Fox News speaks the truth?!

[Realitycheck]

The report says that in the period starting with the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and ending May 5, Justice Department (search) terrorism investigations resulted in charges against 310 people, with 179 convictions or guilty pleas. The Patriot Act, Justice officials say, was instrumental in these cases.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125551,00.html

 

The Department of Justice, now headed by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, says that the Patriot Act has been a useful tool in finding and dismantling terrorist organizations and plots. It has disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells, incapacitated over 3,000 terrorists, broken up five terror cells within U.S. borders, charged 401 individuals on terror charges and convicted 212,[16] though the department does not differentiate between those captured through the new provisions of the Patriot Act, and those who were discovered by other means.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Patriot_act

 

Realistically, you see the trend and you see politicians shying away from it and asserting checks on it. However, time will tell what shall become. We probably can't catch every single sleeper cell. However, just like they caught us by surprise, we caught them by surprise, as well. Now, we have more effective tools at our disposal, are on "war footing", are more wary.

[iNow]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125551,00.html

 

http://www.conservapedia.com/Patriot_act

<...>

However, just like they caught us by surprise, we caught them by surprise, as well. Now, we have more effective tools at our disposal, are on "war footing", are more wary.

 

I still see only rhetoric... no specifics. And... to cite both Fox News and Conservapidia in one post must be some sort of new record.

[Realitycheck]

Please excuse me for not being qualified enough to hack into the DOJ mainframe.

 

Here's a few specific cases.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4756706

[iNow]

Here's a few specific cases.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4756706

 

Thank you for finding a better source, but I still don't see any evidence of how this could not have been done without the provisions of the Patriot Act.

 

Am I missing something? Can you show us exactly how the Patriot Act has "thwarted terrorists. The numbers are there, all because of this act." ..., and how this could not have been done without it... as you so confidently described above? Your citation here only shows how it made things easier, not possible.

 

 

 

EDIT: Btw... that exact same day, NPR also published this on the abuses:

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4756403&ft=1&f=4759727

[Realitycheck]

So what. I cited three sources for you. Yahoo news searches only get so detailed. Go do it yourself. It doesn't mean that much to me. I would just as soon keep them as they are. So there.

[iNow]

So what. I cited three sources for you. Yahoo news searches only get so detailed. Go do it yourself. It doesn't mean that much to me. I would just as soon keep them as they are. So there.

 

So you admit that you have zero basis for the conclusion you shared above? I simply asked you to support your point, and you cannot. If that does not make you question your position, I am not certain what will... and that's incredibly disheartening.

[bascule]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125551,00.html

 

How many of those were terrorists? Take away civil rights and finding criminals is a lot easier. Of course, so does persecuting the innocent...

 

http://www.conservapedia.com/Patriot_act

 

I'm sorry, Conservapedia isn't an authority on anything.

 

I mean, here's their statistics:

 

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

 

Most viewed pages

 

1. Homosexuality‎ [1,987,988]

2. Main Page‎ [1,962,096]

3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis‎ [518,518]

4. Homosexuality and Parasites‎ [469,842]

5. Gay Bowel Syndrome‎ [439,969]

6. Homosexuality and Promiscuity‎ [422,751]

7. Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence‎ [374,603]

8. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea‎ [332,325]

9. Homosexuality and Anal Cancer‎ [295,038]

10. Homosexuality and Mental Health‎ [294,467]

 

Enough said...

 

Here's a few specific cases.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4756706

 

How many of these alleged terrorist organizations were planning an attack on the United States? Someone like me would say zero, someone like you would probably say WE CAN NEVER BE SURE...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Ad hominems, people.

[Pangloss]

Ad hominems and a degeneration into questionable arguments on BOTH sides. I think an interesting question has been answered here and I'd hate to lose sight of it just so some black-hat conservative could get hammered by the white-hat liberals. I dont't think that was the purpose of iNow's question, was it?

