• 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.

Reauthorize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

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
Reauthorize the Patriot Act
Congress Should Reauthorize the Patriot Act and Further Strengthen Homeland Security

By Alberto R. Gonzales

Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Page A29

On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists inspired by hatred murdered nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. In response, Congress overwhelmingly passed the USA Patriot Act. Now, before it adjourns for the year, Congress must act again to reauthorize this critical piece of legislation. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are at work: Their stated goal is to kill Americans, cripple our economy and demoralize our people.

The bill to be considered this week is a good one. It equips law enforcement with the tools needed to fight terrorists, and it also includes new civil liberties protections. Members of Congress should put aside the rhetoric and focus on the facts surrounding this vital legislation.


Wednesday, Dec. 14, at 3:05 ET
Gonzales Discusses Patriot Act
United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discusses his op-ed in today's Washington Post on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.


The Patriot Act has been successful in helping prevent acts of terrorism in many ways. First, it updated anti-terrorism and criminal laws to reflect evolving technologies. Second, it increased penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. Third, it gave terrorism investigators the same tools used by those who pursue drug dealers and the Mafia. Most important, the act helped break down the wall preventing regular exchange of information between the law enforcement and intelligence communities.

Four years later, after a lengthy and extensive public debate, Congress has produced a comprehensive reauthorization bill to permanently reauthorize 14 of the act's 16 expiring provisions. During this important debate, Republicans and Democrats have discovered that concerns raised about the act's impact on civil liberties, while sincere, were unfounded. There have been no verified civil liberties abuses in the four years of the act's existence.

Furthermore, the new bill adds 30 safeguards to protect privacy and civil liberties. Specifically, it includes measures providing that those who receive national security letters may consult an attorney and challenge the request in court; requires high-level Justice Department sign-off before investigators may ask a court to order production of certain sensitive records, such as those from a library; and requires that the FBI describe the target of a "roving wiretap" with sufficient specificity to ensure that only a single individual is targeted.

In addition, this bill further strengthens homeland security by creating a new national security division at the Justice Department, providing additional protections against the threat of attacks on mass transportation systems and at our seaports, and granting us additional tools to protect Americans from terrorism.

Congress must act now or risk bringing terrorism prevention to a halt. For example, it is widely accepted -- and documented by independent bodies such as the Sept. 11 and WMD commissions -- that a lack of information-sharing and coordination in our government before the attacks of Sept. 11 compromised our ability to connect the dots about what our enemies were doing. The Patriot Act helped dismantle this barrier. And if we allow certain provisions to "sunset" on Jan. 1, we risk shutting down essential intelligence-sharing that occurs in the National Counterterrorism Center and other facilities where law enforcement officials sit side-by-side with intelligence professionals.

Those who voice concern that Congress is rushing to reauthorize the expiring provisions fail to recognize the oversight it has conducted. In 2005, Congress held 23 hearings focused on reauthorization and heard from more than 60 witnesses. The Justice Department was pleased to provide witnesses at 18 of those hearings, with more than 30 appearances by our experts. I testified three times, explaining the importance of the act, responding to concerns and directly addressing the act's critics. My testimony was informed not only by the successes of the act but also by my personal meetings with representatives from groups such as the ACLU and the American Library Association. During the reauthorization discussion, I asked that certain provisions be clarified to ensure the protection of civil liberties, and Congress responded.

For example, Section 215 of the act permits the government to obtain records on an order issued by a federal judge. I agreed that the statute should allow a recipient of such an order to consult a lawyer and challenge it in court. Further, I agreed that Congress should make explicit the standard under which such orders are issued: relevance to an authorized national security investigation. In 2001 one prominent Democratic senator agreed that the "FBI has made a clear case that a relevance standard is appropriate for counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations, as well as for criminal investigations."

The president has said that our number-one priority is preventing another catastrophic terrorist attack. Congress must act immediately and reauthorize the Patriot Act before the men and women in law enforcement lose the tools they need to keep us safe.

The writer is attorney general of the United States. He will answer questions about this column today at 3:05 p.m. on washingtonpost.com.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121301476.html
 
Last edited:
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales Highlights Success in the War on Terror at the Council on Foreign Relations
The prevention of terrorist attacks and the prosecution of the war on terrorism remain the top priorities of the Department of Justice. In the past year alone, there have been significant convictions in terrorism cases from Virginia to Texas, following a track record of success over the past four years in previous cases such as John Walker Lindh, Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, among others.

