patrick.net

bob2356 says

The DOJ has the power to report but lacks jurisdiction over the FBI, so there are no checks and balances.The only check is congress.

The FBI is an agency of the JOJ, so therefore it most certainly has "jurisdiction" over the FBI. Director Mueller reports to Attorney General Holder.bob2356 says

Anyway what I’m talking about is day in day out is this reasonable types of checks and balances. That’s what the entire bill of rights is about.

This is a side point, but it is the body (Articles) of the Constitution that define the government and the "checks and balances" among the different branches. The Bill of Rights is almost entirely about restricting the Federal Government from infringing upon the individual rights of the people and limiting its rights vs. those of the States. So if your point is that the Patriot Act is allowing the Federal government to infringe upon the peoples' constitutional rights, ergo the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, then that's a fair question to at least ask, but it certainly would require some more specific details to support.
bob2356 says

The FBI has way overstepped on a systemic basis. I’m not against law enforcement or anti terrorism, I’m very much a supporter. But the reality is if that there are far too many people in any field that you care to name that will cheat if they know they won’t have anyone double checking them at some point. That’s my point, which you seem to be missing in total. Why do so many sections of the Patriot act sidestep any kind of oversight? Did the court system suddenly become tools of terrorists. Why are FBI agents so trustworthy and court officers can’t be trusted. The only answer as has been proven already is people want to take shortcuts without getting caught.

While I don't dispute that this can occur, your conclusion regarding "the only answer" is far from being proven. You are trying to prove that the Patriot Act (at least this provision of it) was crafted in order to allow people to "take shortcuts without getting caught" and because those supporting it presume that the "court officers can't be trusted?" Because you muddy some valid concerns with such an absolute but faulty conclusion makes me believe that your knowledge of this is not from reading the law itself or objective reviews of it.

bob2356 says

The result is innocent people are getting dragged into the system without any recourse.

OK, a suspected terrorist from Spain.... Any other examples of systematic entrapment of innocent people, particularly US Citizens?

bob2356 says

If you want I will cut and paste the entire sections from the actual act, but it will be an really huge post.

It's not necessary to copy and paste the entire sections... You can simply cite the specific sections of the law, along with your specfic objections to them. It's easy for anyone to then look up those sections without needing to filibuster the thread.

bob2356 says

Or are you just being disingenuous?

Maybe, maybe not. I can deny that I am, just like I can deny that I kick my dog, but you will probably believe what you wish regardless ... If I am, it is probably no moreso than folks who are asked to cite specific sections of the act that they object to but repeatedly do not provide any citations. Just curious... Did you actually read the law?

crickets....

shrekgrinch says

NuttBoxer says

If you are comfortable with your government spying on you, that is certainly up to you, but most of us are not, dating back to the founding of this country when we wrote it into the Constitution.

Show me WHERE in the Constitution that the government can’t ’spy on you’. Please. I’d like to read the text.

(Maybe I missed that your response is intended to be ironic...)
IV --: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Of course, this is all up to interpretation, and progressively the SCOTUS is stacked further away from a liberty-focused intent, and more towards the state having all power over the individual to protect itself, usually under the guise of protecting the people from this bogeyman or that, most of which are the byproduct of government action in the first place.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
--H. L. Mencken

Not all are imaginary, but many are self-created. The more you intervene, the more your actions create more problems for which more intervention is always the government proposed solution.

Good general points, but now please point out the specific sections of the Patriot Act that they are relevant to....

Extended again...

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/u-s-congress-passes-four-year-extension-of-patriot-act

Sometimes I wish the torturers would undergo what they did to others...a sort of poetic justice.