Patriot Act

[EnderAndrew]

A lot of people scream up and down about the Patriot Act and how it steals every right you have.

 

Very few people have any idea what the Act actually covers, and what it doesn't. No one can violate your 5th Ammendment rights, and this Act is no different. However, bad press has Congress backing away from the Patriot Act, which originally passed with strong bipartisan support as a necessary tool for national security.

 

Many didn't realize that before the Patriot Act, branches of US intelligence were forbidden from talking to each other. Some in the 9/11 Comission felt 9/11 could have been prevented if the branches had shared intel.

 

Now Congress is voting to disallow the FBI and CIA to access library records. You may not be aware of this, but the government owns the library system. We also discovered that the 9/11 terrorists used library computers to communicate with each other on the internet because of their lax security and lack of monitoring.

 

Democrats are worried that people might be targetted and harassed because of their reading selections, and honestly we don't want that. However, some 15 provisions of the Patriot Act that both parties initially supported will expire at year's end.

 

Is national perception of this law more important than what it actually does, and whether or not it's needed? National perception is that univerally, the Patriot Act is a bad thing. If that's the case, why was it so universally popular in Congress to begin with?

 

I wonder sometimes why the bastion of Democracy for the world is so uneducated on the political actions of their own government, and how we can't be bothered to be active in such affairs, but we damned well want to reserve the right to bitch.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/15/pat...s.ap/index.html

[Reveilled]

Well, okay, I'm reading it, but I have to wonder, didn't this act pass in congress with virtually no debate? Did the people voting for it actually read it? And do they perhaps oppose it now because they read it in full?

 

Okay, Here's what I gleaned from reading it:

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.

 

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

 

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

 

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

 

    `(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and

 

    `(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

 

`(b) Each application under this section--

 

    `(1) shall be made to--

 

        `(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or

 

        `(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

 

    `(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

 

`©(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

 

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

 

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

 

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

 

This section here means that the FBI can request the records of anybody on any basis other than their speech. They need not be suspected of any crime, or suspected of terrorist links. If the FBI thinks--or say that they think--that something in your records would aid in a terrorist investigation, they can pull your records, as long as their supposed investigation isn't solely on the basis of the person they are investigating's (not necessarily the person whose records they are pulling) speech.

 

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

 

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

 

    (1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and

 

    (2) by adding at the end the following:

 

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

 

    `(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

 

    `(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

 

    `(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

 

I sure as hell don't like this. It strikes me as a violation of civil liberties and due process. As I understand it, the FBI already had the right to do this under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act anyway, and this section of the Act just opens this kind of search up to regular police investigations into American citizens.

 

So, okay, I've read the thing, and I don't like it. I'd appreciate it if y'all would strike it down before I immigrate.

[SteveThaiBinh]

A lot of people scream up and down about the Patriot Act and how it steals every right you have.

 

Very few people have any idea what the Act actually covers, and what it doesn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you surprised? Have you seen how long this thing is?

 

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

 

All credit to Reveilled, but I don't think I could handle more than five minutes of that. Part of the problem is that it's so huge and contains so many measures. The supporters will pick out measures that are pretty reasonable, the opponents will pick out measures that are silly and badly written, and never the twain shall meet.

 

(Still, it's probably better than the UK system, where anybody can be sent to jail indefinitely and without trial just because the Home Secretary thinks they might be a terrorist.)

[Darth Flatus]

One of the gripes i heard was that the Patriot act enables the US to summarily deport anyone not born there. Is that true? Or was it hype/already fixed?

[Reveilled]

A lot of people scream up and down about the Patriot Act and how it steals every right you have.

 

Very few people have any idea what the Act actually covers, and what it doesn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you surprised? Have you seen how long this thing is?

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

 

All credit to Reveilled, but I don't think I could handle more than five minutes of that. Part of the problem is that it's so huge and contains so many measures. The supporters will pick out measures that are pretty reasonable, the opponents will pick out measures that are silly and badly written, and never the twain shall meet.

 

(Still, it's probably better than the UK system, where anybody can be sent to jail indefinitely and without trial just because the Home Secretary thinks they might be a terrorist.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't understand how the hell anybody could have allowed that measure to pass through parliament. One would like to think that such a measure would have been voted down unanimously, but security seems to be king in the western world today, and silly things like freedom get in the way of that. A shame.