Notable 2005 cases include: Ahmed Omar Abu Ali: On November 22, 2005 in the Eastern District of Virginia, a federal jury convicted Ahmed Omar Abu Ali on all counts of a superseding indictment charging him with terrorism offenses. The jury found Ali, a 24-year-old Virginia man, guilty of conspiracy to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization (al Qaeda); providing material support and resources to al Qaeda; conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists; providing material support to terrorists; contribution of services to al Qaeda; receipt of funds and services from al Qaeda; conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States; conspiracy to commit air piracy; and conspiracy to destroy aircraft. Ali faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for February 17, 2006. Uzair Paracha: On November 23, 2005, a federal jury in the Southern District of New York convicted Uzair Paracha, a Pakistani national with permanent resident alien status in the United States, on charges of providing material support to al Qaeda. Evidence at trial proved that Paracha agreed with his father and two al Qaeda members to provide support to al Qaeda by, among other things, trying to help an al Qaeda member re-enter the United States to commit a terrorist act. Paracha faces a maximum sentence of 75 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for March 3, 2006.

Hemant Lakhani: On April 27, 2005 in the District of New Jersey, a federal jury convicted a British national, Hemant Lakhani, on charges of attempting to sell shoulder-fired missiles to what he thought was a terrorist group intent on shooting down U.S. airliners. Lakhani was arrested following an undercover sting operation involving agents from several nations. Lakhani was sentenced in September 2005 to 47 years in prison.

Ali Al-Timimi: On April 26, 2005 in the Eastern District of Virginia, Ali Al-Timimi was convicted on all 10 charges brought against him in connection with the “Virginia Jihad” case. Al-Timimi, a spiritual leader at a mosque in Northern Virginia, encouraged other individuals at a meeting to go to Pakistan to receive military training from Lashkar-e-Taibi, a designated foreign terrorist group, in order to fight U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Al-Timimi was sentenced to life in prison.

Zacarias Moussaoui: On April 24, 2005 in the Eastern District of Virginia, Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty to six charges against him related to his participation in the September 11th conspiracy. Moussaoui faces a maximum penalty of death.

Eric Robert Rudolph: On April 13, 2005 in the Northern District of Georgia and the Northern District of Alabama, Eric Robert Rudolph pleaded guilty to charges related to deadly bombings in Birmingham, Alabama, and in the Atlanta area, including the bombing at the 1996 Olympics. He has been sentenced to life in prison. Rudolph provided the government with information about 250 pounds of explosives that he had hidden in the Western North Carolina area. As a result of Rudolph’s information, the government was able to locate and safely detonate the explosives.

‘INFOCOM’: On April 12, 2005 in the Northern District of Texas, a federal jury convicted Bayan Elashi, Basman Elashi, Ghassan Elashi and the Infocom Corporation on charges of conspiracy to deal in the property of a specially designated terrorist and money laundering. The activities were related to Infocom, an Internet service provider believed to be a front for Hamas. Mohammed Ali Hasan Al-Moayad and Mohammed Zayed: On March 10, 2005 a federal jury in the Eastern District of New York convicted Mohammed Ali Hasan Al-Moayad, a Yemeni cleric, and Mohammed Zayed on charges of providing, and conspiring to provide material support and resources to al Qaeda and Hamas. Al-Moayad was sentenced to 75 years in prison; Zayed was sentenced to 45 years in prison.

Rafil Dhafir: On February 10, 2005 in the Northern District of New York, a federal jury convicted Rafil Dhafir on charges of participating in a conspiracy to unlawfully send money to Iraq, in violation of U.S. sanctions, and money laundering. Dhafir was sentenced to 22 years in prison. Lynne Stewart, et al: On February 10, 2005, a federal jury in the Southern District of New York convicted attorney Lynne Stewart, Mohammed Yousry, Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Yassir al-Sirri on charges including providing, and concealing the provision of, material support or resources to terrorists. The four defendants were associates of Sheikh Abdel-Rahman, leader of the terrorist organization Islamic Group (IG). Rahman is serving a life sentence for his role in terrorist activity, including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/Dec...5_opa_641.html
 
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Prepared Remarks for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales
at the Council on Foreign Relations
New York, NY
December 1, 2005
Thank you for that introduction; it’s a pleasure to be here.

