Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security. What is going on up there with our new fool proof Patriot Act? I thought this administration wasn't spying on Americans. Wasn't this American girl 14?
212662
he wouldn't dare, even fat ugly repuglicans don't like pedophiles. Nobody likes pedophiles, but I do wonder if it was discussed
532591
yea, great idea, oh yea what are you doing about being under threat.  funny us dumb american knows more about your country than you do..\n\nTony Blair today backed the assessment of the head of MI5 that the "very real" threat from terrorism would last a generation.\nIn a rare public speech yesterday, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, director general of the intelligence agency, expressed concern at the rate at which young people, including teenagers, were being radicalised and indoctrinated.\n\nShe said MI5 was tracking more than 1,600 individuals who were actively engaged in promoting attacks here and abroad. Many of these were British-born and had connections with al-Qaida, she said.\n\nResponding to her comments that the threat would "be with us for a generation", the prime minister said today Britain faced a "long and deep struggle" to combat the danger posed by terrorism.
541147
I'm a disbeliever.  However, I'll take you up on your challenge and watch BookTV tonight (I try to catch it whenever I can anyway).  Who is the author?\n\nIf you're suggesting that the current administration (as bad as it is) was complicit in 9/11, then I strongly disagree.  If, on the other hand, you're simply talking about their ignorance and incompetence then, yes, they did have something to do with it.
671944
I have been reading your questions on ask the planet as they come along during the day. You are really passionate about these issuse. I saw the report and I must say I see your point. Its like that movie, Vendetta with natalie portman. Did you watch it. Its very similar to what is happening right now. One person's terrorists is another person's hero. Im never quick to believe everything that is broadcasted from the American media. They are more about propoganda than truth. What can we do. American said they prefer Bush by voting him back in power. And he has successfully managed to manipulate you through the media. What the rest of the world is still asking... Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
92706
national security doesn't just help individuals. people who value privacy more than the sanctity of human life should admit themselves to a f***in insane asylum. at least that way they wouldn't run the chance of withholding valuable information from the government that could help prevent loss of more American citizens, however disgusting some may be. like those self-centered a**holes concerned about their privacy. "oh, the government is trying to spy on us". Oh, grow a f***in spine! the only reason these people are complaining is because they have something to hide. to those people i say, hide your secrets up your a** like all the other drug smugglers or in your shoes like that one bomber sh**head!
180364
I really like "SUPPORT DENMARK'S" remarks man! You are aware this kid is from Northern Ireland, and isnt a American anyway. I would think IRA, most likely terrorist from Ireland strirring up America. Ann Coulter is man, and one of those sick kind too. I think he must have to get a waxing at least twice a week.
508417
I hear that.  I find it ironic that our country was founded by people who spoke out against the establishment, and yet now we are faced with an administration that claims that if we don't think, speak and act like them we are against them and giving comfort and safe harbor to the terrorists.  BS!  I love this country - if I didn't I wouldn't be so concerned about its current direction.  I am a Patriot.  I'm also a huge fan of thinking for myself.   Bottom line - you are not a traitor.
19770
Unfortunately, the current administration is adept at using labels to disguise the real intent of laws and other actions. For example, the "Clean Air Act" actually encouraged more pollution that before. The Patriot Act encourages violations of our constitution and a strengthening of the executive branch. Some aspects are worthwhile, but the name makes it difficult to object to its details without being called unpatriotic. Sad to see the stifling of legitimate criticism. \nAs far as a better title, perhaps the Surveillance Act?
608256
To Shug and Ben, you obviously DON'T remember 9/11. Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, attacked the United States on that day. However, instead of going after the person who attacked us, Georgie went after Iraq. Where is Osama? In Tora Bora, protected by the Conserviweenies who're scared of protecting us just because Pakistan is harboring a terrorist. As for Iraq, this is for oil. Where were you?
131655
OMG! "The document is only available to the certain members of Congress and the Home Land Security."?????\n\nIt is answers like these that EVERYONE should take shame in. There are good liberals who believe that the Democrats are right and can make good arguments against the Patriot Act. I don't necessarily agree with them, but the arguments can be made. Political debate is the cornerstone of our great republic and answers like the two before mine do a great disservice to our nation and the liberal cause.\n\nIf you are a liberal, I challenge you to challenge these two answers.\n\nThe original text of the Patriot Act can be found in a PDF file here:\n\nhttp://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hr3162.pdf\n\nAn online, searchable version can be found here:\n\nhttp://www.asksam.com/eBooks/Patriot%5FAct/\n\nAnswerman and Margret_Moses - please take your nonsense elsewhere. People are actually trying to expand their horizons here.\n\nEDIT: You liberals are absolutely amazing. Here someone is trying to expand their horizons, and you CONTINUALLY spread VERIFIABLE out-and-out lies. If you absolutely insist, I will provide your .gov link to the document:\n\nhttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf#search='text%20of%20patriot%20act%20.gov'\n\nThat is the website to the Government Printing Office (GPO). Official enough for you?\n\nNow, open version and open the link to the findlaw.com link I supplied. Notice anything funny? HEY!! IT'S THE SAME DOCUMENT! Same number of pages, same words on every page, the same document.\n\nAs I said, I can PROVE what I post here ... How are you going to prove your statement, Margret_Moses ... ummmm, I mean Larry_Joe.