[taks]

One of the gripes i heard was that the Patriot act enables the US to summarily deport anyone not born there. Is that true? Or was it hype/already fixed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hype.

 

parts of the patriot act are ok, but many parts are not. the things ender point's out about intelligence agency communication are valid, and should be addressed. however, they should be addressed in a manner other than the patriot act.

 

taks

[Oerwinde]

I think the main thing that people were pissed about the patriot act was that it allowed people to be held without being charged and without trial as long as they were suspected terrorists.

[mkreku]

It's just a bunch of laws with a ridiculous name. If the laws are well-written and well thought out, they're as good as any. They were very hastily instated after 9/11 as eye-candy ('look at how much we're doing for your safety!') to the american people, but with time they'll be tweaked and improved and probably not be any different than other laws.

[metadigital]

A lot of people scream up and down about the Patriot Act and how it steals every right you have.

 

Very few people have any idea what the Act actually covers, and what it doesn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you surprised? Have you seen how long this thing is?

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

 

All credit to Reveilled, but I don't think I could handle more than five minutes of that. Part of the problem is that it's so huge and contains so many measures. The supporters will pick out measures that are pretty reasonable, the opponents will pick out measures that are silly and badly written, and never the twain shall meet.

 

(Still, it's probably better than the UK system, where anybody can be sent to jail indefinitely and without trial just because the Home Secretary thinks they might be a terrorist.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand how the hell anybody could have allowed that measure to pass through parliament. One would like to think that such a measure would have been voted down unanimously, but security seems to be king in the western world today, and silly things like freedom get in the way of that. A shame.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The UK are about to vote to strengthen the Police Powers to prevent any unscheduled protests in an enlarged area around parliament -- including Westminster Bridge in London. This is being hurried through for Dubya's visit and Geldof's "million hippy march" for the G8 in Scotland.

 

Basically it means that all protestors will need to arrange their protest in advance (how many people, where, who what about); that sounds like a neat way for governments to manage protests that they find too embarassing or awkward ...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Bobs hippy march is nothing short of irresponsible.

[Walsingham]

I kinda like Bob, in a 'invite him round to lunch way'. You've got to love him telling the Eritreans to 'grow up' when they tried the same old bullsh*t about the deaths going on there.

 

As for the new anti-terrorism laws in the UK I should say for the record that i think they go too far. We don't need new laws. We need to permit and encourage the Uk police to apply the laws they already have. But, since that doesn't seem to work (and they may be some very good reason for this), we need to be able to remove and constrain certain key individuals. You can bitch all you like about what the government may do, but for all their faults they have not made a formal commitment to killing us. Unlike the revolutionary/apocalyptic salafist terrorist groups, and those who recruit for them.

 

I should also like to point out that it was our 'farty old' House of Lords that stayed awake until 6 a.m., and got back up again for ten a.m. the next day to stop the Home Secretary having the power of detention, and there being no sunset clause. They did so with remarkable conviction, and considerable passion and coherence. Yet again they prove that they have a lot to offer, if only we'd give them some public support, instead of knocking them all the time.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The anti-protest laws are mostly to get rid of Brian Haw.

 

As for the big march in Scotland, I don't agree that it's irresponsible. If people feel strongly enough to protest against something, then they should - whether that inconveniences the police or not.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

As for the big march in Scotland, I don't agree that it's irresponsible.  If people feel strongly enough to protest against something, then they should - whether that inconveniences the police or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I bet you would change your tune if it was in your front garden.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Protesters are welcome in my garden - well, outside my window, I don't have a garden - so long as they don't upset the bunnies.

 

Apathy is death!

[Darth Flatus]

Civilised (whatever that means) protests are good in theory i suppose. May day riots are not.

[Commissar]

I think one of the big gripes about the Patriot Act is that it grants law enforcement agencies certain powers that don't necessarily need to be used in combatting terrorism; they can be used wherever. For instance, I've never heard of a successful terrorist arrest using the Patriot Act's powers, but I have heard of strip club owners in Vegas getting arrested, bong distributors being taken down, shady tax schemes and the like.

 

I remember a fairly famous local case in which a college kid making fake IDs got busted by the local cops. Since manufacture of false identification has now become a federal thing, he got tried for it in a federal court and, since it's defined as a terrorist act, got sentenced to ten years. It was appealed, of course, and a much cooler-headed judge gave him six months of community service.

