somewhere only a fellow prisoner will find it.

Secondly, I wasnt looking for the phrase, I know exactly what phrase the Nazis used, and I find "homeland" reminiscent of it.

Thirdly, I dont care. You and your people dont need the Patriot Act. You can just damn well follow the US Constitution. How about that?



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by inkyminds
 


First, shove Godwin's law somewhere only a fellow prisoner will find it.


How intelligent.


Secondly, I wasnt looking for the phrase, I know exactly what phrase the Nazis used, and I find "homeland" reminiscent of it.


I see. Accuracy is over-rated, I suppose.


Thirdly, I dont care. You and your people dont need the Patriot Act. You can just damn well follow the US Constitution. How about that?


Again, brilliant!



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Just a dog and pony show...

Proof it is just a LEFT and RIGHT paradigm..

Aside from abortion issues and gay rights
they are exactly the same...

Some even traitors to their own party....



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Hows that "hope and change" working out for everyone? I mean, really. Did anyone here actually think for an instant that Obama would do anything to lessen his (the governments) control over people?

I was disgusted when Bush signed it.
I was disgused when conservatives voted for it.
I was pleased when some Tea Party reps knocked it down'
I was not surprized when Obama did this.
edit on 26-2-2011 by beezzer because: trypo


Actually, yes, I did think that he might try to change Washington, DC. In retrospect, I have no idea why. I could not and would not have voted for him. But, after the election I kinda started to listen to him and had hope for a short time.

He has proven himself to be a disgusting little man with no vision and no cajones. I seriously, seriously, believe I would be a far better and more effective president than him. That probably makes me sound like the egomaniac that I am...



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by inkyminds

Originally posted by lastrebel

Originally posted by inkyminds
So we think the government shouldn't be able to tap a phone they know is being used by someone plotting against the homeland? Isn't that one of the main functions of government? To protect the homeland?


You need to be less obvious.............LOL

HOMELAND indeed.............LOL




So, you disagree that protection of the homeland is one of the most important responsibilities of the Federal Government?



Seriously. I take offense to people referring to my country as the Homeland. I hate that term, I hate it with a passion. It sounds so.... Nazi-like...and, oddly enough, the people who like to use the term tend to sound like pro-government, fascist buffoons.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join