Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bob Russell on January 16, 2012 at 5:57pm

Mollie, that has been my point all along and people keep telling me I am worrying about nothing. This is the definition of "is" again.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by OscarMike on January 18, 2012 at 6:31pm

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force ;that acts in coordination with or pursuant
to the direction of al-Qaeda and (notice the absence of the word “or” here OM)
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or
carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Russell on January 18, 2012 at 8:30pm

O M, you can highlight that phrase all you want to highlight it. Those pushing this say it does apply to American citizens and that is what matters. Obama, mccain, graham, and others say they can apply it to citizens, any citizen, and they have defined terrorists to include almost every conservative in the country. They have managed to exclude muslims in their descriptions of "terrorists". If you expect them to go by this one phrase when so much of the rest says something else go with it but I look at their track record of violaitng the Constitution

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Smiter on January 16, 2012 at 5:25pm

See something say something; well I just SAW something that seems like an attack on our Bill of Rights and it stinks!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Russell on January 16, 2012 at 1:04pm

Lindsey Graham and John McCain seem to agree with Obama on this, as they often do. So what do we believe, vague language or those who wrote and support it? If the language was more specific I would not be as concerend but when sections 1021 and 1022 contradict each other, the president and 2 main supporters of NDAA all say it DOES give the president power to order the arrests then I have serious concerns about it. You know how they parse words in Washington. It all depends on what your definition of "is" is. I don't trust any of the 3 I mentioned. With the exception that I still have all of my fingers I qualify as a "potential terrorist" in every category outlined by DHS and Janet the Nappy. Not terribly comforting to hear Allen West say messiah mullah osama bin obam "can't do that".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by OscarMike on January 16, 2012 at 3:36pm

Lindsay Graham said "and to those American citizens thinking about helping Al Qaeda" and "we're going to talk to you about why you wanted to join Al Qaeda" While I think Americans have a right to due process, no matter what...are you considering helping or joining Al Qaeda?

The language in the bill is specific, it targets Al Qaeda and the Taliban directly, as well as those associated with them.

And I don't trust them either. I just think this bill is not the battle we ought to be fighting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Russell on January 16, 2012 at 4:10pm

OM, it isn't the bill itself so much as it is the attitude that anyone they "deem" a threat can be detained indefinitely without charge. What battle should we be fighting if not this one?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by OscarMike on January 16, 2012 at 4:41pm

First, they had to actually pass a law to do what they did. If the law were written specifically for American citizens, I don't think even the boneheads we have in the Legislature now would have passed it.

Our efforts would be much better expended fighting Agenda 21 and the Small Arms Treaty that Hillary and Obama are working so hard for, or repeal of the so-called Patriot Act which is the only reason NDAA 2012 is really a problem because "under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." i.e. The Patriot Act.
Can we focus on the laws which DIRECTLY threaten our liberty and sovereignty?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MollieB55 on January 16, 2012 at 5:50pm

Ir is LAW. Obama signed it on New Year's Eve while he was in Hawaii. Sneaky little devil, isn't he?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Russell on January 16, 2012 at 5:53pm

When I wrote my elected representatives about the Patriot Act extension one told me he didn't care, thta it was necessary, and the other two igonored me. I live in Oklahma where we have "conservatives" in Congress.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by OscarMike on January 16, 2012 at 6:19pm

Here is the response I got when I wrote Congressman West telling him that I did not believe he understands the threat to our nation from within that The Patriot Act represents:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to the FISA Sunsets Extension Act, H.R. 514. I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.

The FISA Sunsets Extension Act was introduced by Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) on January 26, 2011. H.R. 514 was passed by the United States House of Representatives on February 14, 2011 by a vote of 275-144. 210 Republicans and 65 Democrats voted for this bill.

The FISA Sunsets Extension Act provides an extension to three sections of the Patriot Act that were set to expire on February 28, 2011 for up to 90 days. The purpose of this extension is to allow the House Committees on Judiciary and Intelligence time to fully review potential changes and exercise proper oversight and consideration.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides a framework by which government agencies obtain authorization to conduct electronic surveillance or physical searches in foreign intelligence matters. Shortly after 9/11, Congress amended FISA through the PATRIOT Act to provide enhanced investigative tools and increase the circumstances by which the government can obtain information.