I understand that they lit the tree at Rockefeller Center last night - I guess that means the Christmas season has officially begun. We Texans like to believe that everything is bigger in the Lone Star State. But, I think that even this proud Houstonian can concede that you’ve got us on the Christmas tree.

It has been my experience that just one of the many great things about New York is that New Yorkers share their gifts with the entire Nation…Americans believe that’s their tree in Rockefeller Center, just as they believe that the wonders of New York City are theirs, even if they’ve never visited.

That’s one of the many reasons that September 11th galvanized the country in the manner it did. As so many have noted: We were all New Yorkers on that terrible day.

Thankfully, there has not been another attack on our homeland in the four years since. America quickly united in the fight against terrorism, and we’ve prevented this evil from returning to our shores. However, the horrors of terrorism have been felt around the globe. And as you’ve heard the President repeat: “We are safer, but not yet safe.”

So the message four years removed from September 11th is the same as it was when we watched the twin towers fall, and saw the Pentagon burn, and witnessed the heroism over Pennsylvania aboard Flight 93. We must continue to be resolute in the face of a determined and deadly enemy that has killed innocent citizens from New York to London, from Madrid to Baghdad, from Amman to Bali.

And so, we must continue to work with our friends around the world who are also targets. We must remain active in identifying our nation’s vulnerabilities. And we must stand firm in responding to those who would destroy all that has made America great.

I think we all know what is at stake. I am a product of the American dream. And as the father of two young sons, I wish for them - as all parents wish for their children - a world in which the hope and opportunity of that dream is available and abundant.

In this new century - as Americans face a new kind of enemy and a new brand of conflict - we must fight an intelligent war against terrorism using every tool available…while remaining true to the ideals that make America worth defending - especially civil rights and civil liberties.

This is the government’s obligation. And it is the American people’s expectation… it is your expectation.

The President has embraced this charge. He is leading a comprehensive war against terrorism. Speaking on the Iraq war at the Naval Academy yesterday, President Bush promised that: “We will never back down. We will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory.”

When it comes to securing our nation and our neighborhoods, there is no alternative but constant pressure within a comprehensive strategy. I am proud to say that our friends and allies around the world also embrace this strategy. Like us, they are not sitting still, they are taking tough action to better protect their citizens.

We are continuing, everyday, to evaluate and employ existing laws and tools that can help us in this fight…and looking for new ways to stay ahead of a constantly evolving enemy.

I am committed to that goal, and so are the investigators, prosecutors, and policy makers at the Department of Justice. Prevention of future terrorist attacks is our highest priority. That’s why we are using every available lawful means to protect America - recognizing that when it comes to terrorism and terrorists, no single tool can do the job. It will take every weapon in our arsenal to combat this evil enemy.

Recent headlines reflect some of the ways the Department of Justice does its part to fight the War on Terror - including the use of the PATRIOT Act; prosecuting terrorism cases in federal court; and helping to train our Iraqi counterparts as they establish a functioning judicial system. Let me touch on each of these briefly, before taking your questions.

The PATRIOT Act has given investigators additional authorities they need to help stop terrorists before they can hurt Americans and harm our way of life. As we know, the Act was designed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress to deal directly with the shortcomings in our system prior to September 11th - providing new and better methods of sharing information, increasing cooperation and coordination in the law enforcement community, and improving our ability to track and investigate terrorist activity in the United States. Sixteen key provisions of the Act are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. For several months, Congress has debated these provisions. It is good in a democracy like ours that we discuss and analyze the wisdom of every law - particularly those that, if abused, would infringe your civil liberties. We have done that. Now, Congress must act to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act by sending the President a bill of which all Americans can be proud.

***

<<<continued below>>>
 
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

<<<continued from above>>>

Another important tool we have in the fight against terrorists is our criminal justice system. Many of the Department’s prosecutorial efforts are familiar to you. There was Zacarias Moussaoui, who admitted his role in a plot to crash airplanes into prominent buildings in the United States - and that he was selected for this operation by Usama bin Laden. A penalty phase trial to determine his punishment will begin with jury selection in February. You will also recall Richard Reid, frequently referred to as the “shoe bomber,” who planned to detonate explosives on an airplane, and was sentenced to life imprisonment in Boston. And there was John Walker Lindh, the so-called “American Taliban,” who has been sentenced to twenty years in federal prison for joining the Taliban’s fight against the U.S.-led liberation of Afghanistan.

