This is not true. Prove it. Only government sites though no right winger propaganda sites please.

how about for starters it licenses the Justice Department to snoop into our private lives, reading habits and telephone calls and to hold us in custody without evidence of a committed crime.

I am with you on this one, I thought they could find no connection

This should just prove to all that Al qaeda was never a grave threat in Iraq, and that the surge only appeared to work if Sadr maintained his cease-fire.

Bush's policies in Iraq have been and continue to be a farce and a failure!

Awww, Typical Neocon tactic. Show me where the conspiracy in my statement is?

These are things that the people who worked in the 9/11 commission have stated and as far as building 7, go read that P.O.S. and tell me where it mentions building 7.

I deal in what can be proven, nowhere on here have I made the statement 9/11 is an inside job, I have unanswered questions about what happened, but those are not and will not be answered anytime soon.

Can you say without a shadow of a doubt that this Government hasn't used a false flag event in the past? I didn't think so.

While you won't debate what you call conspiracy nuts, I get a kick out making propagandized sheeple run for cover, so if you want to go ahead and lump me in with the Tin Foil hat crowd thats fine, but you had best be able to prove what is and isn't conspiracy "theory".

Like Hot Rod used to say: I Come here to chew bubble gum and kick a$$ and I just ran out of gum.

--------------------------------------------------
A forthcoming book by NYT reporter Philip Shenon � �The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation� � asserts that former 9/11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow interfered with the 9/11 report.

According to the book, Zelikow had failed to inform the commission at the time he was hired that he was instrumental in helping Condoleezza Rice set up Bush�s National Security Council in 2001. Some panel staffers believe Zelikow stopped them from submitting a report depicting Rice�s performance prior to 9/11 as �amount[ing] to incompetence.�

Relying on the accounts of Max Holland, an author and blogger who has obtained a copy of the forthcoming book, ABC reports that Zelikow was holding private discussions with White House political adviser Karl Rove during the course of the 9/11 investigation:

In his book, Shenon also says that while working for the panel, Zelikow appears to have had private conversations with former White House political director Karl Rove, despite a ban on such communication, according to Holland. Shenon reports that Zelikow later ordered his assistant to stop keeping a log of his calls, although the commission�s general counsel overruled him, Holland wrote.

Zelikow flatly denied discussing the commission�s work with Rove. �I never discussed the 9/11 Commission with him, not at all. Period.�

After completing his work with the 9/11 Commission, Zelikow was hired by Condoleezza Rice as Counselor at the State Department. He resigned from that position in late 2006. In 1995, Rice and Zelikow co-authored a book entitled, �Germany Unified and Europe Transformed.�

AND

9/11 Commission: Our investigation was "obstructed"
The bi-partisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, jointly published an Op-Ed in today's New York Times which contains some extremely emphatic and serious accusations against the CIA and the White House. The essence:

[T]he recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes -- and did not tell us about them -- obstructed our investigation.
More strikingly still, they explicitly include the White House at the top of their list of guilty parties:
There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. -- or the White House -- of the commission's interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.
To underscore the seriousness of their accusations, Keane and Hamilton end with this:
What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the (sic) greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.
It's hard to imagine a more serious scandal than this. As I noted the other day, it is a confirmed fact that Alberto Gonzales and David Addingtion -- the top legal representatives of George Bush and **** Cheney, respectively -- participated in discussions as to whether those videotapes should be destroyed. The White House refuses to disclose what these top officials said in those meetings. Did they instruct that the videos should be destroyed or fail to oppose their destruction? The NYT previously quoted one "senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter [who] said there had been 'vigorous sentiment' among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes."

Thus, we have evidence that "top White House officials" vigorously argued that these videos should be destroyed. The number one aides to both the President and Vice President both participated in discussions as to whether they should be, almost certainly with the knowledge and at the direction of their bosses.

And now we have the 9/11 Commission Chairmen stating as explicitly as can be that the mere concealment (let alone destruction) of these videos constituted the knowing and deliberate obstruction of their investigation into the worst attack on U.S. soil in our history. Combined with the fact that the videos' destruction almost certainly constitutes "obstruction of justice" with regard to numerous judicial proceedings as well, we're talking here about extremely serious felonies at the highest levels of our government.

Both legally and politically, it's hard to imagine a more significant scandal than the President and Vice President deliberately obstructing the investigation of the 9/11 Commission by concealing and then destroying vital evidence which the Commission was seeking. Yet that's exactly what the evidence at least suggests has occurred here.

What possible justification is there for the White House to refuse to say what the role of Addington, Gonzales, Bush and Cheney was in all of this? Having been ordered by Bush's new Attorney General not to investigate, are the Senate and House Intelligence Committees (led by the meek Silvestre Reyes and the even meeker Jay Rockefeller) going to compel answers to these questions? In light of this Op-Ed, do Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee think the White House should publicly disclose to the country the role Bush and Cheney played in the destruction of this evidence? If there are any reporters left who aren't traipsing around together in Iowa, it seems pretty clear that this story ought to be dominating the news.

