U.S. Congressman Mick Mulvaney's Boss, on Supporting the Patriot Act! my recorded phone

[knarf]

U.S. Congressman Mick Mulvaney's Boss, on Supporting the Patriot Act!


Three central federal powers: the 'roving wiretap' powers which allows ongoing electronic surveillance of foreign suspects regardless of communication device or location; the 'library provisions' power which allow a very broad range of personal material to be investigated; and the 'lone wolf' provisions which give the government authority to investigate foreigners, even if they have no known affiliation with terrorist groups. The only requirement for these provisions is that an order from secret federal courts are required.

 

[LisaNY]

thanks for exposing these liars

 

[jonhowe]

He's giving you the courtesy of a reply, didn't you hear him?

 

[knarf]

He's giving you the courtesy of a reply, didn't you hear him?

lol, yeah I heard him!

 

[jmdrake]

LOL. I don't know what's worse. When these jokers ignore you or when they play games to try to rationalize their nonsense. "Mick saw the changes". What changes?

 

[JackieDan]

exposed maniac.. Thanks for posting this.

 

[nate895]

I know I'll be considered a heretic for asking this question, but most of you probably consider me one anyway, but what provision of the reauthorization do you have a problem with Mulvaney voting to reauthorize? I oppose Sec. 105 (Presidential authority to shut down foreign terrorist organization's financial operations, without judicial review of any sort whatsoever) and Sec. 505 (NSL's which has since been amended to be a bit more tolerable, since you can appeal to a judge challenging them now). Neither of those provisions were up for a vote, having been made permanent.

All the other provisions either provide for FISA Court warrants or define "Exigent Circumstances". Rand Paul's rhetoric about Gun Record is concerning a provision that does not exist. How do I know this? Because Rand Paul's amendment in relation to the issue does not identify the Sec. of the US Code or Patriot Act that he wishes to amend. If it was amending a provision that actually existed, it should name it.

Of course, I have actually read the Patriot Act, so I actually happen to know what I am talking about somewhat. Now, if I missed something, please point it out.

 

[knarf]

your welcome

 

[knarf]

bump

 

[knarf]

Around September last year at the Cherokee county GOP meeting in front of around 100 people, I asked him, when he was running for congress, "If giving the chance to repeal the Patriot Act, would you?" His reply to me and the other 100 people was and I quote " Absolutely, Im not willing to give up my Liberty for safety!" That was THE perfect answer, that sure helped him get elected and I voted for him and helped get him elected too!

 

[Carehn]

OMG! It sounds like me and my congress critter!

 

[nate895]

I know I'll be considered a heretic for asking this question, but most of you probably consider me one anyway, but what provision of the reauthorization do you have a problem with Mulvaney voting to reauthorize? I oppose Sec. 105 (Presidential authority to shut down foreign terrorist organization's financial operations, without judicial review of any sort whatsoever) and Sec. 505 (NSL's which has since been amended to be a bit more tolerable, since you can appeal to a judge challenging them now). Neither of those provisions were up for a vote, having been made permanent.

All the other provisions either provide for FISA Court warrants or define "Exigent Circumstances". Rand Paul's rhetoric about Gun Record is concerning a provision that does not exist. How do I know this? Because Rand Paul's amendment in relation to the issue does not identify the Sec. of the US Code or Patriot Act that he wishes to amend. If it was amending a provision that actually existed, it should name it.

Of course, I have actually read the Patriot Act, so I actually happen to know what I am talking about somewhat. Now, if I missed something, please point it out.

I'm still trying to figure what provision that Mulvaney voted for you are attacking. You do not mention it in the video.

 

[Imperial]

I know I'll be considered a heretic for asking this question, but most of you probably consider me one anyway, but what provision of the reauthorization do you have a problem with Mulvaney voting to reauthorize? I oppose Sec. 105 (Presidential authority to shut down foreign terrorist organization's financial operations, without judicial review of any sort whatsoever) and Sec. 505 (NSL's which has since been amended to be a bit more tolerable, since you can appeal to a judge challenging them now). Neither of those provisions were up for a vote, having been made permanent.

All the other provisions either provide for FISA Court warrants or define "Exigent Circumstances". Rand Paul's rhetoric about Gun Record is concerning a provision that does not exist. How do I know this? Because Rand Paul's amendment in relation to the issue does not identify the Sec. of the US Code or Patriot Act that he wishes to amend. If it was amending a provision that actually existed, it should name it.

Of course, I have actually read the Patriot Act, so I actually happen to know what I am talking about somewhat. Now, if I missed something, please point it out.

I'd be interested in a rebuttal from somebody on this.

