Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
General Political Discussion
Willie Nelson: Twin Towers Were Imploded On 9/11
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="oldbetang" data-source="post: 43697642" data-attributes="member: 118530"><p>Well, that's rather odd. Since I can't seem to find the names of the "former senior CIA officers" in that article.</p><p></p><p>Hmmm! <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong><a href="http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactprovisions.html#issue3" target="_blank">Access to Records</a></strong></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em> Probably the most hotly debated provision of the law, Section 215 has come to be known as the "libraries provision," even though it never mentions libraries or bookstores. Civil liberties groups attack the breadth of this section -- which allows investigators to obtain "any tangible thing (including books, records, papers, documents and other items),"<strong> as long as the records are sought "in connection with" a terror investigation.</strong></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>Library groups said the law could be used to demand the reading records of patrons. But the government points out that the First Amendment activities of Americans are specifically protected by the law. The Justice Department has released previously classified statistics to show the law has never been used against libraries or bookstores. But the act's critics argue that there's no protection against future abuse.</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><em> Civil liberties groups have proposed numerous amendments: special protections for libraries and bookstores; a requirement that investigators explain the reason the records are sought; and an end to the "gag rule" that prohibits people who receive a 215 order from talking about it with anyone. The Justice Department has agreed that recipients can consult with an attorney and is open to an amendment that specifies this right. But the government says the controversy over this provision is an overreaction, and that this section merely expands longstanding access to certain business records. </em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong><a href="http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactprovisions.html#issue5" target="_blank">&#8220;Sneak & Peek&#8221; Warrants</a></strong></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong></strong></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong></strong><em> This section allows for "delayed notice" of search warrants, which means the FBI can search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of the investigation. The Justice Department says this provision has already allowed investigators to search the houses of drug dealers and other criminals without providing notice that might have jeopardized an investigation. <strong>Investigators still have to explain why they want to delay notice, and must eventually tell the target about the search.</strong></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"> <em> Critics say that investigators already had the power to conduct secret searches in counterterror and counterespionage probes. The Patriot Act, they say, authorized the use of this technique for any crime, no matter how minor. They say that "sneak and peek" searches should be narrowly limited to cases in which an investigation would be seriously jeopardized by immediate notice.<strong> Legislation to cut off funding for such searches passed the House in 2003. </strong>However, this provision does not face a sunset as other controversial provisions do, so it may be harder for opponents to amend it.</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p>From NPR, of all places.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="oldbetang, post: 43697642, member: 118530"] Well, that's rather odd. Since I can't seem to find the names of the "former senior CIA officers" in that article. Hmmm! [INDENT][B][URL="http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactprovisions.html#issue3"]Access to Records[/URL][/B] [I] Probably the most hotly debated provision of the law, Section 215 has come to be known as the "libraries provision," even though it never mentions libraries or bookstores. Civil liberties groups attack the breadth of this section -- which allows investigators to obtain "any tangible thing (including books, records, papers, documents and other items),"[B] as long as the records are sought "in connection with" a terror investigation.[/B][/I][/INDENT][INDENT] [I]Library groups said the law could be used to demand the reading records of patrons. But the government points out that the First Amendment activities of Americans are specifically protected by the law. The Justice Department has released previously classified statistics to show the law has never been used against libraries or bookstores. But the act's critics argue that there's no protection against future abuse.[/I] [I] Civil liberties groups have proposed numerous amendments: special protections for libraries and bookstores; a requirement that investigators explain the reason the records are sought; and an end to the "gag rule" that prohibits people who receive a 215 order from talking about it with anyone. The Justice Department has agreed that recipients can consult with an attorney and is open to an amendment that specifies this right. But the government says the controversy over this provision is an overreaction, and that this section merely expands longstanding access to certain business records. [/I] [/INDENT] [INDENT][B][URL="http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactprovisions.html#issue5"]“Sneak & Peek” Warrants[/URL] [/B][I] This section allows for "delayed notice" of search warrants, which means the FBI can search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of the investigation. The Justice Department says this provision has already allowed investigators to search the houses of drug dealers and other criminals without providing notice that might have jeopardized an investigation. [B]Investigators still have to explain why they want to delay notice, and must eventually tell the target about the search.[/B][/I] [I] Critics say that investigators already had the power to conduct secret searches in counterterror and counterespionage probes. The Patriot Act, they say, authorized the use of this technique for any crime, no matter how minor. They say that "sneak and peek" searches should be narrowly limited to cases in which an investigation would be seriously jeopardized by immediate notice.[B] Legislation to cut off funding for such searches passed the House in 2003. [/B]However, this provision does not face a sunset as other controversial provisions do, so it may be harder for opponents to amend it.[/I] [/INDENT]From NPR, of all places. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
General Political Discussion
Willie Nelson: Twin Towers Were Imploded On 9/11
Top
Bottom