Tell your congressman to let he patriot act sunset

[IncogNITO]

Nope not to late.
I am surprised at how out of touch you keep proving to be.

With parts of the Patriot Act required to be reauthorized by Dec. 31 2005, the Bush administration pushed hard to get it done before Thanksgiving recess. But a House-Senate conference committee draft report has been blocked by a coalition of Republican and Democratic senators who have pledged to stop a reauthorization conference bill unless significant changes are made when Congress reconvenes on Dec. 16, 2005.

Dec. 15 is Bill of Rights Day, celebrating the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, without which our founding document would not have become the law of the land.

The Patriot Act makes a mockery out of the Bill of Rights.


JMayo

[IncogNITO]

They did good on Friday.

Senate Democrats, with the aid of a handful of Republicans, succeeded Friday in stalling the bill already approved by the House. The vote to advance the measure, 52-47, fell eight votes shy of the 60 votes required to end debate.



JMayo

[Barb]

Yep, you're right. They did the right thing.

Barb

[IncogNITO]

And it still isn't to late let them know our President can not be trusted with greater powers.
That infringing on the constatutional rights of Americans is wrong. That it is time for this crap legislation to go away.

JMayo

[tas02]

jmayo said:

They did good on Friday.

"Yes, good job infidels! Merry Christmas, and thank you for the thoughtful gift"

[Goddess]

Hey! Isn't that the guy from "Jewel of the Nile?"

[tas02]

Actually, it's believed to be Adam Gadahn, an American al Qaeda member from California. The picture shows him in a video delivered to ABC News on the 4th anniversary of 9/11. In it he threatens attacks on Los Angeles and Melbourne (Australia).

"Yesterday, London and Madrid. Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne, God willing. At this time, don't count on us demonstrating restraint or compassion,"

"We are Muslims. We love peace, but peace on our terms, peace as laid down by Islam, not the so-called peace of occupiers and dictators."

Scary stuff. I'm sure the people of Los Angeles will understand if we have to let a few thousand people die in order to preserve this guy's rights.

[IncogNITO]

tas02 said:

Actually, it's believed to be Adam Gadahn, an American al Qaeda member from California. The picture shows him in a video delivered to ABC News on the 4th anniversary of 9/11. In it he threatens attacks on Los Angeles and Melbourne (Australia).

"Yesterday, London and Madrid. Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne, God willing. At this time, don't count on us demonstrating restraint or compassion,"

"We are Muslims. We love peace, but peace on our terms, peace as laid down by Islam, not the so-called peace of occupiers and dictators."

Scary stuff. I'm sure the people of Los Angeles will understand if we have to let a few thousand people die in order to preserve this guy's rights.

What is the patriot act need for anyway it has done nothing to protect this country we are no safer today then we were in 2001. Bush does not need it, it has already been confirmed, that the NSA surveillance has operated by creating search terms and using computers to monitor the foreign calls not just of suspected Al-Qaeda operatives (as the White House has claimed), but all Americans' international calls, e-mails, and faxes, and some domestic communications as well -- spying on literally millions upon millions of people.

How did they get AT&T to corporate? This little thing in the patriot act that allows a letter to be written instead of a subpoena.

For the last two months the news has been overflowing with items, large and small, demonstrating the Bush administration's abuses of power justified by 9-11 and the "War on Terror": NSA spying, torture, CIA rendition and a gulag of secret prisons, the ongoing court battle over the fate of U.S. citizen and "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, the clearly illegal warrantless use of nuclear radiation monitors outside thousands of Muslim-associated sites in six American cities (revealed last week by U.S. News and World Report), a Swedish report that there are now 80,000 names on the U.S. government's secret air travel "watchlist," Sen. Lindsay Graham's amendment that gutted habeas corpus rights and any hope of either due process or prisoner of war protections for prisoners in America's overseas gulag, a little-noticed 12-9-05 New York Times report that "More than 8,000 people have been mistakenly tagged for immigration violations as a result of the Bush administration's strategy of entering the names of thousands of immigrants in a national crime database," numerous revelations of government-funded, privately attributed propaganda... the list I am sure is endless.

The Patriot act is garbage it's only purpose to give the Bush administration more power.

JMayo

[tas02]

Geez, JMayo, anybody reading your rant would think you were rooting for the terrorists!

First, just what kind of insider information do you have that you can so boldly conclude that the Patriot Act has done nothing to protect this country? I don't know what kind of left-wing Bush-hating garbage you have been reading to reach that conclusion, but the fact is that numerous terror plots have been thwarted since 9/11 because of the Patriot Act and the NSA surveillance programs.

Have you ever heard of the Lackawanna six? A terrorist cell in upstate New York that was broken up due in large part to the Patriot Act? All were trained in Afghanistan terror camps run by al Qaeda. We'll never know how many lives were saved because they were caught before they could carry out any attacks.

