The Patriot Act

[Blackmail]

I've read the entire patriot act and I've followed the complaints from the ACLU about the Patriot Act. The other thread - entitled 'Oh Fuck' (what a great title for a serious discussion :erm ) - really didn't deal with any substance regarding the patriot act just people saying they are opposed to it. So let's see what the fuss is about.

Here are some complaints I hear and then my rebuttal.

1) The Patriot Act gives the FBI the ability to detain people without Search Warrants, thus violating a persons 4th amendment rights.

My reply: No, the Patriot Act reaffirms an existing Law. In 1968, the Supreme Court heard the case of Terry v. Ohio. Chief Justice Warren, joined by seven other members of the Court, held that it is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment for an officer to detain and search a person without warrant. If you don't like this, blame the supreme court, not the Patriot Act.

2) The Government can now look into my finances and banking practices.

My Reply: Again, the Government could do this before even Bush's father was President. The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 allowed the Government to do anything the Patriot Act can do now.

3) The Patriot Act infringes on my personal liberties

My Reply: If you believe this, I highly suggest you take a law class. Or you can read this legal analysis http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf Remember the Senate voted bi-partisan to extend the Patriot Act (the vote wasn't even close), the Senate is filled with lawyers. Everytime the Patriot Act has been challenged legally, the challenger has lost.

"Zero. That's the number of substantiated USA PATRIOT Act civil liberties violations. Extensive congressional oversight found no violations. Six reports by the Justice Department's independent Inspector General, who is required to solicit and investigate any allegations of abuse, found no violations. Intense public scrutiny has yet to find a single civil liberty abuse. Despite many challenges, no federal court has declared unconstitutional any of the PATRIOT Act provisions Congress is renewing. " - House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner

The main opponents of the Patriot Act have been the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU is wasting YOUR tax money with their nonsensical court cases, they lost their opposition to the 10 Commandments, They Lost their anti-Christmas case, they lost their case against the Patriot Act, they lost their case against the Phoenix Police who busted up an illegal protest. This is just a short list. Simply put, It does not appear that the ACLU is well versed in LAW.

4) The Patriot Act does not stop terrorism

My Reply: I've heard this and wonder what world people who says this are living on.

Early stage Terror cells have been broken up in Detroit, Seattle and Buffallo thanks to the Patriot Act. Florida proffessor Sami al-Arian was arrested on 50 counts of terror and it was discovered he was the leader of the US branch of Palestinian Jihad.

Prior to the Patriot Act, a terrorist could be convicted of attacking a national defense installation, nuclear facility or power plant and face a maximum of only 10 years in jail. These and other crimes now carry sentences of up to life in prison, along with new penalties for harboring terrorists and providing material support for terrorism. The law allows prosecutors to treat these cases as racketeering, which could add 20 years to any sentence.

The Patriot Act mandates tougher penalties for those convicted of terrorism crimes and brings existing surveillance laws up-to-date with modern technology. Terrorists involved in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl were located using high-tech surveillance methods authorized by the act.

So in conclusion: 1. The Patriot Act has stopped terrorism 2. The Patriot Act does not infringe on your personal liberties according to legal scholars and the supreme court 3. Any freedoms you feel you've lost because of the patriot act were laws existing for years

In addition, I feel that 99.9% of America will be unnaffected by the Patriot Act anyway, other than you may be a little safer now that more terrorists have been arrested.

[The_Dark]

See, your wrecklessly weilding logic again. Your going to put someone's eye out with that. Besides... Logic only confuses the left wing fanatics and makes them do drastic things. Like... throwing hissy fits and making highly political movies.

[phee]

From the other other Patriot act thread:

Anyway I am still wondering why people are crying over this.  I've seen nothing to indicate that the partiot act is illegal and I've seen nothing to indicate it has impeded any average person's life.  I know it has helped to catch terrorists.   

So I fail to see why people are up in arms about something that affects very very few people yet has probably saved lives.    The NSA is not watching to see what you are buying at the grocery store and no one is losing any "rights".

Bringing us back to the point at hand... the above argument really bothers me for a few reasons...

1.) "...has impeded any average persons life" so by this argument, you must be average to be safe? or is it that if you are not "average" you are a terrorist? I don't really consider myself all that average, and very little of my friends I would consider "average".

2.) "Very very few people" so that makes it right? I and my friends are considered few... so as long as it is not the very few you know it's ok?... again it sounds familiar to other periods of history that I know, where as long as it's not happening to me it is not wrong...

[Blackmail]

Both those are addressed above. Instead of arguing a general "I don't like the patriot act" argument, can you give any specifics as to why you don't like it?

The other thread is for bitching about the patriot Act in general, yet no one has mentioned why or what they are worried about. This is a thread for specifics.