These expanded authorities prompted considerable debate regarding the balance between national security and civil liberties and consequently the three most controversial provisions were sunset.

o "Lone Wolf" (Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act) - simplifies the standard needed to obtain a FISA court order to target a non-U.S. individual suspected of international terrorism. This allows the government to subject an individual terrorist to the same type of surveillance used to monitor foreign intelligence agents or members of an international terrorist organization. Previously, the government needed to establish a clear link between the individual and a specific foreign power in order to classify the individual as an "agent of a foreign power." Under this provision, any engagement in terrorism results in a presumption that the individual is an agent.

o "Roving" Wiretaps (Section 206 of the PATRIOT Act) – adds flexibility to wiretaps by allowing multipoint taps that follow a target, not the location or device. Previously, electronic surveillance was limited by the requirement that the government clearly identify the location targeted, which allowed suspects to circumvent wiretaps. While the ACLU has argued privacy concerns with this provision, it is important to note that a FISA court must find that there is probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power before approving. Furthermore, in an age where terrorists can use multiple mobile communications devices with ease, it allows the order to cover any device the suspect may use. Without roving wiretap authority, investigators would be forced to seek a new court order each time they need to change the location, phone or computer that needs to be monitored.

o Business Records (Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act) - broadens the types of records and tangible items that can be made available to the government under FISA. Previously, intelligence officials had to meet a much higher standard than required in criminal investigations. Opponents have argued that the provision is too broad and allows "fishing expeditions" by simply allowing investigators to classify the request as a terrorist investigation. Libraries in particular offered intense criticism of this new FISA authority despite having no specific mention in the law. Requests made under this section are actually subjected to more judicial scrutiny than in criminal investigations. Additionally, the Attorney General is required to inform House and Senate Intelligence Committees every six months about the use of this provision.

Before the PATRIOT Act, law enforcement tools created decades ago were crafted for rotary telephones - not email, the Internet, mobile communications or voice mail. The idea behind the PATRIOT Act was to evolve the law as technology had grown.

The PATRIOT Act gave us the tools we needed to integrate our law enforcement and intelligence capabilities to win the war on terror. Our ability to prevent another catastrophic attack on American soil would be more difficult, if not impossible, without the PATRIOT Act. It has been the key weapon used across America in successful counter-terrorist operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists.

With these legal tools and our prevention strategy, we can point to steady progress in America's war against terrorism. As a result of these important provisions, we have targeted terrorists here at home and developed detailed intelligence on terrorist threats. We have arrested and detained countless potential terrorists. We have shut down the terrorist financial infrastructure. We have built a long-term counter-terrorism capacity with more FBI agents and federal prosecutors dedicated to counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence and the establishment of a Joint Terrorism Task Force. Notwithstanding the desperate attempts of our enemies, no major terror attack has occurred on American soil since September 11, 2001.

The most important constitutional right I have taken an oath to protect is your right to life. It is for these important reasons that I supported the extension of the Patriot Act.

I greatly appreciate the time and thought that went into your correspondence to me. Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further questions or concerns in the future.

Very Respectfully,

Allen B. West
Member of Congress

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MollieB55 on January 16, 2012 at 9:40pm

I also wrote my Representative Trey Gowdy who gave me a similar answer. I have no trouble with the "roving wiretap" and "Lone Wolf". Rep. Gowdy said these had been used for decades by the FBI to track "mob" activities.

However, we have had libraries since the time of Ben Franklin and my reading list was consider private. Am I under suspicion of murder because I love crime novels and physiological thriller? I even read "Silence of the Lambs" which turned my stomach but I couldn't put it down after I started it.

And reading my emails? How is that different from opening a letter I sent through the post office. It is addressed to a single person. If they want to waste their time and taxpayer dollars reading and collecting Twitter and Facebook, and my blogs and posts, that just makes me mad because they could be securing our border! I doubt Al Qaeda swaps plans on Facebook. As a matter of fact there was a report that there is no evidence that any one has been caught by monitoring the internet.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page