If you think America is not safer since 9/11, let me ask you a question: How many major terror attacks have taken place on American soil since 9/11? Go ahead, list them one by one and explain how the Patriot Act failed to protect us. I'll wait.....

As for the "millions upon millions" of people being "spyed on" by the NSA, get real. How many people do you think it takes to spy on "millions"? Yes millions of conversations and e-mails are stored and scanned by computer programs. Yes certain one's are flagged based on specific criteria that make them suspicious. And yes, I'm sure, some of them are innocent and not pursued. Nobody has any interest in what you are saying to Aunt Mathilda in your e-mail. But if you are talking about blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge, as one would-be terrorist was, that program is going to flag your conversation and you are going to get some attention.

How would you have the government find out about such plots? Do you think we should have just waited for the Brooklyn Bridge to be destroyed and hundreds if not thousands of people killed before we looked into it? Why is it so important for you that murdering terrorist bastards have their rights protected? Don't tell me you are worried about all the innocent people having their rights violated because nobody cares about spying on average Americans unless they are somehow connected to terrorists.

And I'm appalled that you would use words like "Gulag". Why don't you go and read up and what the real Gulag was before you go associating etrocities like that with what American heroes are doing to keep your sorry ass safe?

The Gulag was a forced labor camp where 18-20 million criminals and political prisoners were kept in harsh, inhuman conditions. It's estimated that around 1.6 million of them died in the camps. To even mention the Gulag in the same sentence as the secret terrorist prisons is deplorable. Despicable! Where exactly do you want us to keep dangerous terrorists? Oh, I'm sure you want us to bring them all to America, give them all ACLU lawyers and release them on bail. That would certainly calm your civic-minded nerves.

And why don't you just admit that you hate the Bush administration (and probably Republicans in general) so much that nothing is more important to you than finding every way you can to criticize them? Not defeating terrorism. Not protecting American lives. Nothing.

By the way, I'm sure you were online railing against the Clinton and Carter administrations for using warrantless searches too. Or that Clinton used the IRS to go after his political enemies. Those incidents couldn't possibly have escaped your civil rights concerned scrutiny.

[IncogNITO]

Not one statement I made in my post was directed at you. Not able to hold a conversation with out insulting someone? Well the right usually does believe if your not for them your against everything. So you can believe I am for the terrorist all you like. I served my time in the military and was in Desert Storm. I have also buried 12 men who have come home from Iraq. So I earned the right of free speech.


The Lackawanna six had no plans to bomb or blow up anything and that was proven in court. They did nothing obviously criminal in nature against the US.
The crime they committed was in 2000 they went to a Osama Bin-Laden training camp. Same one we set up for him. The actual crime for which they are serving time is paying for a uniform, attending the training camp where they learned to use weapons, and standing guard duty. The charges against them also specified viewing videotapes concerning the bombing of the USS Cole and speeches by Osama Bin-Laden. The Patriot act played no part of it as they never kept it secret. A neighbor who testified in court was told about the trip after they came back. Don't know what right wing bullshit you are reading but it has little to do with the facts that came out in court.

Nuradin M. Abdi was brought to the attention of FBI because of his immigration violations not the Patriot Act. The US immigration folks are Finlay half ass attempting to do their job. has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

The Brooklyn Bridge was discovered by intercepting random phone calls from people in the United States to those outside. had not one thing to do with the Patriot Act. I guess the Guy who reported him twice to the FBI and was ignored should get no credit either.

Kind like the monitor about 3 blocks from my home checking the area for radioactivity Because there is a Islamic worship center in the neighborhood. I guess the pacifist that have been spied on deserved it. If you don't believe in fighting you have to be a terrorist.

As for the two taps at AT&T that monitors emails that covers like every email going outside this country. It is a machine that scans them so every email is being read. Technology read up on it. The International phone taps cover 57% of all calls made outside this country. Also monitored by a machine that randomly picks calls to listen in on. I have no doubt that my calls have been monitored since I make at least 9 international calls a week. I send at least 24 emails a month to both friends and other branches of my order in other countries.

The government has the ability to do everything it needs to do to protect this country without the patriot act. It always had if it would get off it's ass. My brother in law got to Chicago from Orlando with live ammo in his carry on. Guess it isn't going to get moving anytime soon unless the folks who work for it can do so from their lazy chair. Only 4 search warrants in something like 10 years have been refused. I would bet anything the tapping of quakers would have been refused.

If nobody cares about spying on average Americans then why did the Patriot Act not get approved as was expected. Why are we talking about it then. If they were spying on true suspects or those with connection to a terrorist group then that would be another story.

Any place where torture is allowed is a Gulag. I was at the US Prison in Turkey back when it was a tourist sight. I know what the place is like- harsh, inhuman conditions. There is no proof that anyone kidnapped in France, Italy, Germany and taken there or the Prison in North Africa did anything wrong. On man a Doctor was taken on his way home just after he finished a surgery that saved the life of a young man. His family has not heard a word on his condition. Our guys need to remember not to take people where cameras are stationed.
Sounds more like Nazi Germany then the United States.