[Lidda-Bit]

They are going to execute you for looking at library books that have a sentance about the middle east!!!!

 

haha I hate politics why did I look at this forum ? :D

[taks]

bit of fallacious logic there, commissar. tell me, exactly where do you hear anything? the media. duh. not every story makes it to the media, and most terrorist arrests are not even reported. successes are rarely reported, as they garner little interest and, in this case, may also stir up unwanted fear.

 

taks

[Kaftan Barlast]

But given how the situation has been uptil now, the news arrest of a suspected terrorist has spread like wildfire, you can draw no other conclusions that that all is calm on the terrorist front. Sure, you might say that they're not revealing anything not to spoil the investigations but I believe they would announce it the nminute they had the suspect in custody just like they have done with everyone else.

 

 

 

But I have to say that Im highly skeptical towards this "war on terrorism".

[Commissar]

bit of fallacious logic there, commissar.  tell me, exactly where do you hear anything?  the media.  duh.  not every story makes it to the media, and most terrorist arrests are not even reported.  successes are rarely reported, as they garner little interest and, in this case, may also stir up unwanted fear.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's not entirely true. How many times has it been reported that we've caught al-Qaeda's number three man? For that matter, how many number three men does that particular organization seem to have? We grab one at least once a month over in Iraq.

 

I know you're the guy who loves to use them pretty phrases to attack them there arguments, but you ignored the basis of my post. If you think it's fine and dandy that anti-terrorist laws are being used to put away counterfeiters, tax evaders, pimps, and fake ID makers, all at stiffer penalties than the 'normal' law gives them because their crimes technically fall within the purview of terrorism, go ahead and say so. Give us all a laugh.

[taks]

That's not entirely true.  How many times has it been reported that we've caught al-Qaeda's number three man?

once, actually. and he was not caught inside the USA, commissar. keep your arguments relevant. the point of patriot act is inside the USA, and was exactly what i was referring to. catching some high ranking official al-qaeda member in a cave in afghanistan hardly causes the same worry as in a mall in burbank, CA.

 

I know you're the guy who loves to use them pretty phrases to attack them there arguments, but you ignored the basis of my post.

you mean phrases like "logical reasoning" and "rational thought"? as opposed to using the more grounded phrases like "knee-jerk reaction" and "emotional response". i suppose, yes, i do use logic and reason to attack your rather knee-jerk and emotional arguments. guilty as charged.

 

If you think it's fine and dandy that anti-terrorist laws are being used to put away counterfeiters, tax evaders, pimps, and fake ID makers, all at stiffer penalties than the 'normal' law gives them because their crimes technically fall within the purview of terrorism, go ahead and say so.  Give us all a laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

exactly where did i say that? show me, please. i did not ignore the basis of your post. your post clearly stated that these situations were the only ones you've heard about. please reread... you hear about pimps, counterfeiters and other "injusticed" folks because they are the ones that seem to be getting slighted (suddenly their actions aren't criminal, either, which makes your logic even less sensible). we don't hear about the application of the patriot act because of the reasons i've already pointed out. it has been used rather effectively on numerous occasions, more than any of the injustices you're so certain are happening.

 

also, if you'd note, i've clearly stated that i do not agree with many parts of the act. some provide powers that are not constitutional.

 

taks

[Commissar]

That's not entirely true.  How many times has it been reported that we've caught al-Qaeda's number three man?

once, actually. and he was not caught inside the USA, commissar. keep your arguments relevant. the point of patriot act is inside the USA, and was exactly what i was referring to. catching some high ranking official al-qaeda member in a cave in afghanistan hardly causes the same worry as in a mall in burbank, CA.

 

I know you're the guy who loves to use them pretty phrases to attack them there arguments, but you ignored the basis of my post.

you mean phrases like "logical reasoning" and "rational thought"? as opposed to using the more grounded phrases like "knee-jerk reaction" and "emotional response". i suppose, yes, i do use logic and reason to attack your rather knee-jerk and emotional arguments. guilty as charged.