-------------------------------------------------

Who's the conspirator again? I've read and reread the 9/11 commission report, would you like to show me where they talk about how building 7 came down, sweet and perfect, in it's own footprint, even though it wasn't hit by any planes and had very little damage, in comparison to the North and South Towers? If you're gonna call me a conspiracy nut, you best have the testicular fortitude to back that statement up, pal.

They scream liberal, commie, democrat, etc.... oh and conspiracy to defend their own sick agenda because they have no REAL solid defense to Bush's actions while in office.

Troops are doing the best that they can do given the orders to follow. Bush is at fault for attacking a sovereign country who had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam be all that he was did not attack us. He is not bin laden.

It allows for phone taps of people on American soil contacting known terrorists. I see nothing wrong with that. The goal of anti-terrorism must be to stop the crime before it happens, because the crime could be the deaths of hundreds of people.

Next?

I hope you are right about this. I do know for a fact that Iraq is a bit of a melting pot for many of the other "terrorist" countries. Seeming how most of the insurgents we detained/killed are from Iran or Syria. I've been trying to point this out for some time.

you cant prove the other side of the argument without going to left winger sites either... guess we're all kinda screwed

is that right? Is this a terrorist?
PATRIOT ACT: Law's use causing concerns

Use of statute in corruption case unprecedented, attorneys contend
By J.M. KALIL and
STEVE TETREAULT
REVIEW-JOURNAL





The investigation of strip club owner Michael Galardi and numerous politicians appears to be the first time federal authorities have used the Patriot Act in a public corruption probe.

Government officials said Tuesday they knew of no other instances in which federal agents investigating allegations such as racketeering and bribery of politicians have employed the act.

"I don't know that it's been used in a public corruption case before this," said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department.

An attorney for one of the defendants in the Galardi case said he researched the matter for hours Tuesday and came to the same conclusion.

"I have discussed this with lawyers all over the country, and if the government has done this before, then this is definitely the first time it has come to light," said Las Vegas attorney Dominic Gentile, who represents former Clark County Commissioner Lance Malone, Galardi's lobbyist.

Two of Nevada's lawmakers blasted the FBI for employing the act in the Galardi probe, saying the agency overstepped its bounds.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Congress intended the Patriot Act to help federal authorities root out threats from terrorists and spies after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"The law was intended for activities related to terrorism and not to naked women," said Reid, who as minority whip is the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate.

"Let me say, with Galardi and his whole gang, I don't condone, appreciate or support all their nakedness. But having said that, I haven't heard anyone say at any time he was involved with terrorism."

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said she was preparing an inquiry to the FBI about its guidelines for using the Patriot Act in cases that don't involve terrorism. The law makes it easy for citizens' rights to be abused, she said.

"It was never my intention that the Patriot Act be used for garden-variety crimes and investigations," Berkley said.

But Corallo insisted lawmakers were fully aware the Patriot Act had far-reaching implications beyond fighting terrorism when the legislation was adopted in October 2001.

"I think probably a lot of members (of Congress) were only interested in the anti-terrorism measures," Corallo said. "But when the Judiciary Committee sat down, both Republicans and Democrats, they obviously discussed the applications, that certain provisions could be used in regular criminal investigations."

Federal authorities confirmed Monday the FBI used the Patriot Act to get financial information in its probe of Galardi and his dealings with current and former politicians in Southern Nevada.

"It was used appropriately by the FBI and was clearly within the legal parameters of the statute," said Special Agent Jim Stern of the Las Vegas field office of the FBI.

One source said two Las Vegas stockbrokers were faxed subpoenas Oct. 28 asking for records for many of those identified as either a target or subject of the investigation.

That list includes Galardi, owner of Jaguars and Cheetah's topless clubs; Malone; former Commissioner Erin Kenny; County Commission Chairwoman Mary Kincaid-Chauncey; former County Commission Chairman Dario Herrera; and former Las Vegas City Councilman Michael McDonald, defeated for re-election in June.

A second source confirmed that stockbrokers had been faxed subpoenas asking for information on Galardi, Malone, Kenny, Kincaid-Chauncey, Herrera, McDonald and at least one of the former politicians' spouses.

That source said the subpoena appeared to be a search for hidden proceeds that could be used as evidence of bribery. A source also indicated that records on Las Vegas City Councilman Michael Mack were sought.

Sources said the FBI sought the records under Section 314 of the act. That section allows federal investigators to obtain information from any financial institution regarding the accounts of people "engaged in or reasonably suspected, based on credible evidence, of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering activities."

Gentile, Malone's attorney, said he plans to mount a legal challenge once he confirms the Patriot Act was used to investigate his client. "My research today indicates that this is the first time the government has used Section 314 in a purely white-collar criminal investigation."

Attorney General John Ashcroft has touted the law as an effective homeland security tool, but coalitions of civil libertarians and conservatives concerned about a too-powerful federal government have led criticism against it.

Corallo said federal law enforcement officials have no qualms about using the act to pursue an array of criminal investigations that have nothing to do with terrorism, such as child pornography, drug trafficking and money laundering.

