The most unsurprising news of the year (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070313/cm_usatoday/todaysdebateusapatriotact;_ylt=AlG6bICguLyxH4BdVyo d95LMWM0F) - but nonetheless appalling -
has to be this: The FBI improperly and ineptly used the USA
Patriot Act, intended to catch terrorists, to collect information on
innocent American citizens.

This didn't happen because the FBI is corrupt. Or because the FBI
takes voyeuristic pleasure in invading citizens' privacy. It
happened because law enforcement agencies try to catch crooks, and
if they're given big enough nets and no restraints on using them,
they'll sweep up sensitive information about innocent people as
surely as tuna fishermen haul in dolphins - particularly if the men
running the place are willfully blind to what's going on.

That's pretty much what has happened at the FBI, judging by a report
last week from the Justice Department's inspector general office.

The report details a litany of failures that invited misuse
of "national security letters" - a post-9/11 expansion of a tool to
get records without the judicial review required for a subpoena:


•The FBI failed to set up safeguards to protect civil liberties.
There was no policy to retain signed copies of the letters issued.
Agents sought information the law didn't allow them to seek, such as
educational records. When investigations fizzled, the FBI often hung
onto the data anyway - the first step toward building government
dossiers on innocent Americans. Some information was disseminated to
a wide array of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.
And though the FBI was required to keep track of its own violations
of the law, the inspector general found that many were missed.

•FBI leaders didn't bother to monitor carefully how the letters were
being used. They kept no accurate count of how many letters were
being issued or for what purpose, essentially ignoring the law's
requirement that they do so. Instead, the Bush administration
provided an understated count in its first public report to Congress
last year, according to the inspector general. Even these lowball
figures show that from 2003 through 2005, the FBI issued more than
143,000 national security letter requests for information - on
average, 130 a day. They included requests for e-mail, phone and
financial records. So far, the FBI has not cited any terrorism
arrests that resulted from the information.

•Apparently not satisfied with how easy it is to obtain data using
national security letters, FBI counterterrorism personnel abused the
law by demanding personal records from three phone companies through
other means. It issued 700 "exigent letters," assuring the companies
that the need was urgent and that subpoenas or other authorizations
would follow. Often, there was no urgency and no follow-up subpoena,
the inspector general found. FBI Director Robert Mueller announced
last week that the practice had been stopped in May.

All this happened even though the FBI was specifically warned of the
risk. When the Patriot Act was proposed in the emotional aftermath
of the terrorist attacks in 2001, and again when it was renewed last
year, many voices of reason cautioned that removing the restraints
that traditionally have balanced security and privacy would assure
abuse. Congress was so concerned that it established safeguards -
often over the Bush administration's objections - that could have
prevented this fiasco. But the inspector general's report leaves
little doubt that Mueller and his boss, Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales, just blew them off.

In an attempt to stem the damage, Mueller apologized Friday and
proclaimed himself accountable, rhetorically asking, "How could this
happen?"

He wouldn't need to be asking that question now if either he or
Gonzales had asked five years ago, "How do we prevent this from
happening?" The failing is so fundamental that it raises questions
about their competence.

The next step, obviously, should be to restrain the use of the
letters to circumstances in which there is a clear terrorist threat.
Congress should then restore judicial review in all but the most
extreme cases. In urgent cases, means already exist to delay review
until after the records are obtained, and that should be enough to
satisfy the need for speed. The inevitable alternative, as the FBI
has just proved, is rampant invasion of privacy, and that is both
unacceptable and unnecessary.

What is the author saying? Is the FBI wrong or is the Patriot Act wrong?
It can't be both.

You are quite wrong. It can be both.

The Patriot Act is wrong because it opens loopholes that allows abuses like these. Abuses that critics of the improperly-named Patriot Act predicted all along, by the way.

Of course the FBI is wrong to misuse it, but it if the fault of the poorly-written and archaic patriot act for allowing such loopholes to exist at all.

You are quite wrong. It can be both.
The Patriot Act is wrong because it opens loopholes that allows abuses like these.
Of course the FBI is wrong to misuse it, but it if the fault of the poorly-written and archaic patriot act for allowing such loopholes to exist at all.Whoa. A "loophole" (your word) is a perfectly legal method under which to perform an action. According to what you've said, the FBI wasn't wrong.

On the other hand, if the FBI acted improperly, that's not the fault of the disobeyed law.

Which is it?

One problem to me is that I don't know who these "innocent" American citizens might be. Propaganda such as what you post tends to overlook rather important questions.

Your quote also mentions "mistakes" and "abuses" described but without detail so that the claims might be checked.