Your first complaint, well, I said 99.9 percent of people will most likely not be affected by the patriot Act, that covers average people, weirdos, fat people and people with measles. The .01 pecent that I feel it will affect, are people whom the FBI or CIA feels may be involved in terrorism.

Your number 2 again does not make any specific claims. The "few" people it does affect, again, are probably doing fishy things like sending money to Hammas.

If you can give a specific example of someone innocent being affected or any actual rights being infringed upon, I am open to hearing it. However the other thread is just alot of wind blowing, which is why I started this thread.

[phee]

So by "average" you mean not terrorists?

and by the amount stated as "few" means few enough... or the correct few people?

[phee]

From the ACLU:

Just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely.

Some of these flawed provisions are set to expire at the end of the year. But President Bush wants to make them permanent, and the House and Senate have been holding hearings in preparation for votes that are expected in June and July.

And

ACLU Says Justice Dept.'s PATRIOT Act Website Creates New Myths About Controversial Law (8/26/2003)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK - A new Justice Department website purporting to "dispel the myths" about the controversial PATRIOT Act in fact creates fresh myths about the law and gives new life to old ones, according to analysis released today by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"It is inexcusable that Attorney General Ashcroft is using this website to further mislead the public about controversial portions of the law," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "The American people are entitled to a more honest account."

The website was announced last week in conjunction with the launch of Ashcroft's multi-city public relations "roadshow" to promote the PATRIOT Act and perhaps lay the groundwork for further expansions of executive power.  The ACLU is a major focus of the website, which includes a section titled, "Dispelling the Myths."

But the ACLU said the website only repeats the Justice Department's now-familiar practice of misrepresenting the scope and impact of the law.  In noting the misrepresentations, the ACLU is far from alone. As Utah's conservative Deseret News reported about Ashcroft's Salt Lake City whistle-stop on Monday, "groups spanning the political spectrum from the ACLU to the Eagle Forum dispute Ashcroft's interpretation of the Act."

In a report issued last month, the ACLU documented a consistent pattern of factually inaccurate assertions by the Justice Department in statements about the PATRIOT Act to the media and Congress.  For instance, Justice Department spokespeople have repeatedly - and mistakenly - said that Section 215 of the law, which vastly expands the power of FBI agents to secretly obtain records and personal belongings of innocent people, does not apply to United States citizens and permanent residents. The new DOJ website fails to correct this mistake.  That report is available online at /safefree/resources/16825pub20030709.html

The Justice Department website is more of the same, the ACLU said. Specific instances of DOJ online spin-doctoring, detailed further at www.aclu.org, include:

DOJ Myth: Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act can only be used to obtain "business records."

Reality:  The FBI can use Section 215 to demand "any tangible thing," including books, letters, diaries, library records, medical and psychiatric records, financial information, membership lists of religious institutions, and even -- as Attorney General Ashcroft himself conceded in testimony before Congress -- genetic information.

DOJ Myth: Before the Patriot Act, "the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists."

Reality: The FBI has always had the authority to wiretap terrorists, both under the ordinary criminal laws and under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

DOJ Myth: The "sneak-and-peek" provision (Section 213) is necessary to allow the FBI to conduct investigations "without tipping off terrorists."

Reality:  The FBI already had the authority to conduct "sneak-and-peek" searches of terrorists.  Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FBI is empowered to conduct sneak-and-peek searches in intelligence investigations involving foreign powers and their agents.  A "foreign power" includes any group "engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor."  Section 213 authorizes sneak-and-peek searches in run-of-the-mill criminal investigations, not just in foreign-intelligence investigations involving terrorists.

DOJ Myth: The PATRIOT Act "provided for only modest, incremental changes in the law."

Reality: The PATRIOT Act made dozens of significant changes to the law, including a handful that are truly radical.  For more details on how the PATRIOT Act undermines the constitutional rights of everyone living in the United States, go to http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/

"The PATRIOT Act described on the Justice Department's website bears only a passing resemblance to the actual PATRIOT Act," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU staff attorney who analyzed the DOJ website.  "It's unfortunate, because what the public needs is accurate information about the scope and nature of the Act, not a snow job."

To read the ACLU's analysis, go to http://www.aclu.org//safefree/resources/16...ub20030826.html.

[phee]

And one more:

Myth: "Under the Patriot Act, I'm very confident in saying there have been no abuses found." 

Reality: The Patriot Act has been abused.

Ask Brandon Mayfield who was wrongly accused by the government of involvement in the Madrid bombing as a result of evidence, including mistaken fingerprint identification, that fell apart after the FBI re-examined its case following its arrest and detention on Mayfield on a material witness warrant.

Ask Tariq Ramadan, who is regarded as a leading moderate Muslim intellectuals, and had his visa revoked to teach at the University of Notre Dame under Section 411 of the Patriot Act, which permits the government to exclude non-citizens from the country if in the government’s view they have “used [their] position of prominence to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or to persuade others to support terrorist activity.” Read more >>

Myth: The Patriot Act simply updated the tools of law enforcement to match the technology used by the terrorists and criminals today.