 

George Bush and Barrack Obama agree that certain provisions of the Patriot Act were necessary in order to give law enforcement specific tools needed to fight terrorism. They've even said what those tools were. But what I have not heard answered, even by them, is iNow's specific question: What specifically was prevented that could not have been prevented by any previously existing means?

 

I think it's an excellent question, I don't think it has anything to do with partisanship, and while I doubt we'll find an answer here, I think the question is worthy of some level-headed discussion.

 

Just remember that a lack of an answer doesn't mean there isn't one. It's important.

[Realitycheck]

Well, I searched a bit more, but as far as I can tell, unless you're at a library or something, you have to pay for the comprehensive, detailed local news search engines that show the actual details behind each of these 200 or so cases. 200 convictions! Government cover-ups, sensationalism, just funding terrorists, not really prosecuted because of the Patriot Act, all of them, I'm sure. I mean, c'mon, why would anyone need the Patriot Act to prosecute a case against alleged terrorist wannabes? Looks like we were a little more sure than they wanted us to be.

 

But yes, I agree. Taking away a few rights does make things a bit easier. So what. We just have to be more careful. I mean, I hope they are not talking in code for no reason. I hope they are not talking about terrorist activities just to lure their own arrests. I wonder how they got on the list in the first place. Maybe they threatened somebody purely out of faith in immunity. Maybe they continuously associated with known terrorist connections.

 

I know, it's unconstitutional. So what. If our founding fathers knew what we would face today, don't you think they would say, "By all means, fix it." Or we just do things the old way, and let half of them carry on.

[bascule]

Well, I searched a bit more, but as far as I can tell, unless you're at a library or something, you have to pay for the comprehensive, detailed local news search engines that show the actual details behind each of these 200 or so cases. 200 convictions!

 

Can you point to just one of these supposed 200 cases and demonstrate how it was a legitimate terrorist threat against the United States of America?

 

But yes, I agree. Taking away a few rights does make things a bit easier. [...] I know, it's unconstitutional. So what. If our founding fathers knew what we would face today...

 

Okay, let's ignore the founding fathers for a second and fast forward for a second...

 

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and those who would exploit our fear for power and for their own personal, selfish, cynical gain."

[JaKiri]

Principles of this country, constitutional rights and liberties, will of the people, yadda, yadda, yadda. I have seen it all, but the fact remains that when the gun was placed at YOUR senators' heads

 

I don't think Cambridgeshire has a senator. I could be wrong of course. We have some MPs though.

 

The only people making a big deal of it are not the people, but rather defense lawyers, conscientous judges, and the wrongfully accused, oh and yeah, candidates trying to glean a few extra votes.

 

And the ACLU, and other civil liberty supporting type chaps.

 

The internal contradiction you make here is hilarious, by the way. "People don't care about it, therefore candidates are trying to glean a few extra votes by opposing it". Does that make the slightest bit of sense to anyone?

 

Either way, could you point out which of those (lawyer, judge, wrongfully accused, candidate) I am, and the other people criticising it on this forum are?

 

Have I wandered into defenselawyerforums.net by mistake?

 

Otherwise, what should they be afraid of? It all comes down to the same thing.

 

"The innocent have nothing to hide" is bollocks, even ignoring the fact that they should be allowed to hide it. I take it learning from history isn't your greatest ability?

 

I'd say you should start by looking at the McCarthy witch-hunts.

 

Have we not already forgotten what led us to these circumstances? Is it out of cowardice? No, it's called prevention. How many terrorists has it thwarted? The numbers are there, all because of this act.

 

How many terrorist attacks had there been on the US before the Patriot Act that it would have stopped?

 

I know, it's unconstitutional. So what. If our founding fathers knew what we would face today, don't you think they would say, "By all means, fix it." Or we just do things the old way, and let half of them carry on.

 

Jefferson especially would be horrified at the entire US political system right now. It's all far too right wing for him (damn Taft)

[Realitycheck]

Can you point to just one of these supposed 200 cases and demonstrate how it was a legitimate terrorist threat against the United States of America?