The statement that the Attorney General "just blew them off" in dealings with unnamed members of Congress is not credible. No Attorney General does that. At best he denied it, although it may be an entire fabrication.

I will say that I read this only because at the moment I am bored. I am aware that you are actually impressed by faceless charges if they support your views, but I doubt I will read another of your posts except when it is your own words.

Who's patriot?
Patriot should be for president or regime? I don't sustain Japanese Abes' cabinet now, then, Am I not a patriot?

What should be keeped by citizen, or by patriot? The regime? The head of state? Low? Society? Economy?

Of course, security must be maintained by goverment and citizen. But it's a basically humanity. Why is it titled patriot? Being not patriot would break social security? Hard to understand for me.

Who's patriot?
Patriot should be for president or regime? I don't sustain Japanese Abes' cabinet now, then, Am I not a patriot?

What should be keeped by citizen, or by patriot? The regime? The head of state? Low? Society? Economy?

Of course, security must be maintained by goverment and citizen. But it's a basically humanity. Why is it titled patriot? Being not patriot would break social security? Hard to understand for me.
"Patriot Act" is the name of a law in the United States passed after the 9-11 terrorism intended to help law enforcement agencies in the U.S. detect would-be terrorists before they can act.

It permits a good deal of what otherwise is considered privacy invasion, in defined circumstances. Most Americans think safety is as valuable as the privacy that might be invaded, and so support at least the concept.

There will no doubt be abuses, since there always are, by overenthusiastic and unprofessional law officials. When these happen, there is an element in the United States who use them as an argument to throw out the law itself (the saying is "throw out the baby with the bath water") rather than act to correct the abuses directly.

A "loophole" (your word) is a perfectly legal method under which to perform an action. According to what you've said, the FBI wasn't wrong.

Negative. You are confusing "legal" with "right". A loophole is a way of avoiding compliance to the law or a contract. You are trying to claim that circumventing the law is morally right. I don't agree with that at all.

loop·hole /ˈlupˌhoʊl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[loop-hohl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -holed, -hol·ing.
–noun
1. a small or narrow opening, as in a wall, for looking through, for admitting light and air, or, particularly in a fortification, for the discharge of missiles against an enemy outside.
2. an opening or aperture.
3. a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc.: There are a number of loopholes in the tax laws whereby corporations can save money.
–verb (used with object)
4. to furnish with loopholes.

Who's patriot?
Patriot should be for president or regime?

The President and Regime are the same thing. They are transient.

In America, a Patriot is loyal to the Constitution and the ideals upon which the nation is founded.

If thats the case, not too many Patriots around at present.

Negative. You are confusing "legal" with "right". A loophole is a way of avoiding compliance to the law or a contract. You are trying to claim that circumventing the law is morally right. I don't agree with that at all.

who gets to decide what is "morally right"?... you?

who gets to decide what is "morally right"?... you?

Brooks? You?

How about our God-given conscience?

Do you think that it being legal made slavery morally right?

Brooks? You?

How about our God-given conscience?

Do you think that it being legal made slavery morally right?

I think at the time humans didn't know better... it surely wasn't morally right by our standards today. However, i doubt slave owners even thought black people were the same species as they were... thus were ignorant to the inhumane crimes they committed.

I called this long ago. The flag wavers said it wouldn't happen. It has and now they are saying it OK...

"Patriot Act" is the name of a law in the United States passed after the 9-11 terrorism intended to help law enforcement agencies in the U.S. detect would-be terrorists before they can act.

Thanks.:)

In America, a Patriot is loyal to the Constitution and the ideals upon which the nation is founded.

I guess, American Constitution means keeping right to liberty.
Is patriot limiting to liberty for keeping liberty?:confused:

Is patriot limiting to liberty for keeping liberty?:confused:

The Patriot Act gave the government a lot more powers, which takes away liberty in the process.

Good post Dharma. This happens again and again (RICO comes to mind). Most laws passed with a specific purpose will be eventually be used for any and every situation they can possibly make fit the facts.

1. You are confusing "legal" with "right".
2. A loophole is a way of avoiding compliance to the law or a contract.
3. You are trying to claim that circumventing the law is morally right.
1. Do you think the purpose of this thread and news story is to claim that some in the FBI acted in a "not nice" way? As Decka said, who makes that determination? Was a law broken here?

2. I don't know where your definition came from, but a "loophole" is legal or people wouldn't openly use them and hire legitimate accountants to find them.

3. Again, had a law been circumvented?

And I'm extremely surprised to hear a liberal link the law with morality.
You are conveniently selective.