But those are just a few of our early, high-profile prosecutions. You may not have heard as much about some other, recent successes we have had in fighting the War on Terror. It is hardly the case - as some have sought to suggest - that we’ve disrupted only a handful of terrorist plots since 9/11. Far from it. I want to share a few with you this evening a few examples as a reminder that the threat is real - and the need for Americans to stay vigilant remains vital.

Just last week, on November 23rd, the Department of Justice obtained a conviction here in New York of Uzair Paracha, who was charged with providing material support to al Qaeda. Paracha was part of an operation to help an al Qaeda operative obtain documents to re-enter the United States to commit what Paracha believed was a planned chemical attack on the United States. Authorities who arrested Paracha found an al Qaeda associate’s driver’s license, social security card, and bankcard in the place where Paracha was staying. Paracha also had agreed to hold al Qaeda funds in a business where he worked until al Qaeda needed them for its operations.

Another verdict in recent days involved Ahmed Omar Abu Ali. Abu Ali was a resident of Falls Church, Virginia, a suburb of our nation’s capital, who received training in weapons, explosives, and document forgery from al Qaeda while in Saudi Arabia. When police searched Abu Ali’s home, they found tapes in Arabic promoting jihad and the killing of Jews, materials praising the 9/11 attacks and condemning U.S. military action in Afghanistan, and a book written by al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri advocating the violent destruction of democracy. The operations planned by Abu Ali and his co-conspirators included a plot to assassinate President Bush using either multiple snipers or a suicide bomb, as well as a plot to conduct 9/11-style attacks with planes flying from other countries to the United States. Abu Ali faces up to life in prison for his crimes.

Earlier this year, a jury in the Eastern District of New York convicted two Yemeni citizens, Mohammed Ali Hasan Al-Moayad and Mohsen Zayed. Al-Moayad was the imam of a large mosque and Zayed was his assistant. Together they collected money through the al Farook mosque in Brooklyn and distributed it to al Qaeda and Hamas in order to help train, equip, and arm jihad terrorists. The government made its case against the pair with the assistance of our German colleagues, who worked alongside the FBI in an undercover operation and traveled to Brooklyn to testify about al-Moayad’s and Zayed’s actions. The evidence at trial demonstrated that, during conversations with undercover officials, al-Moayad boasted that he had helped funnel some $20 million to Usama bin Laden and millions more to Hamas. On July 28 of this year, al Moayad was sentenced to 75 years in prison; Zayed was sentenced to 45 years.

In April of this year, the Department obtained the conviction of Ali Al-Timimi, part of what has been referred to as the Northern Virginia Jihad Network, a group of nearly a dozen individuals who attended the Dar al-Arqam Islamic Center just outside Washington D.C. The group participated in paramilitary training with the encouragement of Al-Timimi, a popular spiritual leader at the Islamic Center. During a meeting held after the 9/11 attacks, Al-Timimi encouraged his followers to go to Pakistan to receive additional military training and then join the fight against American troops in Afghanistan. Several made it to Pakistan where they received military-style training at violent jihad camps.

One of Al-Timini’s followers was later found in Gaithersburg, Maryland in possession of an AK-47 rifle and a copy of “The Terrorist’s Handbook,” containing instructions on how to manufacture and use explosives and chemicals as weapons.

I could go on with many more examples of our successful efforts to prevent terrorist attacks here at home.

These stories speak for themselves: The threat to our nation and our way of life remains very real. The terrorists are constant and unrelenting. Their plans are cunning, and their methods cold-blooded. As difficult as the task is, we must continue to bring the battle to our enemies every day - and do so on each and every front available to us.

On the most basic level, these cases - and others - highlight both the extent of our success and the reality of the continuing threat. They show that we’re doing the right thing…and doing it to great effect.

***

Notwithstanding our many prosecution successes, there are some challenges associated with prosecuting - and I use that word both broadly and narrowly - the War on Terror.

Terrorism cases are difficult to investigate and prosecute. These matters are both local and global in scope, impact intelligence community sources and methods, and implicate sensitive diplomatic relationships. From evidentiary issues relating to the chain of custody, to the availability of witnesses, to video linked depositions of foreign witnesses, significant hurdles unique to terrorism cases present real difficulties. That is one of the reasons why the government has utilized all the authorities at its disposal to address the new situations presented by the war on terrorism.

One such authority is the ability of the military to detain enemy combatants.

