• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How the Patriot Act would have prevented 9-11.

Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
O.K. here's the deal the military intelligence gathering operation able danger had information as to the 9-11 ringleader Mohammad Atta's identity taken from the 20th hijacker's, Zacarias Moussaoui, personnel computer which was recovered after capture early in the year 2000, however, due to the the Clinton-Gorelick wall, which prevented the F.B.I. from receiving information from intelligence gathering operations, this information was not received by the F.B.I.. The Patriot Act has a provision in it that did away with the Gorelick wall but guess what that provision is set to expire in two weeks due to the Democratic filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal bill.

Am I the only one who sees something seriously wrong with this scenario?
 
H

hipsterdufus

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
O.K. here's the deal the military intelligence gathering operation able danger had information as to the 9-11 ringleader Mohammad Atta's identity taken from the 20th hijacker's, Zacarias Moussaoui, personnel computer which was recovered after capture early in the year 2000, however, due to the the Clinton-Gorelick wall, which prevented the F.B.I. from receiving information from intelligence gathering operations, this information was not received by the F.B.I.. The Patriot Act has a provision in it that did away with the Gorelick wall but guess what that provision is set to expire in two weeks due to the Democratic filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal bill.

Am I the only one who sees something seriously wrong with this scenario?
The filibuster threat is lead by my man Russ Feingold but is bipartisan. No one in the Senate wants the Patriot Act to expire, they want three months to deal with the clauses that are sunsetted in the bill. The Senate would extend ALL of the current version of the Patriot Act during those three months. Many changes have been made in committe and not debated by the full Senate.

I think the recent revelations about NSA spying on US citizens and the Rendition of innocent people to torture camps has shown us how important it is to get this right.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
The filibuster threat is lead by my man Russ Feingold but is bipartisan. No one in the Senate wants the Patriot Act to expire, they want three months to deal with the clauses that are sunsetted in the bill. The Senate would extend ALL of the current version of the Patriot Act during those three months. Many changes have been made in committe and not debated by the full Senate.

I think the recent revelations about NSA spying on US citizens and the Rendition of innocent people to torture camps has shown us how important it is to get this right.
Neither does 70% of the American populace, however, the fact remains that the fillibuster still looms and the most important provision of the Patriot Act expires in two weeks with no end to the fillibuster in site, is there a three month extension bill in the works? If there is this is the first time I'm hearing of it.

And every Democrat voted for the fillibuster except for two and every Rep voted to end it except for four so don't give me this Bi-Partisan crap because it's a pretty damn partisan issue, no offense.

As for the NSA situation this was a timed deal by the New York Times to stop the Patriot Act from getting renewed they sat on the information for more than a year.

Furthermore; the NYT's article was factually inaccurate the NSA was only tapping phones calls from outside the country that had recieved calls from inside the U.S which is totally within the letter of the law; furthermore, the only way this would be unconstitutional is if information gleamed without a warrant was to be used in the prosecution of a crime, remember the roaming wire tap legislation that Clinton pushed so hard for? Well that gives permission to listen in on a conversation to recieve a warrant, this is merely an extension of the type of stuff the F.B.I. was using the RICO act for against the mob. Plus the president has had congressional and judicial oversight on this stuff.
 
Last edited:

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Neither does 70% of the American populace, however, the fact remains that the fillibuster still looms and the most important provision of the Patriot Act expires in two weeks with no end to the fillibuster in site, is there a three month extension bill in the works? If there is this is the first time I'm hearing of it.
I'm very certain it would be horribly difficult to change the words "FOUR YEARS" into "THREE MONTHS", but you're absolutely right. Reason: The President has very publicly refused to sign such legislation and Bill Frist has also said that a temporary extention is unacceptable.

And every Democrat voted for the fillibuster except for two and every Rep voted to end it except for four so don't give me this Bi-Partisan crap because it's a pretty damn partisan issue, no offense.
Yes, it's a damned shame that most of the GOP Senators don't want to allow full Senate debate on such a vital piece of legislation.

As for the NSA situation this was a timed deal by the New York Times to stop the Patriot Act from getting renewed they sat on the information for more than a year.

Furthermore; the NYT's article was factually inaccurate the NSA was only tapping phones calls from outside the country that had recieved calls from inside the U.S which is totally within the letter of the law; furthermore, the only way this would be unconstitutional is if information gleamed without a warrant was to be used in the prosecution of a crime, remember the roaming wire tap legislation that Clinton pushed so hard for? Well that gives permission to listen in on a conversation to recieve a warrant, this is merely an extension of the type of stuff the F.B.I. was using the RICO act for against the mob. Plus the president has had congressional and judicial oversight on this stuff.
Actually, it would seem that he completely circumvented the FISA court and ordered the NSA to intercept international communications.