 

[knarf]

Three central federal powers: the 'roving wiretap' powers which allows ongoing electronic surveillance of foreign suspects regardless of communication device or location; the 'library provisions' power which allow a very broad range of personal material to be investigated; and the 'lone wolf' provisions which give the government authority to investigate foreigners, even if they have no known affiliation with terrorist groups. The only requirement for these provisions is that an order from secret federal courts are required.

 

[nate895]

Three central federal powers: the 'roving wiretap' powers which allows ongoing electronic surveillance of foreign suspects regardless of communication device or location; the 'library provisions' power which allow a very broad range of personal material to be investigated; and the 'lone wolf' provisions which give the government authority to investigate foreigners, even if they have no known affiliation with terrorist groups. The only requirement for these provisions is that an order from secret federal courts are required.

All require warrants issued by FISA courts. Now, I have some problems with the FISA court since it is not adversarial. I think they should have permanent staff of opposing attorneys there. However, they are not unconstitutional violations of your liberties. They might have some potential for abuse, but they do not, in-and-of themselves constitute violations of 4th amendment rights.

 

[Brett85]

I know I'll be considered a heretic for asking this question, but most of you probably consider me one anyway, but what provision of the reauthorization do you have a problem with Mulvaney voting to reauthorize? I oppose Sec. 105 (Presidential authority to shut down foreign terrorist organization's financial operations, without judicial review of any sort whatsoever) and Sec. 505 (NSL's which has since been amended to be a bit more tolerable, since you can appeal to a judge challenging them now). Neither of those provisions were up for a vote, having been made permanent.

All the other provisions either provide for FISA Court warrants or define "Exigent Circumstances". Rand Paul's rhetoric about Gun Record is concerning a provision that does not exist. How do I know this? Because Rand Paul's amendment in relation to the issue does not identify the Sec. of the US Code or Patriot Act that he wishes to amend. If it was amending a provision that actually existed, it should name it.

Of course, I have actually read the Patriot Act, so I actually happen to know what I am talking about somewhat. Now, if I missed something, please point it out.

The Suspicous Activity Reports basically require banks to report any activity that they deem "suspicious," which basically means any transaction over $5,000. When the government goes through your bank records, it prohibits your bank from telling you that you're being investigated. Also, if you feel that you're being targeted by the Patriot Act, the only person you can confide in is your lawyer. If you confide in anyone else, you can receive up to 5 years in prison. This clearly violates the 1st amendment.

 

[nate895]

The Suspicous Activity Reports basically require banks to report any activity that they deem "suspicious," which basically means any transaction over $5,000. When the government goes through your bank records, it prohibits your bank from telling you that you're being investigated. Also, if you feel that you're being targeted by the Patriot Act, the only person you can confide in is your lawyer. If you confide in anyone else, you can receive up to 5 years in prison. This clearly violates the 1st amendment.

The permanent gag orders are a part of Sec. 505 NSL's, which I oppose as well, and the one court that has actually heard a case on the matter has ruled the permanent gag orders unconstitutional (but reissued one by the court, which was recently lifted). Sec. 505 and related provisions were not up for a vote this because they are now "permanent" (at least until, Lord willing, they are repealed or SCOTUS rules them unconstitutional). The provisions related to banks reporting are not a part of this renewal, either, and the summoning power for banks can be appealed to the courts. The reporting requirements go back to the Bank Secrecy Act.

See, what looks like happened to me is that the PTB wanted to pass the rather controversial provisions-related to required reporting and, NSLs, etc., and so what they did was put forward the Patriot Act and say "hey, vote for this, it will be sunsetted if you wind up not liking it anyway." However, the legitimately unconstitutional provision are all outside the sunset part of the bill (Title II). Title II, which is the one that comes up for a vote every so often, is rather innocuous and can be easily argued to be within Congressional authority. So, what happens is we have this guy arguing that Mick Mulvaney is going to take away his voting and free speech rights, when all Mick Mulvaney did was continue the extension of FISA court jurisdiction. So, now we are fighting against people who are really allies in our fight against big gov because we think Mulvaney, Bachmann, etc. voted for something they actually didn't.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Nate, why don't you call Rand Paul's office and ask an aide for clarification.

 

[nate895]

Nate, why don't you call Rand Paul's office and ask an aide for clarification.

I'll go ahead and do that. No one else seems to have an answer to that one in particular.

Edit: I should also note that this has not changed my very positive opinion of Rand. We're all entitled to make a few mistakes now and then, and his other three amendments were spot on as far as I could tell. I just don't like that we're creating all these storms and making enemies with people who are not, all things considered, enemies. We should test even our own people and make sure they're not making something out of nothing.

 

[JK/SEA]

I'm still looking to hear why we need the Patriot Act.

anyone?