Is the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act really all that bad?

I have to admit, just like the Republicans and Democrats who voted for it, I haven't read it. I tend to be suspicious of any grab for power by the government, and from what I've heard, they are claiming new vast powers for themselves to tap every phone line, maintain records on every person, even sneak into your house and not tell you.


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.


Is the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act really any different from what they have been doing for years? Hasn't the President claimed the authority to do pretty much anything in the name of "national security" anyway? Can't judges issue warrants whenever they feel like it anyway?

Is Ashcroft right - these are "phantoms of lost liberty" because we never really had them in the first place?

Bad/Good, whatever. It is an abomination, and is unconstitutional. That is the heart of the matter, IMHO.

If you interpret the Constitution loosely enough, I'm sure a clever lawyer could aruge that it is constitutional, and if the Supreme Court said so?

the problem is they can hold you indefinitely without trial, counsel, or visitation so no one can bring it to court

IMHO, people put way too much stock in the constitution anyway, and this "Let's pull the unconstitutional card when it's convenient" thing I'm seeing quite a bit lately when it comes to all things related to national security is getting tiresome. If you really look into it, as long as you're not a terrorist, criminal, person of interest, etc. you don't have too much to worry about.

if you never join a religous organization, if you never join an opposition party, if you never do anything except what the market researchers say a good Capitalist should do......you'll be just fine without the Constitution. right on, brutha.

The definition of terrorist is so loose that it includes protestors, internet website visitors, opposition and "fringe" parties etc. Anyone can be labeled a terrorist, and the worst part is you won't even know until you're arrested and then its too late to protest...cause you ain't getting a trial

You sure do trust the government, don't you? Actually, if you are never accused - accused - of being a terrorist, criminal, person of interest, etc. , you don't need to worry. Of course, I guess some people believe in a big benevolent government that watches over them at all times, and that all politicians and government workers behave honorably at all times and only wants what's best for their little citizens.

I don't see things that way. I don't want the government to be my mommy or big brother. I prefer freedom - that's why I could never be a Republican.

...I do want the government to keep me "relatively safe" and provide some measure of stability when it comes to the security of our nation. And I'm prepared to make some sacrifices in my civil liberties to ensure that, if I decide to travel abroad, or even here in the states, I'm not going to get murdered by some guy I don't even know who is trying to get even with my government. Do I trust my government? Of course I do. And my 12 years of service in the military proves I believe in it as well. Like you, I prefer freedom, and that's why I didn't vote for bush. But, let me tell you something, there's a HUGE difference between freedom and security. My argument about the constitution was merely stating that, as Democrats, we should be able to come up with something more compelling than just, "But it's unconstitutional!" because I don't think that's going to be enough to change most minds in this country. Just my opinion though. Man, tough crowd.

But I'll be damned if you're gonna sacrificed any of mine along with them!

Did you just say that "people put way too much stock in the constitution anyway"? You find it "tiresome" when people express concern that something like the PATRIOT act is unconstitutional?

I think you are in the wrong place.

And you are mistaken in thinking that you don't have to worry if "you're not a terrorist, criminal, person of interest, etc." There have already been numerous ordinary citizens questioned, scrutinized, detained, and kept off flights because of this expansion of police power in the name of national security. Do you read the papers?

Way to much stock in the Constitution????? What an idiotic thing to say. The Constitution is the only thing standing between us an these fascists!

It is that small percentage that don't fall into your category, but have been pointed out by ignorance of others with aroused suspicions. We must protest. Just because you post to a radical website where questionable persons come to chat doesn't mean you give up your rights.

It's worse.

