I guess we agree on 1) and 2) (and you even managed to creep in the free market for abortion legislation into the 2 - KUDOS!)

On 3) however, we differ. Under the Patriot Act, the FBI has to show probable cause to the judge. It had exactly the same powers before it was passed, they were simply not codified.


The IRS, on the other hand, treats ALL people as criminals before proving that they're innocent. The only difference is that it has to do with income, and not with some other type of records.

I wouldn't exactly agree with you on #2. Firtly, because it is not being coached in the terms you stated. There is a heavyily regressive national discourse on it now. Period. And 2, because you do realize that alot of women don't have the access and/or support to jump the border three states over when she needs an abortion and her husband and/or family isn't supportive of it. I'm not comfortable with removing any more of the fundamental rights of a woman who's already in enough trouble if she's in a systematically disempowering position. Its just adding frosting to the cake. I'm simply saying I understand where you're coming from, and trying to point out than in an ideal world while that might work, and all those ladies would come live with me somewhere in the Northeast, chances are, its not going to pan out that way in real life. Dependancy cycles are ugly, but they do exist, and I'm not going to support that by making access even more limited.

Actually, the argument (when people are actually presenting an argument and aren't throwing mud at each other) is being coached that way. Abortion is not one of the fundamental rights; the right to privacy is. The supreme court equated the two, and that was the justification for taking the matter away from the states.

So, to give it back to the states, first there needs to be an argument about when the life starts (since a baby's right to life would override the mother's right to privacy).

Here's another step-down?




Gah...I just got another phone call and have to run. But I will put what I was thnking of tonight.

I don't understand why we're still making a big deal out of it.

Everytime there's a member of the cabinet stepping down, there's a Cnn Breaking News alert.

D'oh...*shakes fists at Krem for responding so quickly* Now I need to reply.

Because part of his campaign was about voting for experience and voting for the people that have already been through it and will bring their experience and knowledge to the table. The "If its not broken, don't fix it," arguement (though if it was broken is a bit debateable). So if people did actually vote for wanting to maintain the "experience and knowledge" of the last four years, it kinda is important that they all left anyways.

Did he ever actually say it?

I mean, I don't think anybody expects for there not to be a high turnover rate between terms.

Liberals criticize both. In fact, the IRS powers were overhauled under Clinton, shifting burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS. It also forced the IRS to get a judge's approval before seizing assets.

It seems to me that a person of principle would criticize BOTH of these on the basis of govt abuses. I can understand pointing out the hypocrisy, but I don't understand how a SUPPOSEDLY small govt conservative could criticize the IRS and then turn around and defend the PATRIOT act, even if it is just codifying govt power.

Does the IRS need a judge's approval request for you to turn over all your financial records?


I am not defending the PATRIOT Act. However, from everything I've read in the act, as well as everything I read about it, I simply cannot understand what the big outcry about is coming from liberals.

Isn't it normal for a lot of the Cabinet to step down after 4 years?

Pretty much.

Yes. Or rather, it used to. The PATRIOT Act, that law you say didn't add any additional power to the govt, amended the Right to Financial Privacy Act to allow the IRS to force your financial institution to turn over all of your finanical records with just a written request and without a court order.

In fact, the PATRIOT Act forbids you, your financial agent, or anyone else from refusing to do so.



You're not?

Krem: I have yet to be convinced about anything potentially damaging in the Patriot Act.

A curious position to take from someone so opposed to govt power that he opposes publicly funded schools and libraries.

If you were simply wondering why liberals don't complain more about the IRS the way they do about the PATRIOT Act, that would be one thing. But you're not. You're clearly dismissing concerns about it.



If it's laughable to criticize one and not the other, then your position would have to be considered laughable.

This issue is also indicative to liberals of the hypocrisy of the so-called small govt conservatives like you who either dismiss concerns about the PATRIOT Act or defend it. While there certainly hasn't been the outcry over the IRS that there has been for the PATRIOT Act, liberals do not defend the IRS power abuses the way conservatives defend the PATRIOT Act.



I'm sure it's just as puzzling to liberals why conservatives, who supposedly oppose this kind of govt power, have not only NOT protested or opposed this Act, but have gone out of their way to defend it.

The PATRIOT Act allows the govt to detain you without cause for terrorist related incidents and to hold you indefinitely without charging you. Further, it allows them to circumvent attorney-client priviledge.