I vote republican when there is someone worthy of voting of. And yes I did rail against the warrentless searches Clinton had acted upon. I was also for his impeachment. I was not that interested in politics when Carter was President. I was to busy getting my Masters in the late 70's and early 80's to pay much attention to a Lame Duck President.

You just go right on being appalled. I will go on being ashamed that some folks are my country men.
JMayo

[tas02]

Let's make some distinctions about the Patriot Act. The major portion of the Act was permanent from the start. What the weenies in congress did last week was to prevent certain controversial portions of it, that were set to expire, from renewing. I have no problem with them ammending the Act to add more oversight and protections, if needed, but to just junk it is foolhardy. I don't expect you to agree.

The controversial portions of the Act have to do with roving wire taps and the ability to obtain a warrant to access bookstore and library records for anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying.

Regarding the roving wire taps, the government has long had the ability to do this when investigating organized crime. In this age of disposable cell phones, it's too difficult to have to keep going back for new warrants every time a terrorist suspect changes phones. When lives are potentially at stake, time is of the essense. Bad guys know this and will do anything to gain an advantage including changing phones frequently. I don't see how having a warrant that extends to any phone the suspect might use is so intrusive. These are bad guys we are talking about.

The bookstore/library records portion is by far the most controversial as well it should be. It certainly raises concerns about big brother, censorship, etc. What we have to remember is that many of the 9/11 hijackers used libraries for research and communication. The law also specifically states that the warrants can only be used to investigate suspected terrorists and spys. Again, while I certainly would like to see strict oversight and control of this activity, I can see how it's potentially a vital tool for detecting and monitoring terrorists.

Regarding the Lackawanna six: The FBI agent in charge, Peter Ahearn stated that, as part of their investigation, the FBI used "National Security Letters" which let the justice department issue it's own subpoenas for certain types of records and forbids the businesses served with them from disclosing any information about them. NSLs are to be used only in cases involving national security. This was part of the Patriot Act.

Could the FBI have made their case without using NSLs? Obviously I don't have enough information to definitively state yes or no and neither do you. Because of the nature of cases involving anti-terrorism investigation, I can't cite specific cases where the Patriot Act was instrumental, and you can't say with any certainty that it has not been instrumental. The government has insisted that the Patriot Act has been a vital tool against terror. I believe them. You don't. And neither of us really has any proof to back up our claims. It's really as simple as who do you trust. Do you trust the government and believe they'll do the right thing and protect us? Or do you dispise the government so much that you are willing to let potentially thousands of people die to prove a point. The answer for me is easy.

Now, regarding my need to read up on technology. I have been working in the information technology industry for over 30 years. I think I might know a thing or two about technology. Maybe even more than you.

For the benefit of those who might not be as up on this as you and I, let me explain the difference between, surveillance and data mining. In the case of surveillance, you have a suspect that you have reason to believe is doing something or plotting to do something wrong. You want to find out more, so you apply to the court, say, the FISA court for a warrant to perform surveillance. You have to have probable cause and, as I understand it, it takes quite a bit of paperwork to obtain a warrant. Yes most requests are granted.

In the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the justice department didn't seek a warrant because it feared it didn't have enough probable cause to search his laptop. Many believe that if the Patriot Act had existed back then, his laptop may have been searched and 9/11 might have been prevented. That may be overstating the case, but we'll never know for sure.

Anyway, again, surveillance is used on people you suspect of being involved in terror and have some demonstrable evidence that they are bad guys. But how do they become suspects in the first place? There are 300 million people in this country. A few hundred or a few thousand want to do us harm. Some suspects may be identified through undercover work, some through tips, etc. Those methods require a lot of luck and are going to miss the vast majority of bad guys that want to do us harm.

Part of the answer is something called data mining which is a method of analyzing huge amounts of data looking for certain patterns and relationships. Imagine a gigantic database that has records on every international call or e-mail, literally trillions and trillions of bits of data. You couldn't hire enough people to read every e-mail and listen to every conversation. So, when you say every email is being read, that's just not so. Maybe every email is being scanned by a computer program, but computer programs don't understand the context of what your e-mail says or care about your personal life. It just looks for patterns and relationships. If you are calling or e-mailing somebody that is a suspected al qaeda operative, then, yes, your e-mail may get flagged and a human might take a closer look. Again, the only practical way that your personal communications might be looked into is if some non-thinking, non-caring, non-judgemental computer calculates that something about your communications demonstrates a pattern that suggests you might, might be a threat to national security.

Is this process perfect? Of course not. Will it flag some people that are not a threat? Probably, but that's why humans follow up and make a judgement about whether or not to pursue the issue by getting warrants, etc. If the computer spits out 1,000 people and humans check them out and determine that one of them was plotting an attack that might kill hundreds or thousands of people, isn't the program worth it?

In my opinion, if we have this technology and don't use it to save lives, the government isn't doing it's job. You obviously disagree.

