Comments on: The next chapter in the Patriot Act

CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh previews what promises to be a stormy congressional debate starting this week.

[kxmmxk]

It figures

Well we know what party Declan belongs to by his "Republican ploy" comment. Notice no comment about a Democrat ploy to overturn the act without "a sober analysis of surveillance and privacy " and security/law enforcement needs.

The fact is there is very little in the Patriot Act that didn't already exist, it just brought them all together under one umbrella. If anything even those against the act should give it credit for bringing to light practices and laws that already existed but maybe people didn't know about.

Huh?

Newsflash Sherlock, in case you missed it:

The Republicans control the House and Senate.

As I read the story, it is either "a sober analysis or a Republican (read: majority strategy) ploy to rubber stamp...."

Next time try to read the story without your party affiliation glasses on and you might glean a different meaning. I know I did.

Patriot Act

Similar provisions to some in the Patriot Act did exist before 2001, for example, the FBI did have some powers to get warrants for wiretapping or other surveillance techniques. However, a significant difference in the Patriot Act is that FBI agents no longer have to show "probable cause" to get such warrants, in other words, they need no plausible evidence that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed. Such a situation is begging for abuse; careless or malicious agents or others with an agenda will be able to persecute innocent people using this provision.

I think there are a couple good parts to the Patriot Act, namely the fact that intelligence agencies and the FBI can now share information. (Although based on what I'm reading in news magazines, they still don't want to.)

What really dismays me is how people don't seem to understand how UNpatriotic this "Patriot" Act is. It threatens all our civil liberties, regardless of our political affiliations, but its supporters don't seem to understand that.

[kribor]

Your source is wrong about Sec 215 warrants

Gonzales told Reuters today that as of March 30, 2005 that 35 Seection 215 warrants have been served.