Justice O’Connor, writing for the Supreme Court in the Hamdi case, reaffirmed both the importance and the legality of the military’s long-established authority to detain enemy combatants captured on the battlefield during the course of hostilities, even if they are American citizens, to prevent them from returning to the battlefield and taking up arms against America once again. Justice O’Connor recognized, too, that it is consistent with our Constitution and the traditional laws of war that, quote, “a citizen, no less than an alien, can be part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States” and therefore be subject to detention during the course of hostilities.

Enemy combatants are held lawfully and for preventive reasons to protect America’s soldiers and America’s citizens. It would defy every past practice of war, not to mention common sense and sound policy, to release back into battle those whom we capture fighting against us.

Even so, the Department of Defense provides enemy combatant detainees privileges the likes of which no nation in history has ever afforded its enemies. The Supreme Court indicated that the government must provide some process, and the Department of Defense has. With Combatant Status Review Tribunals at Guantanamo, for instance, each detainee is entitled to a hearing, to present evidence that he believes might support his release, and to receive the assistance of a military officer in presenting his case. And a parole-type process called an Administrative Review Board provides persons established to be enemy combatants a chance, once a year, to be heard and released, even while a conflict is going on.

We can be proud of the procedural protections the Department of Defense has afforded our Nation’s enemies, but we cannot discount the danger these detainees continue to pose to us and to our servicemen fighting abroad. Of the hundreds of detainees released from Guantanamo based on a determination that they posed only a low risk to this country, the Defense Department has reported that at least ten have returned to take up arms against the United States.

It’s a further reminder that if we do not constantly engage the terrorists, I am convinced the terrorists will once again successfully bring the battle to our shores.

***

In addition to prosecuting terrorist in court and incapacitating enemy combatants, the Administration works to uphold the Rule of Law, protect the personal liberties and rights promised by our Constitution, and promote justice around the world. This obligation itself forms yet another front in the War on Terrorism - winning the hearts and minds of freedom loving people everywhere.

If we are to rally even more countries to our cause, we must continue to show the world that we are worthy of its trust. We must show that, while our enemies would kill innocent fellow Muslims celebrating a wedding in a hotel in Jordan, we are committed to respecting and honoring the innate value of all human life.




***

<<<continued below>>>
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Hee hee hee

Well, Trajan, at least you read both the Washington Times and the Washington Post.

Gonzales sucks. :lol:
 
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

<<<continued from above>>>

At the Department of Justice, we have taken a comprehensive and concerted approach to this task. The Department has investigated hundreds of bias-motivated incidents involving violence or threats against individuals perceived to be Muslim, or of Arab, Middle Eastern, or South Asian origin - and we’ve obtained a number of important federal convictions. We’ve also assisted local law enforcement in its efforts to do the same, resulting in more than 150 additional bias-related criminal prosecutions.

In addition, we are working closely with leaders of these communities to ensure that we are doing everything we can to promote fairness and respect for all people as we confront our common enemy. Senior officials in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department have held meetings with leaders of Muslim, Sikh, Arab, and South-Asian American organizations in Washington and throughout the country to ensure that community concerns are being heard and addressed. And our Community Relations Service has held town and community meetings around the country aimed at ensuring better understanding among diverse communities.

Combating racism and bias against our Muslim citizens is both a moral imperative and essential to success in the War on Terror. As the President explained in his second inaugural address, “our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.”

Half a world away, we are sowing the seeds of justice in Iraq. One year ago, the Central Criminal Court of Iraq had the capacity to prosecute fewer than 10 trials and investigative hearings per month. In the first two weeks of September 2005 alone, the Court prosecuted more than 50 multi-defendant trials, and conducted 133 investigative hearings. This is progress for the Iraqi people who are desperate for a measure of normalcy and order, who want the lawlessness and brutality to end.

The Court is now expanding its reach throughout Iraq with separate branches in local provinces. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Department of Justice has helped to train hundreds of Iraqi judges. These judges are now busy resolving cases under Iraqi law - more than 20,000 felony cases since 2003. This element of the President’s National Strategy for Victory in Iraq will help diminish the rule of terrorists in Iraq - and I am proud that the Department continues to play a role in helping to bring relief to a population thirsting for justice.

***

History shows that our forefathers have remained vigilant and resolute in past conflicts similar to the one we now face.

During the long winters and many losses between the first shot at Lexington and the final victory six years later at Yorktown, even Washington and those most loyal to the revolutionary cause considered giving up their fight. Other good people quit the cause altogether.