595344
is Did this really happen.Someone needs to read the papers and just see what  is and has happening in our country. tell them to read about 911 and other security breaches.I do believe that home Land security is following up. they sure as hell wouldn't just let this pass as if it were nothing, or would they
47240
Bush wants to wiretap Americans on a wild goose chase for terrorists - yet he allows 6 ports to be placed under the operational control of a company from UAE, home to 2 of the 9/11 hijackers.\n\nGee, yeah, Bush is doing "a heck of a job".
189130
First thing, most people get the quote wrong.\n\nEveryone agrees (pretty much) that temporary or minor sacrifies are not a big deal. Or if you don't, how many are sacrificing their liberties by wearing a seatbelt in the name of security?\n\nThe issue, as many see it, is whether we should sacrifice permanent or essential liberties, in the name of temporary or illusionary security ("...deserve neither liberty nor security").\n\nHow many people actually believe that the airport security would stop a determined intelligent hijacker, other than by shear luck? But it makes most people feel better, so we give up those liberties in the name of illusionary security.\n\nAccording to some current polls, the majority of US citizens agree that we should allow the government to eavesdrop on anything they want, all in the name of security against terrorists. But how many really believe that out of the 300 million people in the US, and nobody knows how many billions of phone calls and emails per day, that the 6 people actually plotting the next terrorist attack (I'm guessing, no I don't have firsthand knowledge) will be caught?\n\nWould we all be safer if police could just grab anyone at any time and search them? Or if all weapons were illegal? Or if all phone calls had to be pre-approved and were always monitored, thus limiting each person to 1-2 calls per day? Or if people had to have federally approved licenses to check out books from the library, and the government could decide who was allowed to read what? Or if everyone had their federal SSN/ID# tattood on their forehead? Probably. But are those sacrifies worth the gains?\n\nIs it worth removing constitutional protections to gain security? Maybe a little. Probable cause, emergency circumstances, other exceptions on an as-needed basis. But there's always a slippery slope. There's always a point where it becomes too much lost for too little gain.\n\nOur country, right now, is figuring out where it thinks the lines should be. And this choice is likely to have a significant impact on us for decades to come.
425560
Sources:  Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Keith Obermann, Jerry Springer.  This came out today and I also heard that the UN was p'ssed off at USA also for having this crap on the "internets" At the insistence of bush and Hoekstra and some other congressman on the hill  Negroponte was forced to set up the procedure to get this stuff put out there for all of us and any interested terrorist to see and study up on.  Thank God bush isn't all that good using "the Google" or what else would he compromise in our "best interests".  The New York Times should be commended for getting this issue out into the open.
78978
I'm sorry I don't have the time to read all of that right now, but I plan to.  Quick question, does it define what terrorism is anywhere in there.  If it does, please tell me where so I can read that.\n\nIf not, There is my issue with it.
623168
EXACTLY!!!\n\nThere is a story circulating right now about the Bush administration, ONCE AGAIN, violating privacy laws by getting access to all banking/financial transactions; although, they claim to have only looked at international transactions. They have the authority to do this BUT not until they go before a judge and get approval. Of course with Bush not believing in the consitution, he did not do that = broke the law AGAIN!!\n\nNow, to counter this Bush has been bombarding talk radio and Fox News (even saw an upset guy on pbs The Newshour yesterday about it) with propaganda that does not explain the entire story as I did in the first paragraph. \n\nTheir defense is we are in a 'war on terror'. So, basically because we are in a war on terror, they believe they can ignore all the laws and ppl's right to privacy, etc...\n\nSo, as you stated... with them attacking the press for reporting this story.. there goes freedom of speech and the press.\n\nBtw, the laws about a reporter revealing his/her source are very vague. A reporter does have the right to tell his/her source but most don't because that hinders ppl from wanting to tell them things later. I personally think that if someone tells a reporter something and the act of telling is in itself breaking the law then the reporter SHOULD be required to tell his/her source. IE, this Carl Rove thing about the CIA agent leak. We all know he was behind that but the reporter won't tell.
582235
I'm ashamed you have a computer punk boy everyone jot this name down. I have sent his IP address and name onto FBI and Homeland Security. He is posting many anti-American spouts and they will check on him.