Have the feared abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act happened (yet)?

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

I’m less than convinced that some of those descriptions are apt, in the sense of giving respondents a true picture of the workings of the Patriot Act. For instance, I don’t see any explanation of what a National Security Letter is, or how it can be used, or how often it is used, anywhere in that poll.

That’s the data we have. If you’ve got better data, let’s see it.

[E-Sabbath]

John, re: my clarifications of my links, am I in error in cases 2-4 at the moment?

[John_Mace]

@E-Sabbath

John, re: my clarifications of my links, am I in error in cases 2-4 at the moment?

Can you clarify what you’re asking? I honestly have no idea what you mean.

[E-Sabbath]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6910478&postcount=30
Post thirty. Remember, I listed four abuses, the first because it clarified a point I had made from memory, but was not an abuse, the other three which might qualify as legitimate abuses?
You disagreed, and I commented on your disagreement.

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

That’s the data we have. If you’ve got better data, let’s see it.

I don’t. But that fact doesn’t make “the data we have” reliable.

[beagledave]

@Henry-Finland

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-05/a01lo719.htm

NEW BEDFORD – The UMass Dartmouth student who claimed to have been visited by Homeland Security agents over his request for “The Little Red Book” by Mao Zedong has admitted to making up the entire story.

[Bricker]

Bricker
Are we going to be providing cites with any of these recollections?

@Henry-Finland

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm

NEW BEDFORD – A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung’s tome on Communism called “The Little Red Book.” Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library’s interlibrary loan program. The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand’s class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents’ home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said. The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a “watch list,” and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.

As beagledave points out, this was a completely fabricated story, and it was repeated credulously all over the left-wing blogsphere - as well as here in this thread by Henry-Finland. Now the student who crafted this piece of propaganda wants to remain anonymous.

Huh.

[E-Sabbath]

Huh. Well, does it have anything to do with the quieter, but more pervasive massive espionage conducted against americans, as shown in points 2-4 of my earlier statement, or those suggested here?
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412160

Or, of course, radiological sweeping of muslim temples, though that doesn’t appear to be Patriot act activity.

[John_Mace]

@E-Sabbath

Or, of course, radiological sweeping of muslim temples, though that doesn’t appear to be Patriot act activity.

You’re not going to claim that that was illegal are you? I don’t see how the detection of radiation from a building is an unreasonable search.

[Squink]

@John Mace

You’re not going to claim that that was illegal are you? I don’t see how the detection of radiation from a building is an unreasonable search.

US News & World Report

To ensure accurate readings, in up to 15 percent of the cases the monitoring needed to take place on private property, sources say, such as on mosque parking lots and private driveways. Government officials familiar with the program insist it is legal; warrants are unneeded for monitoring from public property, they say, as well as from publicly accessible driveways and parking lots. “If a delivery man can access it, so can we,” says one.

Georgetown University Professor David Cole, a constitutional law expert, disagrees…
Cole points to a 2001 Supreme Court decision, U.S. vs. Kyllo, which looked at police use – without a search warrant – of thermal imaging technology to search for marijuana-growing lamps in a home. The court, in a ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that authorities did in fact need a warrant – that the heat sensors violated the Fourth Amendment’s clause against unreasonable search and seizure.

Then there’s the batshit-crazy aspect of the story:

At its peak, they say, the effort involved three vehicles in Washington, D.C., monitoring 120 sites per day

It’s little wonder Cheney spent so much time in his bunker.

[E-Sabbath]

That is the exact case, Kyllo, that I was thinking of when I read about the sweepings. I am not sure it falls under it, but it certainly is dubious. I didn’t think I needed to mention it, it was recent enough.

http://mirrordot.org/stories/4304d7ba9ca62892ce72f6d09fefbb12/index.html

(Mirrordot mirror of the NYTimes)

Hm. Oh, yeah. No, that’s domestic. Dunno if it’s Patriot, though. Or just blatantly illegal. Either way, why the heck should we give them the power?

[Nars_Glinley]

@Bricker

As beagledave points out, this was a completely fabricated story, and it was repeated credulously all over the left-wing blogsphere - as well as here in this thread by Henry-Finland. Now the student who crafted this piece of propaganda wants to remain anonymous.

Huh.

You’d want to remain anonymous too if you’d screwed up that badly.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

As beagledave points out, this was a completely fabricated story, and it was repeated credulously all over the left-wing blogsphere - as well as here in this thread by Henry-Finland.

Repeated, sure - it was originally published in a reputable newspaper, and all that.

The question is, of what importance was it to the lefty debaters, in this thread or out in the blogsphere?

A. Almost none.

You notice that of the 45 posts in this thread before the story was exposed as a falsehood, exactly three posts mentioned it at all.

In the lefty blogsphere, who treated - or needed to treat - this story as anything more than one of a number of instances of recently-revealed governmental abuse of surveillance powers?

It’s when your whole story (or argument, or whatever) is based on one or two perhaps-a-little-too-good-to-be-true anecdotes from non-mainstream or biased sources that you’ve got a duty to yourself and your readers to question the stories you’re repeating before you do so. But if you’ve got plenty of examples to buttress your argument, I think it hardly matters if one of them turns out to have been faked, as long as you weren’t the one doing it.

Now if you can stop Rush Limbaugh from constructing yet another “why the liberals are so awful” argument from one bullshit anecdote from Newsmax or WorldNetDummy that later turns out to be false, then more power to you.