 

These examples have already been noted, but you have to read them to notice. Of course, we should have waited till the last minute to arrest them like in '24' or something, just to make it more exciting and beleivable.

 

— The Patriot Act allowed intelligence agents to share with FBI criminal investigators evidence that an anonymous letter sent to the FBI had come from an individual with Al Qaeda (search) ties. That letter began the investigation into an alleged terror cell in Lackawanna, N.Y., that has resulted in six guilty pleas.

 

— That same information-sharing authority was used against members of an alleged terror cell in Portland, Ore., that an undercover informant said was preparing for possible attacks against Jewish schools or synagogues. Continued surveillance under the Patriot Act of one suspect led to six others, who likely would have scattered or fled if the first suspect had been arrested right away.

 

— Terror financing provisions of the law were used in numerous cases, including charges against a member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, on charges of being an unlicensed money transmitter. The same authority has been used to prosecute people illegally sending money to Iraq, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and India.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125551,00.html

 

Okay, let's ignore the founding fathers for a second and fast forward for a second...

 

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and those who would exploit our fear for power and for their own personal, selfish, cynical gain."

 

Wasn't this Winston Churchill with his back pressed up against the wall?

[ParanoiA]

The internal contradiction you make here is hilarious, by the way. "People don't care about it, therefore candidates are trying to glean a few extra votes by opposing it". Does that make the slightest bit of sense to anyone?

 

I realize the point you're making here, but in this case, it actually does make a bit of sense. I don't know anyone actually bent out of shape about the Patriot Act - they don't like it and are formally against it but they don't seem too worried about it either. Perhaps because political groups and associates are making it a big deal - nonetheless, for candidates it seems to be more of a "checklist" item to add to their platform.

 

"The innocent have nothing to hide" is bollocks' date=' even ignoring the fact that they should be allowed to hide it. I take it learning from history isn't your greatest ability?

 

I'd say you should start by looking at the McCarthy witch-hunts.[/quote']

 

I'd say that's an excellent start. But to be fair, couldn't Sept 11 be considered a piece of history we don't want to repeat either?

[JaKiri]

I'd say that's an excellent start. But to be fair, couldn't Sept 11 be considered a piece of history we don't want to repeat either?

 

Given that the quotes coming out of the CIA suggest that 9/11 was facilitated by the White House's political goal of ignoring Osama Bin Laden (possibly to prove Clinton wrong, if you think back to the late 90's then when it wasn't Lewinsky it was laughing at him for taking some no-name from the middle east as a serious threat), I don't think we have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Patriot Act would have changed anything.

[ParanoiA]

I know, it's unconstitutional. So what. If our founding fathers knew what we would face today, don't you think they would say, "By all means, fix it." Or we just do things the old way, and let half of them carry on.

 

I don't believe they would fix it by ignoring the constitution or its principles - it's arguably at its most important during times of crisis.

 

Maybe this country really isn't for you. Seriously. We are a country of laws who's representatives are ever changing that depend on documentation and rigid aherence to this documentation in order to establish and maintain legitimacy. If you ever circumvent that document, then the document is worthless - which means you have no law and no order.

 

Why would I respect that document and not rob and kill you when you won't respect that document and not invade my privacy? Do you understand yet that we respect these pieces of paper because of the idea that they represent - not because some old geezers were super duper smart?

[Mr Skeptic]

I know, it's unconstitutional. So what. If our founding fathers knew what we would face today, don't you think they would say, "By all means, fix it." Or we just do things the old way, and let half of them carry on.

 

The founding fathers would say, "We left rules in place so you could change this document in case such were ever needed. So get your asses together and do this the proper way, else don't do it at all. If you don't have the majorities required to change the constitution, neither should you be circumventing it." The other thing they would do would be to get rid of political parties.