A lot of people are angry over the fact that the Able Danger program apparently identified Mohammed Atta and 3 other 9/11 hijackers as being possibly associated with an al qaeda cell. They found this out using a new data mining process (I don't know for sure if it was the same data mining process, but it sounds similar). Again, it's entirely possible that Able Danger might have prevented 9/11 if those in power had paid attention to the data.

How angry would we all be, even you I suspect, if another 9/11 happens and we find out that we had all the data to put the pieces together but failed to act because we didn't want to violate the terrorists rights? I know what the answer is for me.

You say that the government has the ability to do everything it needs to do to protect this country without the patriot act. But you don't tell us what those abilities are and I doubt you can cite one that is any where near as effective as data mining and agressively pursuing those who would do us harm. Yes it's frustrating that some lazy asses in the TSA don't do their job. But making the TSA perfect isn't going to protect us from every type of terror attack that might occur.

I was going to appologize for insulting you. Anybody that knows me from the other forum knows that I generally try (I'm admittedly not always successful) to avoid personal attacks. After reading the rest of your post and re-reading your first post, I think I'll hold off on that appology. You complain that nothing in your original post was directed at me. I disagree. Bin Laden wasn't attacking me personally with those planes flown into buildings, but I certainly took it personally as I would guess you did too.

You may not have attacked me by name, but you attacked everything I believe in when you refer to terrorist prisons run by our troops are Gulags and then follow up by saying the are Nazi-like. My son is one of those "nazis" and I take great offense at somebody that describes him as such. No, a Gulag is not anywhere that torture is allowed. That's like saying hell is anywhere that's warm. It's ridiculous and it's wrong and you have absolutely no proof that any torture is occuring at any of the terrorist prisons. And you never did answer my question as to where you think we should put terrorists.

You cite the Turkish prison as being a harsh environment. I have no idea whether it's being used to house terrorists, but even if it is, so what. I don't feel we need to put them in 4-star hotels. And just because our people may or may not be housing terrorists in a place where the Turkish government abused prisoners, doesn't mean our people are abusing them any more than you could make the same assumptions about Abu Ghraib. Yes, there were abuses at Abu Ghraib and yes, people have been prosecuted as a result. But no one in their right mind with an ounce of intellectual honesty could possibly claim that what our troops did there were in any way comparable to what Saddam's thugs did there. Nor could they with any credibility claim that what our people are doing in other prisons compare in any way to the horrors of the Gulag or Nazi concentration camps.

Finally, you seem to think that because you served in the military and participated in Dessert Storm, you have a right to free speech. You are wrong! The constitution guarantees free speech to every American, not just the ones that served their country. I respect you for doing so, but Timothy McVeigh also served in dessert storm. No, I'm not comparing you to Timothy McVeigh. I'm simply pointing out that the fact that you served your country doesn't give you the moral authority to come on here and say anything you want without being challenged by someone that disagrees with you. Yes, you have the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. You also have a responsibility to use it wisely. And, in my mind, comparing our troops to nazis and Gulag-monsters is far from a responsible use of your free-speech rights.

But of course, that's just my opinion.

[IncogNITO]

As far as moral authority to challenge, where is yours when you challenged me? Oh I am sure that was different when you quoted me and then say "Yes, good job infidels! Merry Christmas, and thank you for the thoughtful gift". You did not challenge me outright you just tossed an insult. Normally would have called you a coward for using such tactics. I usually post exactly as the poster I am responding to. You were new, had to give you the chance. So you have no moral ground to lecture me about my posts.

My moral authority comes from being born in this country where it is right and good to speak ones mind and in a forum such as this expected. As you well know.
Questioning authority and doing what you can to keep those you pay to serve you honest is the job of every Citizen of this country and if you don't then you are fool no matter whose side you are on.

Another thing, I did not call a single US Military man or woman anything. You must not be familiar with what our CIA agents have been up to in foreign countries.
I did not say one word about our troops. The CIA, FBI, NSA are not troops. You read what you wanted to read.
Your error not mine. Maybe you should start by getting to know someone before you toss out the first insult.
I earned the right to free speech, or I earned the right to vote is a very old way of saying I did my and I do my duty. It started after the civil war and it continues today. Every man and woman who served in this country's military were not only born with those rights but they earned them as well.

Data mining is a valid way to gain information but data mining every American to look for patterns is a waste of time, money and resources. Targeting suspected terrorist groups and people with suspected connections to terrorist groups is valid, only that isn't what is happening. Targeting half of the American public is not a valid use of the Patriot act and against the law. The Patriot Act isn't needed they could easily get a subpoena to target suspected groups, people and sights. It is a fact that from 1995 to 2004, the surveillance court turned down only four of the feds' 10,617 requests for wiretapping warrants. Not a single one of their requests for physical surveillance was turned down.

