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

[nate895]

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

anyone?

The most important provisions lie in Title VIII ("Strengthening the Criminal Laws Against Terrorism"). Those provisions define the crime of terrorism (which Congress has the authority to do since terrorism is against the Law of Nations, and Congress can define and punish those crimes) and provide for punishment of it and related crimes, mostly stiffening already existing penalties, and I'm all for increasing penalties on things that should actually be crimes (for the most part at least).

Title II is made pursuant to the power of Congress to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, and to define their jurisdiction. Also, it is necessary and proper, pursuant to both constituting tribunals and defining crimes against the law of nations, to constitute tribunals for the purpose of investigating those crimes.

Now, these courts are secret, and there might be some debate about that, but given that Congress was given the ability to meet in secret (a power it has rarely exercise, albeit, which is a good thing), I cannot help but think that the Founders intended on there being some level of government secrecy. Not in the rogue CIA fashion for sure, but actually pursuant to legitimate constitutional functions (as I have already described), I see little problem in providing for some level of discreteness, especially on the delicate matter of foreign intelligence and counter-espionage enforcement. However, I will grant that it has gone too far and some scaling back of government secrecy must happen in order to prevent unconstitutional and dangerous power from being usurped by some sort of shadow government.

 

[JK/SEA]

Ahh, i see. So the Patriot Act is all about terrorism then. What i never see is what the definition of terrorism is...exactly. Seems to be fluid. If it were left up to RPF to determine what terrorism is, we would get a different definition say compared to General Dynamics or the Boeing Company, or a politician who has lots to lose by way of jobs by building cruise missiles in Arizona. etc etc. correct?

 

[nate895]

Ahh, i see. So the Patriot Act is all about terrorism then. What i never see is what the definition of terrorism is...exactly. Seems to be fluid. If it were left up to RPF to determine what terrorism is, we would get a different definition say compared to General Dynamics or the Boeing Company, or a politician who has lots to lose by way of jobs by building cruise missiles in Arizona. etc etc. correct?

18 US Code 2331

As used in this chapter—
(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 mass destruction, 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;

(2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;

(3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and

(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.

Is that unreasonable?

 

[YumYum]

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 the Patriot Act because it allows the government to hire outside sources, such as AT&T, to get into my computer without my knowledge, and look at all my emails; bank-accounts, bookmarks, comments and activities on discussion forums, and anything else of a personal nature. In Missouri, Ron Paul supporters were labeled "terrorists", and as such every Ron Paul supporter should ask the question: under the Patriot Act, has someone been snooping into my personal information? There is no "secret court", because paid employees of outfits like AT&T have authorization under the Homeland Security to search wherever and whomever they want. So, you just want to hope and pray that you don't have someone who doesn't like you, and has a friend working for one of these outside companies who are under contract with Homeland Security. Under the Patriot Act, any and all personal information can be accessed by some "Joe Blow" who is making $10 an hour, and working for some outside source, and not the government.

 

[nolvorite]

oh dear god. they all suck

 

[JK/SEA]

18 US Code 2331



Is that unreasonable?

Unreasonable isn't the word i would use. 'The Evil Doctrine' is the best i can come up with for now. After reading that list, i would say anyone that subscribes to that should be arrested and put away. Maybe someday my wish will come true, and i can stop living in fear from this tyrranical government before old age takes me. I'm 60 now, and it isn't looking too good now. I feel sorry for the young ones. I used to be able to go into Canada when i was 18 and go bar hopping, and i didn't need a pass port. I don't go to Canada anymore because i refuse to get a passport. My choice, yes i know, but it illustrates on a smaller scale how the noose is tightening, all because of a few box cutters....makes me go hmmmm?...