First published at Blogcritics as Patriot Act Extended.
Top lawmakers in the House and Senate reached a deal to extend the Patriot Act another four years, allowing the continued use of roving wiretaps, the compelling of businesses to release records, and surveillance of so-called “lone wolf” terror suspects.
“Civil liberties” groups (READ: ACLU) reacted with perfunctory anger.
Surveillance and intelligence gathering on domestic threats is an absolute necessity. The terrorists in this country depend on civil liberties groups like the ACLU, an apparatus for every subversive, anti-democracy malignancy that exists, and invasion of privacy fears to steer laws away from their activities. Paranoid and self-absorbed types who think the NSA listens in on their phone conversations with Grandma, are wasting their angst.
Although the Patriot Act deals with domestic surveillance, not foreign, the point is moot, Bin Laden had connections and collaborators in the United States well before 9/11, and his soul mates are still here.
Terrorists use legitimate businesses as well as social and religious organizations to launder money they use to facilitate operations and attacks. They use pay phones, disposable phones, Blackberries, and third parties to pass information. That’s why roving wiretaps work.
Muslim terrorists are let in by the State Department, crossing the southern border, and making friends with Dem lawmakers, and in the military, and operating carte blanche across the country.
The NSA has its hands full.
If anything, wiretaps should be used to monitor some of Obama’s friends and associates; CAIR, William Ayers, the Arab American Action Network (a terrorist front), the Muslim Brotherhood (another terrorist front), and Hatem El-Hady, former chairman of the Islamic “charity” Kindhearts, which was closed by the US government in February 2006 for terrorist fundraising, just to name a few. And considering everything Obama’s done for national security, eavesdropping on him might not be such a bad idea.
The NSA’s goal is to scan for terrorists. On the flip side, the TSA targetsSoldiers, children, wheel-chair bound cancer patients, and thermoses.
The real threats to civil liberties are things like ObamaCare, his collusion with Google, his net neutrality ploy, Mark Lloyd, the Communications Diversity “czar” in the FCC, who believes freedom of speech is an “exaggeration”, government Obamabots who snoop into the records of citizens who dare to question his spread the wealth socialism, and Dem legislators and their union pals who assault opponents verbally and physically.
Whatever your concerns about the Patriot Act, it pales in comparison to the damage Obama’s doing to national security and civil liberties.
Related posts:
http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/obama-seeks-to-extend-patriot-act/
http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/07/09/chalk-one-up-for-national-security/
http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/judge-rules-against-parts-of-patriot-act-in-terrorism-case/
http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/the-homegrown-terrorism-prevention-act/
Related article:
The last time I checked in here, I inquired why you hadn’t posted anything at Blogcritics.org in the preceding 30 days. You replied, “I’ll probably post another article on Blogcritics soon.” That was more than a month ago. It’s now been over two months since your last Blogcritics article. Did you quit posting there? If so, I’m interested in the reason.
Alan,
I haven’t been banned from the site or anything like that. I just don’t feel like posting there too often for a few reasons. First, I don’t like the idea of modifying my expressions to suit their sensitivities. Secondly, I don’t like waiting two or three days for the post to be published when I can post the same thing on my blog immediately. Third, and this is minor, I like to hyperlink to posts on my blog which contain numerous other links to external sites and articles, which in my opinion, saves time, but they frown on that. They prefer I just link the external sites.
In anycase, when I post on there again, you’ll know.
SFC MAC
SFC MAC, it’s been 30 days since you published this article first at Blogcritics.org. Since then you have posted nothing new there. Did you quit after only six articles? Assuming BC did not editorially compromise your work, I should think you’d be eager to take advantage of their reach, which is much greater than your blog. Isn’t it important to get the truth out to as many people as possible? It makes no sense to hide your light under a bushel.
Alan,
I shine my light on here all the time. Having said that, I’ll probably post another article on Blogcritcs soon.
SFC MAC
Pingback: US Patriot Act extended to 2015 and gives government direct access to 300 million mobiles | iToD Daily
We’re on the same page regarding Obama. The problem with new powers is that while you may trust the standing administration at the time of their inception once they’re gone and the next administration has the same powers. I do not trust the Obama administration not to abuse the powers for purely political aims that have nothing to do with national security or fighting America’s enemies but are instead used against those who oppose the administration.
It is simple enough to get comprehensive taps of all communications devices and have it signed by one of the FISA judges. Without the check of an independent judiciary the administration can do whatever it wants and keep it buried.
The Patriot Act is a double edged sword that the government can’t be trusted to wield. I was uncomfortable when Bush instituted it and and now extremely concerned that the Obama administration wields it. The 4th amendment isn’t just a nice idea who’s time has passed. It is an important check against executive excess and abuse.
It’s not that hard to get a FISA judge to sign off on a warrant. With no review required the executive can proceed as they wish against whoever they wish.
Ben Franklin nailed it when he warned, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Dan,
The concerns you expressed are certainly valid. My only concern is the fact that the Obama regime is currently in charge of the ‘double edged sword’. If the Patriot act had not ben extended to allow roaming wiretaps, what could have been done in the meantime? It may not be that hard to get a judge’s signature, but that requires a specific target. What about all of the potential terrorists missed due to the lack of roaming wiretaps? Believe me, as a Libertarian-leaning conservative, I appreciate the alarm bells that go off whenever the government grabs power it was not granted by the people. Which is why considering Obama’s background, friends, associates, and unconstitutional tactics, the NSA should wield some of that eavesdropping ability on him. I’m not kidding. He’s the most dangerous threat to our security I’ve seen in years. He poses more of a threat than roaming wiretaps.
SFC MAC