We were told repeatedly that the Patriot Act would only be used to prevent terrorism. This is the Patriot Act and NSLs being used only in cases involving national security. Only a few of over 1075 reports of abuse. Not all have yet been substantiated.

Strip Club owner in Nevada (No terrorist connecting now or ever). Racketeering investigation. But this was one of the 4 subpoenas refused the FBI for lack of evidence.

Clearing street people off of Boston streets and moving them to another city by bus. They were making it safer from terrorist.

Every University group opposed to the war. Even to the point of using the National Security Letter to get library records, and intercept their email. The recreation of a list of individuals and monitoring those people because of political or religious beliefs. Just because those beliefs run counter to the beliefs of this administration.
not because of any suspected crime.

Pennsylvania Quaker Group who purpose was to and has been to get more people to follow the pacifist way.
Intended to protest in front of local recruiting stations. Received National Security Letter which included gag orders, to try and prevent them from doing so. A group whose roots go back to the founding of America.

There are two cases currently under judges noses where NSL have been used to Gag everyone and keep them from talking about it. Both cases involving the use of NSL letters. One of those two cases is- George Christian a manager of digital records for three dozen Connecticut libraries. The letter request "all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person" who used a specific computer at a library branch some distance away. A subpoena would have require a finer target or a reason why, like need. Which they could have gotten after George and his company refused. To date they have not even attempted to get a court order to get those documents.

Wonder why no one who broke the gag order to date have been arrested or tried? Maybe because they were illegal to begin with and the administration knew they would not hold up in court. I think that is it.

Under no circumstances is it ok for my government to kidnap people off of a city street, with out valid cause.
Under no circumstances is no answer as to why they did. If they said we have credible evidence that this man is a terrorist and has ties to a terrorist act, then it would be a different story. I don't need to know national security secrets. But as a citizen I am responsible for the actions of my government. So no answer is not acceptable. We do not know that the people held in those Foreign prisons are Terrorist or even have ties to terrorist organizations.
Claiming they are when it is not known is only perpetuation of a lie. We know one man has been cleared by his country and his is still being held somewhere.
Even so we do not need to resort to animal torture to get the information we need from them. We do not need to beat them or humiliate them. Hell interrogation techniques moved beyond that years ago. They are capable of getting better, clearer and more detailed information then physical abuse ever could.

They removed the nuclear monitor overnight. Wonder how many more disappeared quietly on New Years Eve.
They would never have gotten a subpoena for the wide spread monitoring of Islamic worship sights. But it is clear that this administration believes that if you are Islamic you are a suspected terrorist.


I have never said that the government should wait to act if they believe something is going on. Nor would I.
I lost friends in the towers when they fell. People I lived with and trained to help others for 6 months. Things can not go back to how they were. But they are not any better today. Your own example of the TSA and the inability of Major target sights to protect themselves.
I am all for every bag and person being checked before boarding a plane, train or bus or entering any possible target sight. The technology is there and it does not have to be paid for by the government, to make the technology cheaper to purchase. I have no problem walking through a detector that sniffs me for a bombs and drugs while it looks for metal items that may be a weapon, when I travel on public transportation or go into the Sears Tower. But I am against being spied upon because I make calls to Angola, Iraq, Vatican City, Mongolia, or anywhere else. I am against my neighborhood being monitored for nuclear material only because there is a small Islamic worship center with 12 members down the road. I am against limiting someones right to question the government or it's policies, which clearly has been done. I am against the use of the patriot act to try to cover up it being used against anyone who is not for the Administration and it's policies. I am against federal agents monitoring political and religious groups without evidence of criminal activity or even suspected activity. Believing bush is a power hungry idiot is not against the law.

As far as the Lackawanna six goes I do have proof it is in the court transcripts. The FIA is still is some cases able to obtain information and I thank the New York Times for publishing them. The only time the Parrot Act was claimed to be used was when an FBI agent got caught telling a story while under oath. It was shown that it had no part in the investigation in the trail.

As long as the Patriot Act stands as it is, the possibility of it becoming an Enabling Act is there. At no time is the general public of this country to be under surveillance.

The resemblance between the Patriot act and the Enabling Act that empowered Adolf Hitler to seize control of Germany are horrifying right down to how they were passed. Both limited civil liberties with the expressed purpose of protecting the people. Neither do or did the job.

JMayo

History has a way of biting you in the ass when you don't bother to learn from it.

[tas02]

First, JMayo, I don't claim any moral authority. I simply offer my opinions and, where I can, facts backed up by evidence.

It seems to me that you post anything you want to and take offense when someone challenges you. I know you are basically preaching to the choir here. You seem to be able to say whatever you want and nobody challenges you because they like your conclusions. Well I don't.

You throw out numerous little snippets of anecdotes, but offer no proof, no links, no reason to believe what you are saying other than that most here like what you are saying so they don't challenge it.