"Asked why the president authorized skipping the FISA court, Rice said the war on terrorism was a "different type of war" that gives the commander in chief "additional authorities.""

Source I

"Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended Bush's decision, saying the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that required the special court warrants did not foresee the kind of quick action needed to stop terrorists.

That law, however, does permit the attorney general to act in an emergency as long as the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is notified within 72 hours after the surveillance has been ordered."

Source II

The whole point of this being wrong is that there was NO judicial oversight at all, despite the fact that FISA still allows for rapid action to be presented to the court within a very reasonable time frame. That's why everyone, including members of the GOP are up in arms about this. I can't even believe there are people defending this clearly illegal action. It sickens me.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,030
Reaction score
2,051
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
O.K. here's the deal the military intelligence gathering operation able danger had information as to the 9-11 ringleader Mohammad Atta's identity taken from the 20th hijacker's, Zacarias Moussaoui, personnel computer which was recovered after capture early in the year 2000, however, due to the the Clinton-Gorelick wall, which prevented the F.B.I. from receiving information from intelligence gathering operations, this information was not received by the F.B.I.. The Patriot Act has a provision in it that did away with the Gorelick wall but guess what that provision is set to expire in two weeks due to the Democratic filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal bill.

Am I the only one who sees something seriously wrong with this scenario?
No, I see something seriously wrong with it. It turns out that the FBI didn't get to look at Moussaoui's computer, not because of any law, but because FBIHQ, and possibly the same agent who quashed other potentially fruitful investigations being carried out entirely by the FBI, put a stop to the search warrant. No intelligence agency had the information on Moussaoui's computer, the FBI would have been entirely justified (and completely within the law) to request the DoJ to request a warrant. But they (FBIHQ) did not do so due to FBI-internal reasons. It had nothing whatever to do with intelligence sharing rules.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

Ms. Rowley was one of the brick agents handling the Moussaoui case, IIRC.

Incidentally, the Radical Fundamentalist Unit of the FBI, headed at the time by an agent named Dave Frasca, also put a stop to the Phoenix investigation of 2 of the hijackers as they were getting flight lessons, against compelling evidence that they were up to no good.. He may also have sat on evidence coming out of an FBI informant who was living with 2 of the hijackers, despite that informant letting him know that they were planning a major attack. After the attacks, Agent Frasca was promoted. To my knowledge, he still works for the FBI.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
JustMyPOV said:
I'm very certain it would be horribly difficult to change the words "FOUR YEARS" into "THREE MONTHS", but you're absolutely right. Reason: The President has very publicly refused to sign such legislation and Bill Frist has also said that a temporary extention is unacceptable.



Yes, it's a damned shame that most of the GOP Senators don't want to allow full Senate debate on such a vital piece of legislation.



Actually, it would seem that he completely circumvented the FISA court and ordered the NSA to intercept international communications.

"Asked why the president authorized skipping the FISA court, Rice said the war on terrorism was a "different type of war" that gives the commander in chief "additional authorities.""

Source I

"Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended Bush's decision, saying the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that required the special court warrants did not foresee the kind of quick action needed to stop terrorists.

That law, however, does permit the attorney general to act in an emergency as long as the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is notified within 72 hours after the surveillance has been ordered."

Source II

The whole point of this being wrong is that there was NO judicial oversight at all, despite the fact that FISA still allows for rapid action to be presented to the court within a very reasonable time frame. That's why everyone, including members of the GOP are up in arms about this. I can't even believe there are people defending this clearly illegal action. It sickens me.

Ever hear of roaving wire taps, unless these wire taps are to be used in a criminal prosecution they are totally within the letter of the law it doesn't even have to do with the patriot act these provisions were in place long before it in the RICO act to fight against organized crime.
 

culturalrider

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
O.K. here's the deal the military intelligence gathering operation able danger had information as to the 9-11 ringleader Mohammad Atta's identity taken from the 20th hijacker's, Zacarias Moussaoui, personnel computer which was recovered after capture early in the year 2000, however, due to the the Clinton-Gorelick wall, which prevented the F.B.I. from receiving information from intelligence gathering operations, this information was not received by the F.B.I.. The Patriot Act has a provision in it that did away with the Gorelick wall but guess what that provision is set to expire in two weeks due to the Democratic filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal bill.

Am I the only one who sees something seriously wrong with this scenario?
What about the Bill of Rights protecting us from our government?
 

culturalrider

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ever hear of roaving wire taps, unless these wire taps are to be used in a criminal prosecution they are totally within the letter of the law it doesn't even have to do with the patriot act these provisions were in place long before it in the RICO act to fight against organized crime.
Shouldn't the constitution be reinterpreted when new technologies are developed that weren't envisioned by our founding fathers?
 
Top Bottom