Those who fought for union and equality in the Civil War had many dark days after bloody battles like Gettysburg where - as hard as it is for us to imagine now - they doubted the worthiness of their cause.

And there were those during World War II who said that the costs and dangers associated with liberating Europe from the Nazis was too much for this country to bear when it could remain safely ensconced an ocean away from the bloodshed.

Now it is our generation’s turn to write history. We must reaffirm and rededicate ourselves to protecting this country for our children and grandchildren.

If we are to prevail in this struggle, we must show the same resolve and determination our forefathers did in the midst of the most trying conflicts of their day - from Valley Forge to Gettysburg to the Battle of the Bulge. At the same time, we must wage this war in ways that are true to our principles and values. We cannot allow ourselves to fall prey to the same sort of vicious cultural biases that our enemies display.

In November 1942, after a series of Allied victories, Winston Churchill gave an impassioned plea for the British people to be as “equally resolute and active in the face of victory” as they had been in weathering defeat after defeat through the dark days of 1939 and 1940. Churchill knew that the future of the war effort, even in late 1942, remained gravely uncertain, telling his audience: “I promise nothing. I predict nothing.”

Yet Churchill concluded with words asking for endurance and resolve that are critically appropriate for our time. Churchill said, “Do not let us be led away by any fair-seeming appearances of fortune; let us rather put our trust in those deep, slow-moving tides that have borne us thus far already, and will surely bear us forward, if we know how to use them, until we reach the harbour where we would be.”

We have not yet reached that harbour. So I would ask that each of you assume the mantle of Churchill’s firm resolve and stout-heartedness. The terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans in our homeland on a single day, and we cannot doubt that they would gladly do so again tomorrow - and again every day thereafter.

To succeed, we must continue to pressure the terrorists on each and every front in this unconventional war and do so with all the tools at our disposal - from the weapons of war to those of the criminal justice system and of the war of ideas and values. It is only by these slow-moving but effective means that we will continue to ensure the safety of our Nation and preserve America as a symbol of political and personal freedom for our children, as our forefathers did for us.

Thank you. May God bless each of you and may He continue to bless America.

I look forward to your questions.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/Dec...5_opa_641.html
 
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Safeguards are in place
Security Letters protect people's rights as well as fight terrorism.
By Rachel Brand and John Pistole

The Justice Department cannot secure our nation against terrorist attack unless investigators are equipped with tools that allow them to disrupt plots before they can be carried out. These same tools must protect civil liberties. National Security Letters (NSLs) satisfy both requirements.

In national security investigations, the FBI must follow up on every tip and every threat. The American people demand as much. NSLs, which predate the USA Patriot Act, enable the FBI to do so quickly and unobtrusively.

An NSL is simply a request for information. It does not authorize the FBI to conduct a search or make a seizure. If the recipient of an NSL declines to produce the requested information, the FBI cannot compel him to do so; only a federal court has that authority.

NSLs are subject to two other important limitations. First, the FBI may issue them only to obtain information relevant to an international terrorism or espionage investigation. They are not available in criminal investigations or domestic terrorism investigations.

Second, they may be used only to obtain narrow categories of information. For example, the FBI may obtain credit-card billing records to attempt to learn the identity of a terrorist suspect. An NSL may not be used to obtain the contents of an e-mail or a telephone conversation. And if the FBI went beyond these legal constraints, the recipient could challenge the NSL in court. In fact, the Justice Department supports amending the NSL statutes to make this right to challenge express where currently it is implied.

The NSL statutes do prohibit an NSL recipient from disclosing the fact that he received it. In international terrorism and espionage investigations, there are obvious reasons for this. If a terrorist were tipped off to the fact that the FBI was asking for his billing records, he might flee, destroy evidence, or even accelerate plans for an attack.

The Department of Justice is committed to protecting the USA against terrorist attack while using its authorities carefully, lawfully and consistent with civil liberties. The NSL authorities facilitate this mission.


Rachel Brand is assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice. John Pistole is deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...pose09.art.htm
__________________
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

If....by chance the President and his administration had not used this Act as a means to remove privacy....or, at the very least told the people they claim to be protecting what they intended to do ....I would likely support the continuation of this legislation. As it is....the president has broken his Oath of Office, "To uphold the Constitution", within the confines of the Patriot Act. It needs to go....and so does he.
 