The problem of course, is that without a probable cause restriction, the govt could use the PATRIOT Act to hold you for ANY reason. There's literally nothing that keeps them from doing that. In fact, the PATRIOT Act has been used to seize assets in racketeering and other non-terrorist related crimes.

According to About.com, here are some of the laws changed by the PATRIOT Act:

# Federal agents may conduct surveillance and searches against U.S. citizens without "probable cause" to suspect criminal activity. The targeted person is not notified and cannot challenge the action.


# Agents can conduct "sneak-and-peek" searches without prior notice in common domestic crime investigations. Before the Patriot Act, courts required law enforcement to "knock and announce" themselves before conducting searches.

# Government agents now have access to any person's business or personal records. These include library records, book-buying habits, medical, marital counseling or psychiatric files, business records, Internet habits, and credit reports.

# The government no longer has to give notice, obtain a warrant or a subpoena, or show probable cause that a crime has been committed. Persons turning over personal data to the government (such as librarians, co-workers or neighbors) are prohibited, under threat of federal criminal prosecution, from telling anyone they did so.

Apparently, you've never filled out the 1040. Good for you; not so for the rest of us.

Please stop taking my posts out of context.


The reason I'm dismissing (or rather not too worried about) cocerns about it, is because I read the Act, and I do not find anything in it that would jump at me as concerning.
I suggest you do the same: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html


Once again, I ask you to actually read the Act.

Please point to specific sections in the act that talk about that.

You would have to prove that.

Here's my editorial summary of the Patriot Act: "PATRIOT ACT IS TEH BESTEST". It says so right in there. You would have to believe me, since you haven't read it.

8 members in about a month? Not looking all that promising.

So let me get this straight. You consider a 1040 form an egregious violation of civil rights. But NOTHING in the PATRIOT Act concerns you in the least?

You've got an awfully selective sense of outrage over govt power. Public libraries somehow step over the line, but the PATRIOT Act doesn't.

Interesting.



First of all, the PATRIOT Act does not simply codify existing powers. It makes numerous changes and amendments that expand the govt's ability to spy on citizens.

For example:

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'

According to this broadened definition, an organized protest of ANY US govt policy could be classified as "domestic terrorism," especially if any person involved commits any kind of violent act, like assault.

Do you want more examples?

The reason I provided a summarized view (which was not an editorial, btw) is because it's easy to overlook damaging language in a bill this size and this complicated. Obviously, because you overlooked it, and you claim to have read this thing.



Sure, because you're allowed to post any kind of baseless claim you want without proof, but I provide real examples and it's simply not good enough.

how many did martin change when he came into office?

This would only be 'interesting' if I was convinced that the PATRIOT Act granted powers do indeed step over the line.

SO far, I have not been convinced of that.

You're missing the "intimidation or coercion" part. An organized protest would not "intimidate or coerce" the government into changing its policy; holding government officials hostage, for instance, would.

I asked for concrete examples of abuse of the PATRIOT Act's intended use to fight terrorism.

I haven't overlooked anything. You're making accusations, but you're backing them up with a summary that is questionable at best.

What real examples have you provided? A distorted view of the definition of domestic terrorism?

Here's the definition of international terrorism, prior to PATRIOT Act:
(1) the term ``international terrorism'' means activities that--
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life
that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States
or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if
committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any
State;
(B) appear to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by
assassination or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of
the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they
appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which
their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

Note that the language is almost exactly the same, except of the description of the jurisdiction. So what makes you think that it would be applied any differently, just because it's "domestic" now?

The bill doesn't make that clear, which means your definition of "intimidate or coercion" may be different than mine, or some politician tasked with enforcing the Act. The problem here is the potential to misapply that law, a potential that has been realized in some cases. Surely a SO-CALLED advocate for less intrusive govt could see the potential problems here and wouldn't need for the law to actually be abused to oppose it.



First of all, for a SO-CALLED advocate for smaller govt to suddenly need concrete real world examples of actual abuse when govt power is increased is certainly interesting. The mere granting of additonal power, whether or not the govt actually abuses that power, is usually the principle. But that presupposes principles, I guess.

Second of all, a Justice Dept accounting report shows that the govt has used the Patriot Act for more than anti-terror investigations.