Let's take an example: You said "Targeting half of the American public is not a valid use of the Patriot act and against the law". I'll let the second part of that slide even though I know of no law that prohibits targeting half of the American public. But as for the overall factoid, that half of the American public is being targeted, you just throw it out there with no proof. Now I happen to disagree with your assertion, but that's just my opinion. I don't have any actual proof that the government is not spying on 150 million people. I'm not sure how many people the NSA employs, but logic tells me that if they hired 1 million Evelyn Woods graduates, they still could not listen to every phone conversation and read every e-mail produced by 150 million people. So, while I have no actual proof that it's not true, my intellect tells me it's unlikely.

You also say that "Data mining is a valid way to gain information but data mining every American to look for patterns is a waste of time, money and resources". Really? And you know this how? The vast majority of resources that are being "wasted" are computer resourses. Again, I point to the Able Danger program which apparently did detect Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers. That was accomplished through data mining. If the pinheads in Washington had paid attention to what Able Danger was telling them, 9/11 may have been prevented. I don't claim to know for sure that it could have been, but it's possible. And isn't that possibility worth exploring? If 9/11 could possibly have been prevented by scanning raw data provided by telecommunications companies, would that really have been a waste of time, money and resources?

You also say that "Targeting suspected terrorist groups and people with suspected connections to terrorist groups is valid, only that isn't what is happening." Well, how do you identify groups as being suspected terrorist groups? Certainly, you can rely on other forms of intelligence to identify such groups, and I'm sure we do that too, but in my professional opinion, data mining is one of the most effective methods of narrowing down the list of suspects from hundreds of millions to hundreds or thousands. The magic is in the filter, the algorithm that identifies patterns and relationships from raw data. Not from what is being said (not initially) but from who is calling whom, from where, to where, what time, how often, etc. Again, nobody is sitting down looking at this data. Computer programs are scanning and identifying patterns that may raise suspicion. Then and only then does a human get involved and actually start analyzing the data. As a technologist, this is the best use of data mining I have heard of. Typically, data mining involves scanning business records, looking for how to make a company more money. This one is actually (potentially) saving lives.

You also say that "Questioning authority and doing what you can to keep those you pay to serve you honest is the job of every Citizen of this country and if you don't then you are fool no matter whose side you are on." I have no problem with questioning authority, but let's stick to provable facts or at least tell us when you are offering an opinion.

You bring up the case of George Christian, the librarian who refused to comply with a National Security Letter served on him for records of a specific computer in a particular library. What was your point? Why do you think they wanted the records for one specific computer? Is it possible that they intercepted an e-mail sent from that computer to a known al qaeda operative? I don't know, and neither do you. But if that was the case, don't you think the government would want to know who had used that computer at the time the e-mail was sent?

I have said before that I'm not totally comfortable with the NSL provision of the Patriot Act. I think there is great potential for abuse if it is not strictly supervised. But, unlike you, I think NSLs can potentially be a very valuable tool to protect Americans. I would like to see better oversight and a lesser tendency to use it as a first resort. There are some cases where it is so urgent that it should be used as a first (or at least early) resort. In other cases, I think agents are just using it too early in order to clear a case log. But while I do want strict oversight, I don't want NSLs to go away, at least not while we are still engaged in a war on terror. The fact is that there has not been a single verified case of abuse involving the patriot act. By abuse, I mean a case where information obtained via the Act was used to blackmail someone, gain advantage over political opponents, etc. There may be cases where it was incorrectly used, but that's where oversight comes in.

I don't understand why you are so concerned over the nuclear monitoring. If every mosque in America was being monitored, you could make the case that the government is after all muslims. That is not the case. You don't know why they were monitoring that particular mosque and neither do I. So, what private information could possibly be obtained by monitoring a mosque for nuclear activity? If they find nothing, no harm done. But if they find something, and it turns out to be a suitcase bomb, for instance, are you going to be mad that you are still alive, but the Imam's rights were violated?

Your comparison of the Patriot Act to the Enabling Act is a bit like comparing a fire cracker to a hydrogen bomb. Yes, the Enabling Act was passed quickly as a result of a terrorist act and was sold as being necessary for protecting people. That's about where the similarity ends. The Enabling Act was only passed after the Reichstag Fire Decree which seized power from the states, suspended most civil liberties (freedom of the press, freedom of expression, free association and free assembly) and imposed severe punishments which basically allowed the government to imprison it's enemies. They were now able to pass the Enabling Act which, in essence, allowed Hitler to write his own laws. To accomplish something similar in this country, you would have to have an executive order allowing the president to arrest most democrat members of congress and then, having accomplished a two-thirds majority in congress, have them pass a law giving Bush the right to pass his own laws without regard to the constitution. That is a long way from what the Patriot Act does and will never happen in this country. The Enabling Act could not have been accomplished without the Reichstag Fire Decree (the rough equivalent of an executive order). If Bush, or any president, tried something like that he would be impeached quickly and surely and I would wholeheartedly support impeachment. Nothing even remotely resembling that has or will occur.