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

tecoyah said:
If....by chance the President and his administration had not used this Act as a means to remove privacy....or, at the very least told the people they claim to be protecting what they intended to do ....I would likely support the continuation of this legislation. As it is....the president has broken his Oath of Office, "To uphold the Constitution", within the confines of the Patriot Act. It needs to go....and so does he.
You're buying into the hype of this NSA phone tapping article of the New York Times, the president has followed the letter of the law and his constitutional powers, leaders in congress have had continious oversight on the authorization and the authorization is under a monthly review by the justice department.

This was a partisan tactic by the New York Times to stop the renewal of the Patriot Act, they held onto this info for nearly a year and only broke the story when the Patriot Act was due for a reauthorization revote by congress, not only is their article factually inaccurate op-ed piece that ended up on the front page for political purposes, they have hurt the effort in the war on terror and the people who leaked this classified information need to be held accountable under the full penalty of the law.
 
Last edited:

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You're buying into the hype of this NSA phone tapping article of the New York Times
Yup....guess I'm Buyin' it.....as I am tired of buying the fodder fed to me from my current administration. This was honestly....the perverbial straw for me, and has pushed me over the line I had in the sand. I cannot respect those in power any longer, which is a very Sad thing to me. This is the First time in my life I cannot support the leader of my country.....I simply Can't.
 
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

tecoyah said:
Yup....guess I'm Buyin' it.....as I am tired of buying the fodder fed to me from my current administration. This was honestly....the perverbial straw for me, and has pushed me over the line I had in the sand. I cannot respect those in power any longer, which is a very Sad thing to me. This is the First time in my life I cannot support the leader of my country.....I simply Can't.
Welp if you want to base your opinion on lies found in an op-ed piece that had no bussiness being on the front page I'll leave that to you.
 

Inuyasha

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
58
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Alberto Gonzales is a foreign agent and a spy for Vicente Fox.
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Welp if you want to base your opinion on lies found in an op-ed piece that had no bussiness being on the front page I'll leave that to you.
If indeed...this was an isolated piece of Data....used to formulate my descision, then I would be as guily of blindness as many who live in denial are. This is not the case....I have been one to evaluate as much information as I can....and from this make descisions. Believe me when I say this was not an easy one, as I have fought it for years, and simply "pretended" the underlying perception of Motive was imaginary. I have never been one for conspiracy theories, and still am not, but something is simply not right.....and it is time I accepted that.
 
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

tecoyah said:
If indeed...this was an isolated piece of Data....used to formulate my descision, then I would be as guily of blindness as many who live in denial are. This is not the case....I have been one to evaluate as much information as I can....and from this make descisions. Believe me when I say this was not an easy one, as I have fought it for years, and simply "pretended" the underlying perception of Motive was imaginary. I have never been one for conspiracy theories, and still am not, but something is simply not right.....and it is time I accepted that.
Sorry to tell you but the president's first and foremost responsibility is to protect the lives of the American people, the NYT's article has jeopardized national security and put the lives of Americans in danger. As was cited in previous posts on this thread the Patriot Act has served to prevent terrorist attacks on this nation and now you want it repealed I just do not understand the liberals mindset at all.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
None of your links work?
 

Inuyasha

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
58
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Sorry to tell you but the president's first and foremost responsibility is to protect the lives of the American people, the NYT's article has jeopardized national security and put the lives of Americans in danger. As was cited in previous posts on this thread the Patriot Act has served to prevent terrorist attacks on this nation and now you want it repealed I just do not understand the liberals mindset at all.
This is all opinion. For one the Constitution says that the first responsibility of the president is to protect the Constitution of the United States, Nowhere does it say it is his duty to protect the people .

In accordance with Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 8 of the Constitution, upon entering office, the President must take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In the modern system of government it is the duty of the president to protect the interests of the nation. In a sense "the people be damned". and if asked to sacrifice their lives for the greater interests of the nation are expected to do so. The only problem with this administration asking the people to do that is, 1. They have never proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the nation's interests are in absolute danger. 2. The majority of this administration's members, when asked to sacrifice for their nation, were unable to be found and avoided that obligation. This fact makes many doubt the sincerity of purpose of men like Cheney, Rove, etc. "Heroes die a noble death, cowards run away and live to be politicians another day." This may be said to be the new ethic of the nation.
 
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
Re: Reathaurize the Patriot Act or Why this fillibuster cannot stand.

Inuyasha said:
This is all opinion. For one the Constitution says that the first responsibility of the president is to protect the Constitution of the United States, Nowhere does it say it is his duty to protect the people .