The Justice Department has used many of the anti-terrorism powers granted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to pursue defendants for crimes unrelated to terrorism, including drug violations, credit card fraud and bank theft, according to a government accounting released Tuesday.
[...]
Although the Patriot Act was passed in response to Sept. 11, the report shows prosecutors have used many of the legislation's new powers to pursue cases not related to terrorism. The report cites a case in which prosecutors were able to use the Patriot Act to seize stolen funds that a fugitive lawyer had stashed in bank accounts in Belize. Similar tactics have been used in cases involving drugs, credit-card fraud, theft from a bank account and kidnapping, the report shows.

And according to this story, the Patriot Act was used to prosecute two strip club owners in Las Vegas.

"It would seem to me the fact that the FBI is wasting any time at all prosecuting strip club owners is good news for terrorists," said George Getz, national spokesman for the Libertarian Party (search), which is calling for the repeal of the Patriot Act, passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., who voted for the bill, but has since voiced his concerns of the law, said he wasn't surprised, but disappointed to hear reports earlier this month that FBI agents investigating two strip club owners in Las Vegas on bribery charges bypassed a grand jury and instead used the Patriot Act to subpoena the financial records of the bar owners as well as several prominent city and county officials.

"The administration presented the Patriot Act to the Congress two years ago as a carefully tailored and limited piece of legislation specific to targeting terrorism. And now they're using it for purposes that are obviously and completely unrelated to terrorism," Barr told Foxnews.com.

According to an FBI official in Las Vegas, investigators used a provision in the Patriot Act that allows investigators easy access to the financial records of persons suspected of terrorism or money laundering.



Are you serious? That change in jurisdiction is HUGE. Imagine if you suddenly removed the law that restricts the use of the US military to enforce domestic laws, for example. Wouldn't that be a BIG deal, particularly to so-called advocates of small govt?

The definition of international terrorism protected us from JUST the kind of surveillence and civil liberty violations that is now occuring under the PATRIOT Act, and you now seem to wholeheartedly endorse.

Oh come on. You know that language is only as clean as the government that chooses to use it. Ask students from Tianamen Square if they thought they were "intimidating and coercing" the government and they'd say they were just holding an organized protest.



That's the big difference right there.

The bill DOES it make it clear; that's what "intimidation and coercion" are there for. It's not my fault that your definition of "intimidation and coercion" means "organized protest".

This wording has been used before as applied to terrorism.

Bullshit. That would only apply, if I stated that I oppose any and all government powers; I never said such a thing. I recognize that in certain cases, such as national defense, government is justified.

In such cases, increase in government powers certainly does not warrant an automatic opposition from me. Suppose the government did not have the right to arrest citizens for theft before. If a new law granted it that right, I would support it.


This is much better. While clearly this is not the end of the world, it is concerning that the FBI would use the law intended against terrorists to fight other crime.

However, here is the notable omission from the articles you posted:

But the report plays down the government's use of some of the most controversial new powers. For example, the report said that fewer than 10 FBI field offices have conducted investigations involving visits to mosques, and all but one were connected to criminal inquiries. Immigration authorities also have not ruled any foreign citizens deportable or inadmissible as terrorists, the report said.

In any case, the law should be used for what its intended, fighting terrorism, and the provisions that allow the feds to conduct unrelated activities, should be re-examined and recodified if need be.


The law adds the definition of domestic terrorism to the U.S. Code. The definition is almost exact as that of international terrorism and terrorism as a whole. Now, what's wrong with that again?

There you go again. You're making assumptions about me based on your preconceived notions. I never said that I "wholeheartedly endorse" the Act.
On the other hand, I never said that I agree with your analysis of the act as "violating civil liberties" of the U.S. residents.

For you to make that statement about me, both of those clauses would have to be true.

The fact is that the definition of "intimidation and coercion" COULD include organized protest. It depends the on the person. The language is vague and overly broad.



And your defense of the PATRIOT Act would certainly be justified if it weren't being used in cases outside of national defense. Which it certainly is.



Is that ommission notable? It would be like you leaving out all of the times the IRS didn't audit someone when it could have. Is that proof that the IRS isn't abusing its powers?



A damning rebuke indeed.



The abuses stated in those articles would not have been possible under the old definition of international terrorism. The oh-so-subtle change that is no big deal to you, allows the govt, among other things, to seize your financial records without a court order, and in cases NOT related to terrorism.

Strangely, when the IRS does much less, like requiring you to fill out a 1040 form, you call THAT an egregious abuse of govt power. But you scarcely register a whimper at what the PATRIOT Act allows. In fact, you've gone out of your way to defend it and pretend like no abuse is even possible.