Reality: The Patriot Act “updated” surveillance powers but failed to “update” the checks and balances needed to ensure those surveillance powers include proper judicial oversight.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act allows the government to obtain “roving wiretaps” without empowering the court to make sure that the government ascertain that the conversations being intercepted actually involve a target of the investigation. 

“Pen registers” and “trap and trace” devices are also allowed and track detailed information about Internet use, like specific web pages viewed or search terms entered into a search engine.  Read more >>

Myth: The Patriot Act is “mostly taking what we can do to track drug dealers and thugs and give those tools to people tracking spies and terrorists.”

Reality: Before the Patriot Act, the government could use the same tools, like wiretapping or using grand jury subpoenas, to investigate drug dealers and terrorists. The government simply had to be investigating a crime of terrorism. 

Unlike an ordinary drug investigation, however, international terrorism may also be investigated using foreign intelligence surveillance powers.  Expanding the government’s surveillance powers in foreign intelligence investigations allows the government to do much more than “track spies and terrorists” but also allows them to track many other people, including Americans and others not suspected of involvement in terrorism or crime at all. Read more >>

Myth: The codification of delayed notice warrants in the Patriot Act “brought national uniformity to a court-approved law enforcement tool that had been in existence for decades.”

Reality: The Patriot Act’s “sneak and peek” provision is about lowering standards for sneak and peek warrants, not imposing uniformity. Section 213 of the Patriot Act allows notice of search warrants to be delayed for an indefinite “reasonable time.” Read more >>

Myth: The primary effect of the Patriot Act was to “bring down this ‘wall’ separating intelligence officers from law enforcement agents” in coordination and information sharing.

Reality: Information sharing between criminal and intelligence investigations occurred before Sept. 11, 2001 and the Patriot Act. The primary effect of the Patriot Act was to remove necessary checks and balances in foreign intelligence investigations. Read more >>

Myth: The Patriot Act’s “new powers have allowed authorities to charge more than 400 people in terrorism investigations since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and convict more than half.”

Reality: The government attributesconvictions it says are terrorism-related that have nothing to do with the Patriot Act. The “400 convictions” claim overstates actual number of convictions and omits a number of key facts related to these numbers. Only 39 of these individuals were convicted of crimes related to terrorism. The median sentence for these crimes was 11 months, which indicates the crime the government equated with terrorism was not serious. Read more >>

Myth: The Patriot Act does not contain a provision that allows the government to obtain library records, and “[t]he reading habits of ordinary Americans are of no interest to those investigating terrorists or spies.”

Reality: Section215 of Patriot Act does cover library records. It authorizes the government to more easily obtain a court order requiring a person or business to turn over documents or things “sought for” an investigation to protect against international terrorism. Business records include library records.

Your medical records, records and lists of individuals who belong to political organizations are also fair game for the government to seize. Read more >>

Myth: “[The] Patriot Act is chock-full of oversight in a lot of ways that regular criminal procedure is not:  full of the involvement of federal judges…”

Reality: The statute authorizing the use of “national security letters” as amended by the Patriot Act 505(a) contains no judicial oversight. The statute allows the government to compel the production of financial records, credit reports, telephone, Internet, and other communications or transactional records.

Section 215 requires the FBI to apply to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain an order for the production of business records. The FBI must only specify that the records pertain to a foreign intelligence investigation. Once the FBI makes this specification, the judge is required to issue the order. Read more >>

Myth: Critics believe that the Patriot Act authorized federal law enforcement power to arrest and indefinitely detain material witnesses.

Reality: Federal law enforcement is abusing the current material witness statute, which the Patriot Act did not amend, to improperly detain “material witnesses” and failing to provide these detainees their rights in accordance with criminal statutes.

The material witness statute has been used to detain individuals whom the government believes has information concerning a terrorist investigation. It has failed to provide them their rights to counsel, an initial hearing to determine whether the individual poses a flight risk, and prevented the individuals from contacting family members that they have been arrested.

Most of these “material witnesses” have not been charged with any crime and were proven innocent. Read more >>

Myth: Critics are irresponsibly calling for the repeal of the Patriot Act.

Reality: Most responsible critics believe that parts of the Patriot Act are necessary but they support including amendments to the Patriot Act that will restore reasonable checks and balances that will protect civil liberties while ensuring our national security. 

[The_Dark]

The ACLU is not, I repeat, NOT the holder of absolute truth. Nor are they the final authority on US Law. They keep sueing of the Patriot Act in various federal courts... they keep loosing. The loose because they are wrong.

[phee]

The ACLU is not, I repeat, NOT the holder of absolute truth. Nor are they the final authority on US Law. They keep sueing of the Patriot Act in various federal courts... they keep loosing. The loose because they are wrong.