In accordance with Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 8 of the Constitution, upon entering office, the President must take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In the modern system of government it is the duty of the president to protect the interests of the nation. In a sense "the people be damned". and if asked to sacrifice their lives for the greater interests of the nation are expected to do so. The only problem with this administration asking the people to do that is, 1. They have never proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the nation's interests are in absolute danger. 2. The majority of this administration's members, when asked to sacrifice for their nation, were unable to be found and avoided that obligation. This fact makes many doubt the sincerity of purpose of men like Cheney, Rove, etc. "Heroes die a noble death, cowards run away and live to be politicians another day." This may be said to be the new ethic of the nation.
Way to turn a thread about the patriot act into one about Bush's war record, first off Bush was in the National Guard, his unit was not called up if it had he would have been sent to Vietnam, are people who volunteered for the N.G. somehow less patriotic than those who volunteered for the Navy? The truth is is that Bush served his country, he was in the military, and these accusations that he went AWOL are based on the baseless Rathergate scandal.

That and are you honestly saying that the first priority of the president should not be the protection of the lives of the U.S. citizenry?
 

Inuyasha

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
58
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
One. Read the very first sentence of the post I wrote. That is the crux of it all

Two. Did I mention the name ot the service record of George W. Bush? Did I say everyone in the Bush administration?

To illustrate my point, here is a little story.

Aman walked up to another on the street and said. "I am selling "smart pills". $200 for 25."

So the other man bought them and took them immediately and said,
"Hey these pills taste like sh¡t!"

to which the other answered
"See you're getting smarter already."
 
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
Inuyasha said:
One. Read the very first sentence of the post I wrote. That is the crux of it all

Two. Did I mention the name ot the service record of George W. Bush? Did I say everyone in the Bush administration?

To illustrate my point, here is a little story.

Aman walked up to another on the street and said. "I am selling "smart pills". $200 for 25."

So the other man bought them and took them immediately and said,
"Hey these pills taste like sh¡t!"

to which the other answered
"See you're getting smarter already."
It's not all opinion the first page of this thread consists of three articles outlying the necessity of the patriot act which no one has even attempted to refute instead they decide to attack the administration who didn't even create the legislation in the first place, the congress makes legislation the president approves it.
 

Inuyasha

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
58
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is not the point I am making. The point is you use opinion, conjecture, supposition and speculation wrapped in clever words but lacking anything but the minimum of facts slanted to your argument to make a point. That's what i did copied from your lead. Now, I can ignore for the most part what you say and comment only on what is convenient for me. this is a clever tactic and I salute you for using it but you do it so often that only the most gullible will fall for it at this point. That all i wanted to say.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This is not the point I am making. The point is you use opinion, conjecture, supposition and speculation wrapped in clever words but lacking anything but the minimum of facts slanted to your argument to make a point. That's what i did copied from your lead. Now, I can ignore for the most part what you say and comment only on what is convenient for me. this is a clever tactic and I salute you for using it but you do it so often that only the most gullible will fall for it at this point. That all i wanted to say.
Thank you!
 
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
Inuyasha said:
This is not the point I am making. The point is you use opinion, conjecture, supposition and speculation wrapped in clever words but lacking anything but the minimum of facts slanted to your argument to make a point. That's what i did copied from your lead. Now, I can ignore for the most part what you say and comment only on what is convenient for me. this is a clever tactic and I salute you for using it but you do it so often that only the most gullible will fall for it at this point. That all i wanted to say.
First page of thread second article was about terrorist attacks that have been prevented by the Patriot Act, just what opinions did you find in there

Here's some more facts the Patriot Act would have prevented 9-11:

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 his 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.

Tell me sir just what opinions have I asserted with out backing them up with facts? If you show ME I'll show YOU the facts to back it up.
 

JustMyPOV

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Firstly, the Democrats in the Senate as well as the few Republicans that have joined in the fillibuster aren't seeking to allow the PA to expire. They're seeking to extend it temporarily as it is, and bring it up for debate when they return to work next year. There were problems with the hastily passed law, the House got an opportunity to debate and ammend it, so what is the big deal about letting the Senate do the same? It IS their job after all. More importantly, why wasn't ample time allowed for them to do so before it was set to expire? The administration could easily allow for the temporary extention and allow the debate to proceed as it should. There's really no reason for him not to bend on this and a little comprimise wouldn't hurt his ratings a bit.
 
Top Bottom