If that had been the case, the definition of terrorism and international terrorism prior to the Patriot act would also be under scrutiny as potential to be abused. They were not.

Actually, why not go further. Let's complain that the language has the world violent, without any further specifications. It could possible mean verbal abuse. Is that how the courts will see it? Absolutely not. Why? Because the U.S. court system has a system court definitions that do not rely on subjective criteria such "what if coerced and intimidated meant 'organized protest'"

I asked you to provide me with an example of that. You did. I replied that yes, I agree that in that case it clearly over-stepped its intended bounds. That still does not mean that any time somebody raises an alarm about a new law, I should immediately be opposed to it.

If the IRS only audited 10 people, as opposed to 1% of the population, on top of requiring every tax payer to turn over their personal information, it would be a different story altogether.

The abuses you cited have nothing to do with the definition of domestic terrorism. Note also, that the definition of international terrorism has not at all been changed under the Act.

The IRS has the power to around 200 million U.S. residents by default; I doubt the framers of the PATRIOT Act, as perverted as you think they are, would hope for that kind of power.

They cannot be abused in terms of CIVIL liberties. And that's the issue with the PATRIOT Act. CIVIL liberties, what the US can and cannot do to its own citizenry.



Actually it couldn't because the law specifically states "violence" in relation to existing criminal definitions of violence. And verbal abuse wouldn't count. Assault, however, could, as in an assault at an abortion protest.



If an abortion group organizes a protest, and a member of that group threatens the life of an abortion doctor and an assualt is committed, the members of that group, under the PATRIOT Act, could then be classified as domestic terrorists.

Same with anti-war demonstrators. There is no clear cut example of what exactly "coercion" means. Under our criminal definitions, it certainly isn't restricted to physical violence.



Not in all cases, but certainly in this case. First you act like the govt certainly wouldn't overstep its bounds, CLEARLY the laws couldn't be misinterpreted or abused.

And then when it does, you're still defending the Act. Like simply re-codifying it is going to fix all the problems.



Gee, I could just as easily argue that 99% of the people don't get audited, just as you have with the PATRIOT Act. "Now, what's wrong with that again?"



They have to do the NEW govt powers created by the law. In other words, powers it did not have before, like being able to seize financial records without a court order.



The PATRIOT Act has default power over every single citizen of the US. What's the difference?

Once again, this has nothing to do with the definition of terrorism, either domestic or international. A U.S. citizen can be arrested under charges of internationa terrorism.

As it should. If you violently attack a crowd, you're a terrorist. There's nothing wrong with that definition.

Not necessarily. This could fail the provision B) of the definition:

"(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;"

If the assault is not related to the threat, then it doesn't necessarily follow. If it is, however, then there's no doubt in my mind that that should classify as terrorism. Now you have members of an organization that commited a terrorist act. You're the law enforcement agency. Would you like to find out as quickly as possible if more acts are planned?

However, under the definition, a violent act has to occur.

Why is THIS case any different from others? Is it because of the jingoistic title of the law?

If the problem is the additional powers for the fed that were not meant for fighting terrorism, then yes, they need to be re-examined, and if there's a need for them, they SHOULD be codified. Just because something's in the Patriot Act and doesn't belong there, does not mean it should not be on the books at all.

10 people is 1/30,000,000; 1% is 3 million people. Big difference.

That's not true.

A Grand Jury subpoena or an order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court are required.

Just like any other Federal Law. However, it does not apply to me by default, in that i do not have to turn over my records to the FBI every year, unlike with the IRS.

Actually there is. Existing criminal laws against violent acts deal with the problem already without changing the classification of the act.

Don't you OPPOSE hate crime laws for this very reason? Why is terrorism different? A person who commits an assault at a protest isn't necessarily a terrorist and shouldn't necessarily be treated as such. That simple re-classificaiton opens up all kinds of doors to increased govt power.

Honestly, for a so-called advocate of small govt to continue to defend this is beyond me.



I would like to do it without violating the privacy or civil rights of American citizens unnecessarily. You, the so-called small govt advocate, seem to think that anything's okay as long as they're going after someone else.



Why shouldn't the IRS get your generous defense? Is it because the IRS affects you and your money instead of you and your civil liberties?



Of course. It doesn't affect you. I guess that's the difference. Why didn't you just say that at the beginning?