"I think most of the American people think the Patriot Act is a good thing and it's not affecting their civil liberties at all, and that the government should use any constitutional and legal tools it can, whether it's going after garden-variety criminals or terrorists."

But Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, expressed outrage at Corallo's suggestion that lawmakers were largely aware the Patriot Act's provisions would equip the FBI with new investigative tools beyond the scope of terrorism investigations.

"Those comments are disingenuous at best and do little to inspire confidence that the act won't be systematically abused," Peck said.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said it may be too soon to weigh its application to a Nevada investigation that still is largely under wraps. Prosecutors have announced no indictments.

Citing the ongoing investigation, Sen. John Ensign and Rep. Jon Porter, both R-Nev., declined to be interviewed.

Porter was not in Congress when lawmakers approved the Patriot Act, but the other four Nevada lawmakers voted as part of large majorities in favor of the measure.

The Patriot Act will expire in 2005 unless Congress renews it. "More activity like this is going to cause us to take a close look at what was passed," Reid said of the law being invoked in the Galardi probe.


Review-Journal writer Carri Geer Thevenot contributed to this report. Stephens Washington Bureau chief Steve Tetreault reported from Washington, D.C.

How about this


Patriot Act Used In 16-Year-Old Deportation Case
Administration Revives 1987 Effort
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 23, 2003; Page A03

The Bush administration has decided to pursue a 16-year-old effort to deport two Palestinian activists who as students distributed magazines and raised funds for a group the government now considers a terrorist organization, despite several court rulings that the deportations are unconstitutional because the men were not involved in terrorist activity.


The case, which has long had a high profile among Palestinian Americans, could pose a new judicial test of a controversial provision in the Patriot Act, passed in 2001. The provision prohibits supplying material support for organizations the government deems "terrorist," even without evidence of a link to specific terrorist acts.

At the time of their initial arrests in 1987, the activists, Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh, were allegedly affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Marxist group that has advocated an independent Palestinian state and has been involved in various acts of terrorism.

The government alleges that Hamide and Shehadeh helped raise funds for the PFLP in the mid-1980s at California churches, a Scottish Rite temple and an auditorium owned by the Veterans of Foreign Wars and distributed magazines for the group.

Hamide and Shehadeh deny any affiliation with the PFLP and say they are being punished for speaking on behalf of the Palestinian cause. Hamide is now a coffee salesman and Shehadeh is a restaurant manager; both live with their families in California and say they have no connection to terrorism.

"I don't know any other home," Shehadeh said in a telephone interview. "This is a political case" being pursued because of bureaucratic inertia, he said. "We were never charged with doing anything ourselves."

In seeking the deportation in 1987 of Hamide, Shehadeh and six other Palestinian immigrants allegedly associated with the PFLP, the Reagan administration's Justice Department invoked a provision of the Cold War-era McCarran-Walter Act, which barred membership in communist groups. But a lawsuit filed by the so-called L.A. 8 led a federal appeals court to declare the law an unconstitutional infringement of free speech, and Congress repealed it in 1990.

The deportation cases nonetheless continued to churn through the courts because Congress's action did not affect pending disputes. Then-FBI Director William Webster conceded in 1987 that none of the eight had engaged in terrorist activity and that they would not have been arrested if they were U.S. citizens. Civil liberties groups charged that the government was wrongly excluding the immigrants from traditional protections of free speech and association.

Six of the cases were ultimately deemed minor technical violations. In January, the Bush administration was given a summer deadline for declaring whether it would still seek to invoke the McCarran Act. Last week, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that it would pursue the deportations but drew on the language of the Patriot Act.

A department spokesman yesterday declined to elaborate.

"This has always been a case of guilt by association, and nothing more," said Georgetown University Law professor David Cole, who has been their attorney for more than a decade.




It's not what you know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so!

How would they know for sure you are contacting terrorists? They cannot until they violate your civil rights to hear your conversations. It is not as inocuous as it sounds.

If all this "anti-terror" crap is for is terrorism, then explain the million or so names on the TSA watch list? If there were a Million terrorists coming in and out of this country, then we are already screwed. Why has it been reported that the NSA isn't selectively taking calls to go over, but have their own little rooms in the major Telecoms buildings with the "big brother" machine piping all the electronic info to them?

Step away from the Fox, it's bad for the Cognitive processes.

If we would have just invaded Al-Qaedaia land......


Wait. A terrorist organization might not have a country of their own with borders and an organized militia. They might be a large group of nomads that move from one place to another. Getting there funding from anywhere they can, and from anyone who agrees with their beliefs.

But thats just crazy talk. Right?

Looks like I killed yet another thread.

Watch out with that crazy talk, you might be labeled a conspiracy nut.

I think that was Afghanistan, anyone remember that country?

The Opium capitol of the planet? Sure I remember Afghanistan. Too bad Bin Laden ain't there anymore...

http://www.google.com/search?q=patriot+act+of+2001&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a



[PDF]
FindLaw: Text of USA Patriot Act of 2001
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
PATRIOT ACT). Act of 2001. Oct. 26, 2001. [H.R. 3162]. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:15 Nov 05, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00056 Frm 00002 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6582 ...
news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hr3162.pdf - Similar pages