[Pangloss]

So we're not going to discuss iNow's excellent question? We're just going to fall back to the usual ideological positions?

[bascule]

These examples have already been noted, but you have to read them to notice.

 

That says nothing about what they were convicted of or whether the convictions had anything to do with terrorism. Unless you can demonstrate that you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, i.e.:

 

The Patriot Act has helped convict individuals of crimes

Those individuals had terrorist connections

Therefore, the Patriot Act has prevented terrorism

 

Has it? Can you point out someone who was convicted of plotting a legitimate terrorist threat?

 

Furthermore, those all point to successes of inter-agency information sharing. That's not unconstitutional.

 

Can you point out someone who was convicted using provisions of the Patriot Act which are of questionable constitutionality?

 

Of course, we should have waited till the last minute to arrest them like in '24' or something, just to make it more exciting and beleivable.

 

To take that slippery slope the other direction, we should start arresting people who make any negative comments about our country, because they might represent potential terrorists.

[ParanoiA]

So we're not going to discuss iNow's excellent question? We're just going to fall back to the usual ideological positions?

 

Well, I just thought that was agentchange and I. We've been poking at each other for some time now on this Constitution thing...don't let us distract ya'll.

 

What specifically was prevented that could not have been prevented by any previously existing means?

 

Fact is, I don't really know. That's why I haven't answered iNow's question.

[iNow]

I was rather hoping that someone would have SOMETHING to offer. My question appears to be rhetorical, as I still hold the same answer (in my mind) that I did while posting.

 

 

But, yes... I must admit.... it WAS an excellent question.

 

 

If I wasn't so humble, I'd be perfect.

[ParanoiA]

I was rather hoping that someone would have SOMETHING to offer. My question appears to be rhetorical, as I still hold the same answer (in my mind) that I did while posting.

 

Well, but how easy is it to gather the data and verify this question? Personally, I doubt the patriot act has made that much of an impact - sudden shift of focus and manpower notwithstanding. But how do you prove it?

[Realitycheck]

A federal prosecutor provided new details in an alleged terrorist conspiracy Friday, revealing that a suspect once talked about attacking a Portland-area synagogue or Jewish school with Kalashnikov assault rifles.

 

Prosecutors say a government informant tape-recorded the May 2002 discussion with Jeffrey Leon Battle, one of six people accused last week in a conspiracy to fight with the Taliban and al-Qaida against U.S. troops in Afghanistan beginning in October 2001. The unnamed informant was wearing a body wire.

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/terror/index.ssf?/special/oregonian/terror/1012_plot.html

 

Less than a month before he was arrested, "Portland Seven" defendant Jeffrey Leon Battle asked an undercover FBI informant if he knew how to make a bomb and said he wanted to arm himself for a possible confrontation with authorities.

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/terror/index.ssf?/special/oregonian/terror/112003.html

 

Prosecutors in Florida used section 373 to charge Libardo Florez-Gomez, a

money courier who, based upon documentation found on his person, was

suspected of laundering an estimated $1.3 million per month for the

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (“FARC”), a leftist rebel group

designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/pdf/patriot_report_from_the_field0704.pdf

 

A spokesman for the families of six Yemeni-American men who admitted attending a military-style al Qaeda training camp pleaded not guilty on Monday to charges he illegally sent millions of dollars to Yemen from his Buffalo, New York, cigarette and candy store.

http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=703&p=local&a=5

 

Alwan, of Lackawanna, N.Y., was sentenced this afternoon by District Judge William W. Skretny of the Western District of New York. Alwan was the last of the six defendants to be sentenced on charges of providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, based on their attendance at an al Qaeda-affiliated training camp.

 

Alwan pleaded guilty to the material support charge in April 2003. The other five defendants have all pleaded guilty and are cooperating with the United States government.

http://www.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel03/sahim121703.htm

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay. Now link those to the Patriot Act.

[Realitycheck]

These three cases are considered Patriot Act successes. That's the only way I would have known about them.