Bush Hyping Patriot Act Claims
Bush Hyping Patriot Act Claims
Today, President Bush took to the stump to call for the renewal of the Patriot Act. To bolster his case, Bush claimed the Patriot Act helped nab suspected terrorist Iyman Faris. In his speech, Bush said:
Here is what one FBI agent said — he said, “The Faris case would not have happened without sharing information.” That information-sharing was made possible by the Patriot Act.
There’s no doubt that information-sharing was extremely influential in leading to the FBI’s apprehension of Faris, but whether the Patriot Act allowed for greater information sharing is doubtful. Faris’s capture has been politicized before. In June 2004, John Ashcroft took to the microphone in Columbus, Ohio, during the middle of a heated presidential election to announce the “capture” of Faris, who was already in jail serving a 20-year sentence. Many read the Bush administration’s actions on the Faris capture as being a political effort to push for the renewal of the Patriot Act, and they claim the Act is not as influential as Bush would lead us to believe.
The Columbus Dispatch investigated this question and found some skepticism regarding Bush’s claim. Nancy Luque, a prominent defense attorney in Washington, was quoted as saying, “Ashcroft is using this [capture of Faris] as a paid political announcement for the Patriot Act when I see nothing here that required its use. The information-sharing is better, but I doubt that is a result of the Patriot Act, but more to do with 9/11.”
Luque is not the only one who questions whether information-sharing in the Patriot Act is all that it has been billed up to be. An analysis by the Center for Democracy & Technology reported that the Patriot Act did little to change the way information was shared among government agencies:
“The outcry over the PATRIOT Act has little to do with the increased ability of federal agencies to share relevant intelligence or increase their coordination. In fact, there was never a legal bar to intelligence agencies sharing information with prosecutors. Intelligence and law enforcement officials weren’t effectively sharing information and using their existing powers not because of legal barriers, but because of their overly strict interpretation of then-existing law, cultural problems, and turf wars among agencies.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
You can say whatever you want but there have been ZERO attacks on American soil since we passed this act. That's all I need to know.
June 9th, 2005 at 4:34 pmCan we PROVE how many potential attacks have been twarted because of the Patriot Act? Why not review it for what makes sense and what goes beyond the bounds of the American Freedom we all love and find worth fighting over this for.
June 9th, 2005 at 4:39 pmMaybe there have been no attacks in the US becasue they can now kill Americans on theri own turf. Why travel here when you can bolw them up there?
June 9th, 2005 at 4:53 pmBecause two things happen does not mean that one causes the other. If there are worms on the sidewalk after it rains, do you claim that it rained worms?
What is the use for the Patriot Act when our borders are completely defenseless, open wide to anybody?
June 9th, 2005 at 4:55 pmMmmmm, and yesterday they busted a couple suspected terrorists in Lodi, CA.... a coincidence Bush would start pushing for this just now?
http://www.hairytruth.blogspot.com
June 9th, 2005 at 4:59 pmLOL there also hasn't been an attack on US soil since I grew a beard....
June 9th, 2005 at 5:20 pmThat there has been no Attacks on the united states since the inception of the patriot act leans more to the idea that our own government (or entites of same) (or puppetmasters of same) MAY of had somthing to do with us being attacked to begin with, history is filled with instances of Government Sponsered Terrorism afterall. Simply Somthing to think about.....remember it was Ol Ben Franklin Who sayed 'He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
June 9th, 2005 at 5:30 pmThere have been no major earthquakes in CA since Arnold was elected Gov.!
June 9th, 2005 at 5:31 pmBobby, I'm sorry you got a head like a potato...
June 9th, 2005 at 5:32 pmhttp://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/
June 9th, 2005 at 5:33 pm#3 Texafinn,
I'm in total agreement with you. Thee who hate us are kicking our rears on their turf.
Very sad and pathetic.
#7 Jerrard,
June 9th, 2005 at 6:20 pmRight on!
Cute Skid.
What surprises me most about this is that if you go to the rightwing sites, they (the libertarian ones at least) don't like The Patriot Act either. Makes you wonder why they blindly support the bush43 regime. Well, we know why. Its a pride thing I guess. But talkin' about cuttin' off your nose to spite your face...
June 9th, 2005 at 6:20 pmCome to think of it ... in seeking to make the (so-called) PATRIOT Act "final and binding" (so to speak), doesn't it seem as if His Fraudulency has a secret desire for shifting more of the law-enforcement onus upon so-called "vigilance committees" as would be essentially encouraged"whatever means necessary," no matter how cruel or sadistic it may be, in the name of Law and Order?
(That, and the potential for such sadistically depraved excesses tending heavily to the racist, the homophobic and the downright bigoted, all of which can be excused as--you guessed it--"National Safety.")
An issue as bears serious watching, not to mention closer scruitny of just such a likelihood.
June 9th, 2005 at 6:35 pmCome on, does this guy at the top of this list really think Zero attacks have something to do with transforming Constitutional Rights? Does he really think terrorists consult the Patriot Act prior to carrying out an attack? Of course they don't. Does the Administration want to block any naysayers in the CIA, FBI or NSA by monitoring their communications, of course they do, but that was not legal prior to 911, so now they can claim they have double agents on their hands and harass people that don't manfacture WMD's on the spot to justify invading Iraq for PNAC.
June 10th, 2005 at 1:39 pmJoe has a point. Consider their logic about gun comtrol. More guns, fewer gun laws = less crime. More WMDs should equal less terrorism, or something like that. Wait, I'm confused. I'm sorry I mentioned logic. These idiots don't have any clue. They do say all the time that guns control doesn't work, because criminals don't obey the law. Let's just admit defeat. The terrorists have won. Can we have totalitarianism now please? Ahhh, I feel so much more safe.
June 10th, 2005 at 1:49 pmUnder Clinton, didn't we go 6 or 7 years without an attack on American soil? So Bush has a few years before declaring "Mission Accomplished."
June 10th, 2005 at 2:38 pmWell, you have to consider the Oklahoma city bombing as an attack on American soil by the same people who are in power now. If a democrat was in the WH and we controlled both houses of Congress, stuff would be going up all over the place. Just my opinion. But I grant you the point, t0m.
June 11th, 2005 at 4:34 pm