Debating the Patriot Act

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I would like to look at substantive concerns. If someone wants to talk about the possibility of something being abused, that’s fine - but did you read that Nation editorial? It made it sound as if the sky was already falling…[/quote]

I don’t think the world is about to implode, but I do find it odd how easily you just dismiss these concerns unless they meet some criteria you have set forth as far as who wrote what.

You may not think that Prof, but the article sure made it out that way, and you posted it without any sort of disclaimer.

Also, while I did point out the source, I notice that you like to focus on that offhand comment and skip the substantive stuff.

Now, do you have any specific areas that you want to talk about in which the PATRIOT act expands government power beyond the boundaries with which you are comfortable, and what sorts of threats to your personal life, liberty, property or general well being you see arising from those?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Now, do you have any specific areas that you want to talk about in which the PATRIOT act expands government power beyond the boundaries with which you are comfortable, and what sorts of threats to your personal life, liberty, property or general well being you see arising from those?[/quote]

Yes, I do. My main point with it has been the ability to do searches without a warrant or informing anyone involved of the search even after it is conducted and its granting of the privilege to view private information about a person based on nothing more than the suspicion of guilt. Do you not see a problem with giving the government that much free reign? The only reason you would have no problem with it is if you trust the government to ONLY use this to fight terrorism and that no innocent Americans will be involved (including the possibility of using info gained for future purposes). I would think anyone past the age of 13 to have less trust than that in those with that much sweeping unregulated power.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
But I ask you BB, do you think Eisenhower was a conspiracy theorist?:

“In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
-Eisenhower Farewell Address

I think this sentiment has been tossed out of the window.
[/quote]

Long ago. Eisenhower made that statement out of concern to secret black projects that even HE was not allowed access - despite being a decorated military General and President of the U.S.

Accounting errors - or black budget?

The War On Waste
(CBS)
“According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,” Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion - that’s $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

“We know it’s gone. But we don’t know what they spent it on,” said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

That’s $2.3 trillion - UNACCOUNTED for - as in missing, gone, vanished.

One of the main concerns of the P.A., besides civil liberties, is it’s use by the govt. to cloak it’s actions in secrecy. As in everything it does has to remain hidden for purposes of national security. The Sibel Edmonds case being a perfect example.

FBI linguist won’t deny intelligence intercepts tied 911 drug money to U.S. election campaigns

Washington – April 25, 2005 – TomFlocco.com – Former FBI contract translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds and her attorneys were ordered removed from the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse so that a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel could discuss her case in private with Bush administration lawyers.

In an exclusive interview on Saturday, we asked Edmonds if she would deny that laundered drug money linked to the 911 attacks found its way into recent House, Senate and Presidential campaign war-chests, according to what she heard in intelligence intercepts she was asked to translate.

“I will not deny that statement; but I cannot comment further on it,” she told TomFlocco.com, in a non-denial denial.

Edmonds is appealing the Bush administration’s arcane use of “state secrets privilege,” invoked last year to throw out her U.S. District Court lawsuit alleging retaliation for telling FBI superiors about shoddy wiretap translations and allegations that wiretap information was passed to the target of an FBI investigation.

Criminal evidence in Edmonds’ explosive case is apparently getting too close to Washington officials, since the former contract linguist also told us she would not deny that “once this issue gets to be…investigated, you will be seeing certain [American] people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally,” revealing the content of the FBI intercepts she heard indicates that recognizable, very high-profile American citizens are linked to the 911 attacks.

When we asked how many Americans were named in the intercepts, Edmonds said “There is direct evidence involving no more than ten American names that I recognized,” further revealing that "some are heads of government agencies or politicians–but I don’t want to go any further than that," as we listened in stunned silence.

When asked in 2002 by CBS 60 Minutes co-host Ed Bradley, “did she seem credible to you? Did her story seem credible?” Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) said “Absolutely, she’s credible. And the reason I feel she’s very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.”

http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109