Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That pretty well covers it. Yes, no doubt the Patriot Act has helped keep us safe. However, is safety worth sacrificing freedom? I suspect this is a question which each of us answers based on our ideology and values system. YMMV
I know what you are saying but I am not convinced that it has kept us any more safe from terrorism than good old-fashioned police work would have done.
LOL....I love the hyperbole when people talk about all the many freedoms the Patriot Act took away from them.
Can you list them all here for us please?.....
I suppose you are of the mind that if you aren't doing anything wrong there is nothing to hide?
Good luck with that, but remember plenty of others through history who thought the same; now we go to gloomy museums to be shocked by the horror and inhumanity they suffered; always collectively whispering "never again" but still always managing to fall in the same trap...eventually.
I know what you are saying but I am not convinced that it has kept us any more safe from terrorism than good old-fashioned police work would have done.
I suspect that it has. However, the over-reaching possibility for abuse and the failure of Congress and of the federal law enfocement agencies to coordinate communications in such a manner in the 10 years following 9/11 is proof that the expiration is what is needed to get them off their backsides.
Terrorist only have to succeed once. There have been terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 and most of those have either been a result of an intervention thwarting the real danger, faulty execution on the part of the terrorist, or the ignoring of obvious signs (example: Ft. Hood).
So, rather than debating the if/when perhaps the better question for posters to ask of themselves is how have they prepared and do they have a plan ready to put into action if it were to happen yet today, tommorrow, next week..... .
LOL....I love the hyperbole when people talk about all the many freedoms the Patriot Act took away from them.
Can you list them all here for us please?.....
The thing each of us should worry about is not making an enemy of someone who knows people in the surveillance area of the government.
Also, make sure you don't run for office or do anything that may cause your private documents (internet searches, movie rentals, private pics of you and the Mrs.?, etc) to show up against you.
Sure, here is the list.
Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by third parties. (Section 215)
Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
"Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).
The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.
The probability that the U.S. will be hit with a weapons of mass destruction attack at some point is 100 percent, Dr. Vahid Majidi, the FBI’s assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, tells Newsmax.
Such an attack could be launched by foreign terrorists, lone wolves who are terrorists, or even by criminal elements, Majidi says. It would most likely employ chemical, biological, or radiological weapons rather than a nuclear device.
“While all of these guys are still interested in potentially using chemical, biological, or radiological weapons wherever it is possible, the pragmatic approach that they have taken is to use what has worked for them best, which is various forms of explosives and improvised explosives,” Majidi says.
“The latest round is concealing explosives coming through the commercial shipping environment,” Majidi notes. “That brings to the fore the fact that explosives are something that we’re not going to get away from any time soon. It’s the modality that is most often preferred by a pragmatic adversary.”
Given the sensitivity and complexity of the subject, Majidi says he tries to present all the issues in context: “One of my jobs is to make sure I put all of these things in an appropriate light, because if you were in my job you would see that everyone always tries to elevate things to a tremendous level.”
Of one thing Majidi is sure: “There’s a probability of 100 percent that a WMD event will happen.”
Yep and just keep those borders porous. We don't need a billion $$ FBI, I coulda told you that. The real questions is......are they ...or CAN they ...do anything about it. .. for your $64,000 question.
The probability that the U.S. will be hit with a weapons of mass destruction attack at some point is 100 percent, Dr. Vahid Majidi, the FBI’s assistant director in charge of the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, tells Newsmax.
Such an attack could be launched by foreign terrorists, lone wolves who are terrorists, or even by criminal elements, Majidi says. It would most likely employ chemical, biological, or radiological weapons rather than a nuclear device.
“While all of these guys are still interested in potentially using chemical, biological, or radiological weapons wherever it is possible, the pragmatic approach that they have taken is to use what has worked for them best, which is various forms of explosives and improvised explosives,” Majidi says.
“The latest round is concealing explosives coming through the commercial shipping environment,” Majidi notes. “That brings to the fore the fact that explosives are something that we’re not going to get away from any time soon. It’s the modality that is most often preferred by a pragmatic adversary.”
Given the sensitivity and complexity of the subject, Majidi says he tries to present all the issues in context: “One of my jobs is to make sure I put all of these things in an appropriate light, because if you were in my job you would see that everyone always tries to elevate things to a tremendous level.”
Of one thing Majidi is sure: “There’s a probability of 100 percent that a WMD event will happen.”
Yep and just keep those borders porous. We don't need a billion $$ FBI, TSA, etc etc I coulda told you that. The real questions is......are they ...or CAN they ...do anything about it?.... for your $64,000 question.
Yep and just keep those borders porous. We don't need a billion $$ FBI, TSA, etc etc I coulda told you that. The real questions is......are they ...or CAN they ...do anything about it?.... for your $64,000 question.
Putting political agenda (Amnesty) above the 4th Amendment rights of citizens (Patriot Act) in not securing our borders in the past 10 yrs. tells me that our government would rather control citizens than thwart future attacks. YMMV
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