Niether are you or I...

[The_Dark]

Never said I was.

I'm male. I'm White. The ACLU is NOT looking out for my interests.

[phee]

Niether is the Government...

[The_Dark]

On that we disagree.

[Blackmail]

Niether is the Government...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Phee I addressed the ACLU above. I barely read your article and counted no less than 5 mistruths. I wish you would read my original posts which explains away most of the ACLU's gripes. The part you linked about section 206 is completely false, it's as if the ACLU didn't read the patriot act themselves.

So by "average" you mean not terrorists?

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore.

Simply put, if you are not funneling money to groups in Palestine or Syria and you are a law abiding citizen then you will not be targeted by the CIA, FBI or local police for anything related to the Patriot Act. It has nothing to do with being "average" or feeling like a sad little elf. If you are targeted by the CIA, FBI or local police, the odds are that the laws that enabled them to target you were around before John Ashcroft graduated from college.

[phee]

On that we disagree.

We can agree to disagree I suppose...

[phee]

Phee I addressed the ACLU above.  I barely read your article and counted no less than 5 mistruths.      I wish you would read my original posts which explains away  most of the ACLU's gripes.    The part you linked about section 206 is completely false, it's as if the ACLU didn't read the patriot act themselves.   

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore.   

Simply put, if you are not funneling money to groups in Palestine or Syria and you are a law abiding citizen then you will not be targeted by the CIA, FBI or local police for anything related to the Patriot Act.  It has nothing to do with being "average" or feeling like a sad little elf.    If you are targeted by the CIA, FBI or local police, the odds are that the laws that enabled them to target you were around before John Ashcroft graduated from college.

What I am arguing is this, "It's not effecting me, therefore it's OK" state of mind

[The_Dark]

Just so you know.. I do think if effects me and everyone else. I think it's protecting us from people that want to kill us.

[phee]

Just so you know.. I do think if effects me and everyone else. I think it's protecting us from people that want to kill us.

I think you are entitled to that opinion my friend... I just think for a long time, before this administration threw gas on the fire, this government by it's policies and behaviour has been putting us in more danger as opposed to less... there are a lot of people dying unnecessarily right now, people dying in general is a fact of life, I just wish it was for a better cause... and this patriot act, just seems to make things well, let me put it this way: They are protecting us from terrorists, I AGREE, but what it protecting us from those who claim to protect us?"

[torn asunder]

so i'm curious... hypothetically speaking, what if we have another terrorist attack, carried out on american soil by a cell based here in america, and the govt. doesn't catch it. at that point, do they expand the govt's reach into more aspects of every americans' lives? at what point would they ever stop, if they're already allowed to essentially "spy" on anyone they deem a "risk"? for me, this is the essence of my dislike/disagreement with (some aspects of) the patriot act. give them an inch, they'll take a mile - that's my concern...

only my opinion...

[phee]

I see your point... I would ask this.... Has the Bush adminstration made you feel safer then before despite the worst terrorist attack in History happening on "The Administrations Watch"? Does the Patriot Act make you feel more secure? less secure? or no change?

I am honestly curious

[The_Dark]

I feel more secure and I admit that 9/11 effected me deeply. I didn't move from my couch or let my kids go to school for a week. It may have been the biggest.. and it may have been on his watch.. but it was not the first attack. It was the last... They have tried since then. They have been stopped. I hope with all my heart that it was the Last attack on our soil.

[phee]

I feel more secure and I admit that 9/11 effected me deeply. I didn't move from my couch or let my kids go to school for a week. It may have been the biggest.. and it may have been on his watch.. but it was not the first attack. It was the last... They have tried since then. They have been stopped. I hope with all my heart that it was the Last attack on our soil.

Well said

[Msterbeau]

I haven't had time to follow up on Ted's initial post nor do as in depth an analysis of the what the Patriot act says as he has... That said... if all the contrversial elements of the act were already allowed before, what's the point? What NEW tools does it give the US in fighting terrorism?

[The_Dark]

It doesn't give any NEW tools. What it does is "expand" on exiting tools. The Government has to go by the letter of the law. When the variuos laws were enacted certain things did not extist. Like Cell Phones, Satalite Phones, The Internet, Wireless technology and the list goes on. The patriot Act allows the variuos agencys to do the jobs they have always done but adds the ability to use new technology.

[phee]

(BTW)

I am very happy we can talk about this without name calling and temper loosing... I enjoy these discussions

[odims_sphere]

One thing I've learned is that no matter what we do the terrorists are going to find some way around it. Every time we changed our tactics in our convoys, they countered it. They are as adaptible as we are, however doing nothing at all only invites them to attack. Patriot act good or bad? I don't know, but a solution it is not. I don't know if there is one.