2. I don't know where your definition came from, but a "loophole" is legal or people wouldn't openly use them and hire legitimate accountants to find them.

3. Again, had a law been circumvented?yes. Loophole implies you are defying the spirit or the law, just not the letter. I can't believe im explaining this to a cop...

yes. Loophole implies you are defying the spirit or the law, just not the letter. I can't believe im explaining this to a cop...

Loopholes come about in two ways, through sloppy drafting of the statute and through deliberate exceptions written into the law, usually for good reason.

To invent an example of the latter, say you pass a law against running red lights, and then you insert an exception for emergency vehicles with their sirens turned on. This would be a loophole.

The Patriot Act gave the government a lot more powers, which takes away liberty in the process.

Only patriot can it?
Both American citizen and companies from abroad such as Toyota develop economical wealth, it makes powers for goverment. Or, the goverment doesn't need such things?
And, usually inventor is critic to reality. Because of they are frustrated from reality, they make invention in reality. Any person who agrees to reality doesn't think making anything to reform to reality. It brings standstill society and economy. Is it for the goverment?

1. Do you think the purpose of this thread and news story is to claim that some in the FBI acted in a "not nice" way?

The word I would use is "immoral" or "improper". Either way, I know you understand, so at this point you are just arguing out of stubborness.

2. I don't know where your definition came from,

It's called a "dictionary" (http://www.dictionary.com). I suggest you look at one sometime.


And I'm extremely surprised to hear a liberal link the law with morality.


If you had any reading comprehension skills you would know that I was actually making a distinction, not "linking" them.

I not suprised that a conservative has no idea what he is talking about.

Only patriot can it?
Both American citizen and companies from abroad such as Toyota develop economical wealth, it makes powers for goverment. Or, the goverment doesn't need such things?
And, usually inventor is critic to reality. Because of they are frustrated from reality, they make invention in reality. Any person who agrees to reality doesn't think making anything to reform to reality. It brings standstill society and economy. Is it for the goverment?

I have read this over and over and have to admit I have no idea what you are asking me.

何を頼んでいるか。私は理解しない。

yes. Loophole implies you are defying the spirit or the law, just not the letter. I can't believe im explaining this to a cop...I completely understand and agree with your definition.
It's not the one that was brought up by Dharma.

1. The word I would use is "immoral" or "improper". Either way, I know you understand, so at this point you are just arguing out of stubborness.
2. If you had any reading comprehension skills you would know that I was actually making a distinction, not "linking" them.
1. The two are quite different.

2. Here's what you said: "You are trying to claim that circumventing the law is morally right."
If you see any other way to interpret that I'm open to your suggestions.

Law and morality are two totally different things since one is by definition subjective and one is by definition as objective as possible.
If a police officer has to enforce the law at a pro-life rally, and truly believes that abortion is morally wrong, what should he do?

Please don't associate the law with morality, since we both know you normally think there is a great gulf between them. You are being disingenuous.

The Patriot Act orders being patriot to American citizen, doesn't it?

The Patriot Act orders being patriot to American citizen, doesn't it?

No, the word "patriot" was used to fool people into voting for it.
It was done on purpose after 9-11 because the sponsor knew that at that time, nobody would oppose anything called "patriot".

The purpose of the act has nothing to do with it's name.

There is nothing patriotic about attacking liberty.

The Patriot Act orders being patriot to American citizen, doesn't it?

no, because we can not agree on what patriot is. If we were all patriotic to American like Freethinker and Dharma America wouldnt exist, yet they are free to still kid themselves into thinking they are being patriotic. Its a free country.

2. Here's what you said: "You are trying to claim that circumventing the law is morally right."



Please don't associate the law with morality,.

I haven't. That is what I said you are doing. See above.

If we were all patriotic to American like Freethinker and Dharma America wouldnt exist,

You are so full of shit.

No, the word "patriot" was used to fool people into voting for it.
It was done on purpose after 9-11 because the sponsor knew that at that time, nobody would oppose anything called "patriot".

The purpose of the act has nothing to do with it's name.

There is nothing patriotic about attacking liberty.

Thanks.


The Patriot Act gave the government a lot more powers, which takes away liberty in the process.

The Patriot Act seems to give the government power, and weaken court. Does it give the nation power?

Even if The Patriot Act was rejected, FBI could monitor anyone being in foreign, such as me, without allowing by court.:lolhit:

Therefor, although The Patriot Act isn't concern for me directly...

The Patriot Act seems to give the government power, and weaken court. Does it give the nation power?

No, because in America the Nation is the people, not the government. It takes power away from the nation.