 

If you think it's fine and dandy that anti-terrorist laws are being used to put away counterfeiters, tax evaders, pimps, and fake ID makers, all at stiffer penalties than the 'normal' law gives them because their crimes technically fall within the purview of terrorism, go ahead and say so.  Give us all a laugh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

exactly where did i say that? show me, please. i did not ignore the basis of your post. your post clearly stated that these situations were the only ones you've heard about. please reread... you hear about pimps, counterfeiters and other "injusticed" folks because they are the ones that seem to be getting slighted (suddenly their actions aren't criminal, either, which makes your logic even less sensible). we don't hear about the application of the patriot act because of the reasons i've already pointed out. it has been used rather effectively on numerous occasions, more than any of the injustices you're so certain are happening.

 

also, if you'd note, i've clearly stated that i do not agree with many parts of the act. some provide powers that are not constitutional.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, I don't buy it. If there'd been any significant arrests of terrorists in the US, we'd have heard about it, if only so our beloved generalissimo could trumpet the Act as doing its job. Your argument that it'd cause too much worry doesn't fly, since the government had no trouble with telling us to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape and to expect the worst on a monthly basis. We'd have heard about it, unless we're shipping them all off to some of our less scrupulous allies.

 

And yes, these are the cases I've heard about; what's your point? That they didn't happen? I'm not arguing that they aren't criminals worthy of prosecution and sentencing, I'm arguing that if a college kid making fake IDs before Sept. 11, 2001 would only get a slap on the wrist, he shouldn't all of a sudden be getting ten years in a federal prison simply because terrorists also happen to be in the business of making fake IDs.

 

"it has been used rather effectively on numerous occasions, more than any of the injustices you're so certain are happening."

 

Has it? How do we know? And what do you consider effective? Its goal was to make it easier to arrest and prosecute terrorists, and as far as I'm aware, it's not yet been put to that particular use. You may be able to prove me wrong, but I doubt it.

[jaguars4ever]

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

 

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

 

    (1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and

 

    (2) by adding at the end the following:

 

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

 

    `(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

 

    `(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

 

    `(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like something written by the Shinra Corporation.

[EnderAndrew]

So, okay, I've read the thing, and I don't like it.  I'd appreciate it if y'all would strike it down before I immigrate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Section 213 says you can delay the application for a warrant under 3 conditions. It doesn't say you no longer need a warrant for evidence to be submissible in court. Those three conditions seem reasonable to me. I was under the impression that with reasonable cause you could do those things before the Patriot Act. Maybe I was wrong.

 

The Patriot Act does not say anyone can be imprisoned without court order just because someone thinks you are a terrorist.

 

The Patriot Act doesn't bypass the 5th Ammendment, or any portion of the Constitution.

 

It allows the government to access records it already has on you, monitor library records which the government owns, communicate with itself, obtain information easier, etc. etc.

 

It makes law enforcement easier.

 

I've heard plenty of horror stories of actions law enforcement agents have taken, or cases where innocent citizens were harassed. These were poor decisions on the behalf of various judges and law enforcement officers. Legislation wasn't to blame in these cases, yet we use the actions of judges to bash said legislation.

 

I know that no one in the universe supports the Patriot Act today, despite strong bipartisan support initially. I've read most of it as the Patriot Act has been a large source of debate over the past year. Most of the time, I can't find any major fault with the law.

 

My main concern is that Congress is more worried about public perception than they are with good legislation. I recall a Telecommunications Deceny Act of 1996 that made it illegal to broadcast any offensive language over an electronic medium, and that one could be fined $200,000 for having a debate about abortion, or dropping an F-Bomb over the internet.

 

The law was deemed unenforcable. Never mind it pissed all over first ammendment rights. The then speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich was interviewed on whether or not the law was constitutional. Newt said he believed the law to be unconstitutional, and yet he also voted for it. But he said it wasn't Congress' purview to determine such things. That was the job of the Supreme Court. His job was simply to pass laws the people wanted.

 

I disagree. I think Newt has never read the 14th Ammendment of the Constitution. Either way, does Congress care about their dutiess? Does Congress care about the well-being of this country? Have we gone so far that partisan propoganda, media sensationalism, and jockeying for position has become more important than judging laws on the basis of their merit?

 

Around two years ago Bush was pushing a law to lower the cost of prescriptions for senior citizens, while both parties were gearing towards the next election. Congress was delaying the law because they didn't want Bush to have any victories, before Ted Kennedy (bad date, good senator) got up and said that for one moment people should look past whether or not the bill was put forth by one party or another and focus on passing a law that helped the American people.

 

Why don't we see more of that?