It's very normal in times of war for the U.S. to tighten up on civil rights. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Roosevelt put restrictions on the press and rounded up all Japanese-Americans and put them into camps. Some were more controversial than others and some were morally wrong (Japanese camps, for instance). But in every case, when peace was restored, so were the restricted rights, and then some.

Lastly, let me say that I'm puzzled that you were insulted by my first post (the picture with the caption). You stated your opinion that senate democrats had done a good job in blocking renewal of the patriot act. I was simply offering my own opinion that the terrorists were grateful to congressional democrats as well since, in my opinion, it is the terrorists that have everything to fear from the Act and that they are the chief beneficiaries of it's demise. I tried to convey that opinion with a picture and semi-humorous caption. If you took offense at that, then you misunderstood because my criticism was aimed at the democrats in congress who, in my opinion, are more interested in winning the next election than national security. I disagree with your assertion that the democrats did a good thing. If you find that insulting, I'm sorry. I know you are used to having everybody on here agree with you, but I'm entitled to my opinion as well and, unless Calc would like me to leave, I'll continue to express it.

[IncogNITO]

In no debate circle would your first post to be considered a response. Using a picture of a known traitor, made it clear you felt my support of what democrats and republicans had done was on the same level as betraying my country. It was a bipartisan effort not just Democrats.

Did I ask you to leave? Nor did I suggest you were unwelcome in any way. But you should know right off for every insult or implied insult you will find a corresponding one in my reply.

Your second paragraph explained sorry you did not understand it. Never trying to get a court order for the information says it all. If that information had been vital, George would have been in jail and the information retrieved.

Now your third paragraph I agree with. As long as the NSLs are being used to protect America from terrorist attacks and not as an end run around the justice system. There are more then one substantiated case of this happening. There are two in appeals courts now and 15 in their first trails. They are on hold until the two in appeals are resolved. Depending on how they are judged will state whether the cases on hold need to go forward or not. There is no oversight and the is clear from the number of reported cases, those in court now, those resolved out of court and those under investigation. But the Department of Justice’s review court has claimed that all requests for FISA orders (National Security Letter) are acceptable even if the primary purpose of the investigation has nothing to do with terrorism. That means they can use them to investigate anyone for any reason. No oversight.

There are roughly 2000 Mosques and worship houses in the US. The FBI claimed in one press report that they had 120 such places on standing watch and 100 on roving watch. The difference is they are not targeting Catholic churches, Baptist churches or anyone else. As American Citizens they are protect by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Its Section 1809a makes it a criminal offense to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute."
FISA does authorize surveillance without a warrant, but not on US citizens (with the possible exception of citizens speaking from property openly owned by a foreign power; e.g., an embassy.)

FISA also says that the Attorney General can authorize emergency surveillance without a warrant when there is no time to obtain one. But it requires that the Attorney General notify the judge of that authorization immediately, and that he (and yes, the law does say 'he') apply for a warrant "as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance."

It also says this:

"In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof".


Electronic surveillance as defined by the Supreme Court includes Infrared surveillance and nuclear monitoring among others. They got caught and an explanation is required or the surveillance stop and those who authorized punish for breaking the law. Again no National security secret needs to be brought out into the light. But a reason as to why is required and In the Interest of National Security is not an excuse in light of the Acts being used to track drug offenders, suspected racketeers, old lady’s and university students.

In a recent paper commissioned by Christopher Pyle, former U.S. Army intelligence officer, with Yale University, history department a comparative analysis’s of the two acts. After Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee compared the two together.

The Analysis showed they we indeed similar.
The Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act differs from the USA PATRIOT Act in that the DRPPPS more explicitly seizes states rights and associates the death penalty with many offenses. Additionally, some of the USA PATRIOT Act has a sunset provision, whereas the set expiration date of the Enabling Act was dependent upon a succession of power, and the DRPPPS did not have a set expiration date.

Those are much defined differences and that means everything else is the same.
Both acts came about after acts of terrorism. And if the changes Bush requested in the Patriot Act part 2 had not died then there will be no difference in the two. I said they were similar, Similar enough people had better be concerned.

Lincoln is not a fair comparison as the times were very different and so was the war.
The example you used of the Japanese Camps is very much similar to what we are doing in rounding up people on the city streets of Paris, Cologne, Madrid and taking them to US Prisons that have no oversight. There is a repeat of history here as well. An Action that was declared unconstitutional. In December, 1944, the Supreme Court declared the detention of loyal citizens unconstitutional. Yet we are detaining people in the same manner. In this case it was the Democrats commiting the offenses and the Republicans who cried foul.


You need to explain what happens when large data sets are mined and all about how it then becomes what is called dredging.

JMayo

[tas02]

In no debate circle would your first post to be considered a response.

What are we, standing at podiums in an auditorium with Charlie Gibson moderating? There are all sorts of forums for debate. Cartoons with captions that make a political point appear on editorial pages all over the nation every day and they are a universally accepted medium for political debate. They are a method of saying a lot with very few words (something we could both learn in this particular thread). This is an electronic forum and it includes the ability to post pictures. As the saying goes a picture is worth a thousand words.