Even if The Patriot Act was rejected, FBI could monitor anyone being in foreign, such as me, without allowing by court.

Therefor, although The Patriot Act isn't concern for me directly...

That is true.

I haven't. That is what I said you are doing. See above.Here's the first post that introduced the concept of morality into this thread:

Dharma: "You are trying to claim that circumventing the law is morally right."

Here's the first post that introduced the concept of morality into this thread:

Dharma: "You are trying to claim that circumventing the law is morally right."

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

See the post I was responding to when I said that. You were the one trying to conflate morality with the law. I was just pointing it out.

Once you understand that, then you might start to grasp what is going on around you. :rolleyes:

*sigh*

Why is there such a huge debate on law vs. morality. We already agree that law and morality are seperate. Some laws are immoral and some moral acts are illegal.

The purpose of laws are to run our country. We try to make them morally correct laws as well, but it is still legal to do many things that are immoral. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like dharmabum believes that the FBI acted in an immoral way, though in line with the law. Therefore the law in his eyes is immoral and needs to be changed.

good post Wind... morality is very subjective in today's secular society... the law is ironclad.

And the practice of politicians doing things for personal gain is.. as we all know.. nothing new.

Here's the first post that introduced the concept of morality into this thread:

Dharma: "You are trying to claim that circumventing the law is morally right." Fuck you are annoying Brooks. You should know that it IS morally wrong for a law enforcement agent to break the law. The law is hardly a guide for morality BUT if your job and life revolve around enforcing the law then yes its immoral to break it.

You should know that it IS morally wrong for a law enforcement agent to break the law. The law is hardly a guide for morality BUT if your job and life revolve around enforcing the law then yes its immoral to break it.

It looks like you are trying to put words into Brooks mouth. Ever hear of a straw man?

It does bring up an interesting subject, however. I don't see where the fact that a bunch of politicians get together and decide to make a law creates a moral rule.

When a person has become a law enforcement official, they are obliged to put aside their personal opinions and enforce the law as it is, whether they agree with it or not. But is this always so? What about the laws of a Hitler or a Saddam Hussein? What if the "law" itself is immoral?

I would not, for these reasons, elevate a law enforcement officer's duty to enforce the law into a moral law. Besides, there are many laws that law officers routinely use their judgment in deciding how strictly to enforce or not. The laws regarding marijuana are a good example.

Why is there such a huge debate on law vs. morality.

Because reichwingers are trying to argue that Bush's firing these 8 attorneys for political reasons in the middle of his second term is not "wrong" by virtue of the idea it might not be illegal.

When a person has become a law enforcement official, they are obliged to put aside their personal opinions and enforce the law as it is, whether they agree with it or not. But is this always so? What about the laws of a Hitler or a Saddam Hussein? What if the "law" itself is immoral?
law enforcement personal refusing to enforce the law they view as unjust and actively breaking the law 'cause they want to' are 2 drastically different things...

See the post I was responding to when I said that. As Drama would say, "post the quote or a link or no one will believe you".

You should know that it IS morally wrong for a law enforcement agent to break the law. The law is hardly a guide for morality BUT if your job and life revolve around enforcing the law then yes its immoral to break it.An officer enforcing an immoral law is acting morally, but if he disobeys an immoral law he is acting immorally? I think that's what you're saying.

What about a Latvian police chief turning Jews over to the Nazis?

I think you're caught up in the argument and didn't think this through.

Because reichwingers are trying to argue that Bush's firing these 8 attorneys for political reasons in the middle of his second term is not "wrong" by virtue of the idea it might not be illegal.But what is your conclusion that it is wrong based upon?

So far, you're most compelling argument is that it's "unusual".

Because reichwingers are trying to argue that Bush's firing these eight attorneys for political reasons in the middle of his second term is not "wrong" by virtue of the idea it might not be illegal.

"Reichwingers"

Dharmawhatever is not worthy of consideration so long as he keeps referring to those he disagrees with as Fascists in some way. Nothing he says has any validity whatsoever so long as he uses such disgusting and repulsive tactics.

This seems to be standard practice of the American Left, and demonstrates their intellectual and moral bankruptcy. They object when right wingers refer to them as "pinkos," a far less insulting association, and a practice that is itself wrong, but it is alright for them to employ such corrosive language themselves.

Frankly referring to one's opponent with any sort of "Fascist" implication is far worse than the more common derogative words such as "idiot." If ever there is to be civil discussion, those who employ such implications need to stop.

But what is your conclusion that it is wrong based upon?


The fact that he is replacing good, honest attorneys with political cronies like Kyle Sampson.

