Hicup
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,081
- Reaction score
- 2,709
- Location
- Rochester, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Yes, people not doing wrong doing have been caught into a web of issues due to the Patriot Act. What people seem to mistakingly think however is that magically somehow PRIOR to Patriot the government NEVER was able to use loopholes or be corrupt or just make a bad judgement and do similar type of things to people.
Whether or not it'll affect you because you are or are not doing wrong should not determine if one feels something is unconstitutional. Whether or not it matches up with the constitution should determine that. The potential for misuse should be looked at, regardless if you're law abiding or not, but the assumption of definitie wide spread misuse and the assumption that somehow there was magically no misuse before hand and would be none or significantly less simply by removing it is problematic.
It is entirely possible ot have issues with the PATRIOT Act and be an entirely law abiding citizen. Hell, I support keeping PATRIOT, am a law abiding citizen, and still have zero issues with certain parts being removed or taken out because I feel they're damaging to constitutional freedoms.
Ah, but see, that's just it, Zyphlin. Information gained through chatter must be of a specific kind in order for law enforcement to act without a judges permission or (due process). Law enforcement can't say as an example knock on joe the drug dealers house because they overheard a cell conversation with john the addict. The Patriot Act took great pains to make that clear within the context of the law. The Patriot Act as it matters to national security is the ONLY time that due process can be waived and ONLY if the waiver is warranted because of imminent danger to American citizens. And, to add, even after the danger is addressed, there is still a hearing after the fact where law enforcement must justify its actions. So, due process is indeed afforded great scrutiny, but in the case of national security, it is simply done after the fact, and I might add that evidence gained prior to an actual court ordered warrant is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law.
Tim-
I disagree. Rights cannot be waived, under the Constitution.
And Ben Franklin was right.
I disagree. Rights cannot be waived, under the Constitution.
And Ben Franklin was right.
Little if any of our survelliance laws have been passed in individual segment laws. Why is it that you're not equally out there decrying the FISA Act and for overturning the entire 1968 Omnibus act? Not to mention that we're at an incredibly partisan time compared to the early 2000's and attempting to pass any of this stuff would likely be difficult not because its necessarily bad law but because it has become such a politicized propoganda fueled mess.
It's a start, but it won't be good until the whole of the patriot act is overturned.
Man, the SS/Brownshirts are going to be ticked at this!
Then, history can repeat itself, because we will no longer have the neccessary tools to fight a constantly evolving enemy.
OMG NOOOOOOOOOO. Without the Patriot Act we're DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED. Doomed I tellz you!
Thanks Chicken Little, but I think we'll be ok without aggressive, large, big brother government. Thanks "conservative".
The Patriot Act increases the size of government? Really??
The Patriot Act increases the size of government? Really??
It didn't? It's power increased. Or are you saying the government isn't large? It's a dangerous law at best.
It doesn't really mean anything until it reaches the SC and that is assuming the SC actually agrees with a lower court ruling.
The Patriot Act was adopted to help untie law-enforcement's hands and keep us safe. The CIA has always had all the powers in that act and probably more. There is no way we should throw out the entire Patriot Act. That's what we have a Supreme Court for -- to put checks and balances on our laws, rules and regulations. Tweak it. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
It goes too far. Reasonable things, like the agencies talking to each other is fine. And frankly that is all that we actually need to have prevented 9/11. Over reactions aimed at keeping us safe are still overreactions, and can be misused in the future, thus not keeping all of us safe.
How does it, "go too far"? And please, be specific.
From surveillance to hlding with out charging the act went too far. It was not privacy that led to 9/11. Nor was it the lack of being able to hold someone that led to 9/11. So, such invasions into privacy were simply unnecessary.
Those are talking points. I asked you to be specific.
surveillance isn't specific? Humm, I thought it was.
Will this help:
PATRIOT ACT
The original Act had a sunset clause to ensure that Congress would need to take active steps to reauthorize it. Like many sweeping reform laws, the people of the United States needed time to test and implement its measures before deciding what provisions to keep and which to modify. One of the challenges to the original Act had been perceived civil liberties intrusions. The reauthorization resolution passed in 2006 contained some civil liberties protections.
Much criticism against the 2001 Act had been directed at the provisions for Sneak-and-Peek searches — a term coined by the FBI. Critics argued that Provision 213 authorizes "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of reasonable necessity and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided.
A second complaint against Sneak-and-Peek searches is that the owner of the property (or person identified in business/library records) does not have to be told about the search. There is a special clause that allows the Director of the FBI to request phone records for a person without ever notifying the person. For all other searches, the person must be notified, but not necessarily before the search.
Perhaps the most controversial section of the original Act was Section 215, dealing with a very narrow, implied right of federal investigators to access library and bookstore records. Section 215 allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant in camera (in secret) from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying. On its face, the section does not even refer to "libraries," but rather to business records and other tangible items in general. Civil libertarians and librarians in particular, argue that this provision violates patrons' human rights and it has now come to be called the "library provision." The Justice Department defends Section 215 by saying that because it requires an order to be issued by a FISA Court judge, it provides better protection for libraries.
Critics claim that some portions of the Act are unnecessary and allow U.S. law enforcement to infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy. Much controversy has arisen over section 215 (see above), which allows judges to grant government investigators ex parte orders to look into personal records (including financial, medical, phone, Internet, student or library records) on the basis of being "relevant for an on going investigation concerning international terrorism or 4 stine intelligence activities," rather than probable cause as outlined in the fourth amendment.
VoteMatch: The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?