It is my opinion that the Patriot Act is an effective tool against terrorists. Therefore, it follows, that blocking the renewal of key parts of the Act in congress would be a good thing for the terrorists. Now, the fact that you, most senate democrats and a few chicken-shit republicans are on the same side as the terrorists on this issue, speaks for itself. That doesn't mean I think you are a traitor. It simply means I think you are on the wrong side of this issue. You can't reasonably argue that the terrorists are not pleased with the actions of the senate. If you are insulted by me pointing out that you and the terrorists both agree on the issue, then maybe you need to rethink your position, but don't get angry with me for pointing out what should be obvious to everyone.

Regarding your comments about NSLs, I have no idea what you are trying to say. You refer to "those in court now, those resolved out of court and those under investigation" but give no specifics, as usual. Then you say "...the Department of Justice’s review court has claimed that all requests for FISA orders (National Security Letter) are acceptable even if the primary purpose of the investigation has nothing to do with terrorism". Again, what is the source of this information. You can't just throw out claims like this and expect people to just accept them with no proof. If you don't know how to post a link or a reference, ask somebody.

Regarding nuclear monitoring, you say "... they are not targeting Catholic churches, Baptist churches or anyone else". First of all, how do you know that? Secondly, here's a news flash for you: Cagholics and Baptists are not trying to kill us; Muslims are!

You also say "Electronic surveillance as defined by the Supreme Court includes Infrared surveillance and nuclear monitoring among others. " I hate to sound like a broken record, but where's your proof of that? What everybody keeps quoting is a 2001 case, U.S. vs. Kyllo in which the police used thermal imaging to search for marijuana-growing lamps in a home. The court did rule that this was an illegal search, but it said nothing about the use of nuclear monitoring devices. In the case of infared imaging, they were taking images of activities occuring inside the house (kind of like an xray). With nuclear monitoring, they are sniffing the air around the building which is really no different than dogs sniffing cars and bags for drugs. I see no problem with this, but I suppose the courts will sort it out.

You still haven't answered my questions about this, though. First, what "private" information could be obtained from monitoring nuclear activity? More importantly, if the FBI did find a nuclear device in your neighborhood mosque, would you really be upset that your life had been saved, even if their rights had been violated? I believe that most muslims in this country are peaceful and have absolutely no use for the terrorists. I also believe that the only muslims outraged by the nuclear monitoring activity are those that may have something to hide. I want the government to do everything they reasonably can to protect us, and I don't consider data mining communications or monitoring for nuclear activity to be unreasonable. I firmly believe that the only reason you are outraged is that you despise George Bush and will sieze on any opportunity to call for his impeachment. If he abuses this power in any way, for personal or political gain, I'll be with you. But until then and as long as he is testing the limits of his power for the purpose of protecting us, I just wish you and the rest of the Bush haters would just get off his back.

I can find no reference to Christopher Pyle making any comparison between the Patriot Act and the Enabling Act. If you have one, post it. Frankly, I really don't care what he says. Anybody with a political opinion can make a case for any two unrelated things being comparable. Kind of like comparing terrorist prisons run by American heroes to Gulags. If you really look at what the Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Act did you will clearly see that there is absolutely no comparison and any comparison is an insult to our congress (not that they don't deserve to be insulted once in a while), to our political system and to our system of checks and balances.

You keep referring to "...rounding up people on the city streets of Paris, Cologne, Madrid and taking them to US Prisons that have no oversight." If you have some actual examples from credible sources, please post them. Once again, it's difficult to argue with you when you keep throwing in juicy little tidbits with no proof whatsoever.

John. I truly mean no disrespect to you. I have great respect for everyone that has served this country honorably and you are no exception. But when I see you saying things that are totally opposite what I believe, I feel compelled to respond.

I realize you are used to saying whatever you want to here and finding a willing audience as long as you contribute to the prevailing Bush-hating atmosphere. I understand it's uncomfortable to have someone come along that disagrees with you and won't just accept all of your rhetoric without question. That, my friend, is what debating is all about. I'm just asking that you make it clear when you are presenting an opinion and provide verifiable facts when you are not. I don't think that's unreasonable to expect and I will try to do the same.

Edited to add: I just noticed your comment about data dredging.

You need to explain what happens when large data sets are mined and all about how it then becomes what is called dredging.

I don't know what you are getting at. Data mining is almost always performed on very large data sets (Able Danger mined data from about 2.5 trillion bytes of data). Data dredging is usually a pejorative term that implies the analyst fudged the model to get some desired, but invalid results. If you have some reason to believe that's what is happening with the NSA program, post your evidence, but don't imply some evil intent that doesn't exist. When humans follow up on the results of a scan and find a low rate of accuracy, the model would be adjusted. There's simply no reason to purposely use a flawed model for a program like this.