Don't bother giving me any of your usual "but it isn't technically illegal" crap. It doesn't justify any of it.

"Reichwingers"

Truth hurt?

I find it interesting that the corporate rightwing media has even infected a foreigner like Thislin.

As Dharma (SIC) would say, "post the quote or a link or no one will believe you".

The link is there, and I even told you where to find it. You are just too intellectually dishonet to click on it.

Truth hurt?

I find it interesting that the corporate rightwing media has even infected a foreigner like Thislin.

I know what goes on in a corporation, and it is obvious you haven't a clue. You are just an arrogant loudmouth. I have no respect for those who use Fascism for cheap politics. Too many people suffered under the Fascists and too many died for the memory to now be used for your garbage.

I know what goes on in a corporation,

Yeah, I am sure you saw it on TV.
I happen to own an LLC. You have no idea what you are talking about.


You are just an arrogant loudmouth.

Look who is talking. Seriously. Pot, kettle, black.


I have no respect for those who use Fascism for cheap politics.

I don't give a damn what you respect. You are an arrogant asshole.
I call them as I see them and if you don't like it, tough.

I happen to own an LLC. You have no idea what you are talking about.


I'm sure your LLC is just like a large multinational corporation, which is obviously what he's talking about.

I'm sure your LLC is just like a large multinational corporation, which is obviously what he's talking about.

It gives me personal experience with corporations.
And in actuality, Thislin was complaining about my use of the word "Reichwingers". He doesn't think we should ever bring up fascism in discussions about politics.

The fact that he is replacing good, honest attorneys with political cronies like Kyle Sampson.
Don't bother giving me any of your usual "but it isn't technically illegal" crap. It doesn't justify any of it.President Clinton cleared the decks in his first two months. Didn't even attempt to see if any of them were "good, honest attorneys".
President Bush worked with these eight as long as he could and then decided they would not serve the president the way he wanted them to.
He gave them a chance, unlike his predecessor.

This is what will happen in the future. Absolutely, positively everyone from a prior administration will be gone in the first week of a new administration.
If replacements aren't made in the first weeks, it will be viewed as political, so everyone will be gone immediately.

What an improvement.

Wow Brooks you just cannot resist responding to me. You seem obsessed. LOL!

President Clinton cleared the decks in his first two months. Didn't even attempt to see if any of them were "good, honest attorneys".

Thats because it is standard practice at the beginning of a term, not in the middle of a term. Bush also replaced all 93 at the beginning of his term, as Vilepagan proved earlier.


President Bush worked with these eight as long as he could and then decided they would not serve the president the way he wanted them to.
He gave them a chance, unlike his predecessor.

That is some interesting spin. Too bad it has nothing to do with reality.


This is what will happen in the future. Absolutely, positively everyone from a prior administration will be gone in the first week of a new administration.
If replacements aren't made in the first weeks, it will be viewed as political, so everyone will be gone immediately.

What an improvement.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Brooks, you really need to educate yourself before saying something like this. Thanks for the laugh though!

As Dharma (SIC) would say, "post the quote or a link or no one will believe you".Sorry Drama, I didn't mean to call you Dharma.

Sorry Dharma, (SIC) I didn't mean to call you Dharma.

Some remedial english classes wouldn't hurt you. ;)

Some remedial english classes wouldn't hurt you. ;)

"Thats because it is standard..."
Back at ya.

Back at ya.

more pissing contests.... :yawn:

1. Wow Brooks you just cannot resist responding to me. You seem obsessed. LOL!
2. That is some interesting spin. Too bad it has nothing to do with reality.
3. HAHAHAHAHA!!! Brooks, you really need to educate yourself before saying something like this. Thanks for the laugh though!1. At least I save my responses for threads on which you are actually posting.
The difference between us is that if you're not on the thread, I don't think about you.

2. Those attorneys "serve at the pleasure" of the president. That's the reality.
I think asking if a law or rule has been broken is a legitimate, and apparently difficult to counter, point.

3. So that's your counter?

3. So that's your counter?

No Brooks, its called "mockery".
It is all your ego-laden posts are worthy of.

It is all your ego-laden posts are worthy of.I don't know why I'm asking, but what exactly does this mean and can you give an example?
I'm guessing you won't, but I'd love to hear it.

No, it's 'jeering'. Mockery is imitation for comic effect.

No Brooks, its called "mockery".
It is all your ego-laden posts are worthy of.

(translation: i have nothing to bring to the table.)

you really should try for quality, instead of quantity in your post count.

you really should try for quality, instead of quantity in your post count.

Pot...kettle...black...