I don't blame anyone for not being willing to read the whole Act--it's huge, but every American should read a good summary. Yes, it changes the rules dramatically and presents a real threat to anyone on the Bush Administration's bad side. Here's a detailed summary: www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/STRENGTHENING_AMERICA.PDF
That site has more good background. Two other excellent sites for less detail, but more concise, action-oriented material: Bill of Rights Defense Committee <http://bordc.org> and ReclaimDemocracy.org <http://reclaimdemocracy.org>

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

If you value the United States Constitution, and think that the Bill of Rights is worth preserving, yes...the patriot act is a crime. But if you think that Thomas Jefferson was subversive, and that his weird ideas are a threat to our "freedom," than the patriot act is your cup of kool-aid.

preferring to sign it sight unseen, I suggest that huge though it is, that you do read it.

with a vote 'all yes or all no' in 2-3 days. No one had time to read the humongous thing.

The fact that they had this long act ready and shoved it to congress at once after 9-11 is one of the first things that made me think 'maybe LIHOP'.

I've read about the very short time congress had to consider it several places.

leader. Get the message?

The WH started taking Cipro on 9/11...before any evidence of an Anthrax attack. Cipro is not recommended as a preventitive measure. So what did they know that they weren't sharing?

Funny how we never did track down the perps...even though we know the anthrax came from Ft. Dietrick.

the Day after the attacks when no one in their right mind would vote against anything called PATRIOT Act, esp when it was for the defense of the country

they could read it.

They chose to pass it.

no better way to put it....I need to read it as well.

Where can we read it?

Can't judges issue warrants whenever they feel like it anyway?
No they can't.

Without probable cause, any first year lawyer will have the warrant thrown out in minutes. At least it WAS that way. In *'s bizarro world, who knows?

Is Ashcroft right - these are "phantoms of lost liberty" because we never really had them in the first place?


Let's say you have middle eastern friends who visit you regularly. Your neighbor, who hates you, reports suspicious activity. The feds stake out your house,tap your phones, they look at your bank records, they see what books you have checked out of the library recently, and finally they come into your house in the middle of the night to take you in for "questioning". Now that they have you, they can "question" you for as long as they please. No phone call, no lawyer, no bail, hell, under the so-called Patriot Act, they don't even have to charge you.
All this without "due process".

Never ever fall for the bushit that comes out of the mouths of these devils. They are vile and without conscience. It's all about them and their lust for power.

Terrorism isn't new. Presidents have dealt with it for years. Attacks have been thwarted and some have been successful, but our liberties have never been attacked as they have been under this regime.

So to answer you question, YES IT IS THAT BAD

to cover terrorism? Or does it introduce significant new powers?

And yes, its really that bad.

Read their synopsis here: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207

..is on the ACLU frontpage:

ACLU Urges Congress to Reject Bush Call to Make Patriot Act Permanent

January 20, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON -- Reflecting deep public discontent with anti-terrorism legislation adopted in the weeks after 9/11, the American Civil Liberties Union tonight urged Congress to reject President Bush's request that Congress make permanent controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

...

"While much of the Patriot Act is neutral legislation for civil liberties, it contains about a dozen provisions that simply go too far," Romero added. "These dangerous provisions increase the chances that innocent Americans will be swept into terrorism investigations by removing traditional checks and balances on law enforcement and oversight powers from the judiciary."

Among the provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to sunset is the controversial Section 215, which allows the FBI to obtain orders for the production of any "tangible things" (which can include library, travel, genetic, health, business or firearms records) without any meaningful standard of judicial review and no mechanism for the person affected to challenge the order.

...

Even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich wrote an op-ed late last year in the San Francisco Chronicle taking the Justice Department to task for its aggressive use of the Patriot Act in non-terrorism-related cases.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=14750&c=206

:hi:

:bounce: :hi:

My friend is in law school and she was really fired up mad when she found out what it allows. One of her classes had a day of discussion on it. She said that Patriot II is the _really_ scary one.

And it really bothers the hell out of me:

People say, "Well, it only gives them power to go after terrorists. So if you aren't a terrorist, don't worry."

But the biggest problem is in the language. It is not specific, and it does not define "terrorist".

Essentially, the Bush administration can use the powers granted by the Patriot Act against anyone that they want, if they decide that their target is a threat to the "American way of life". So, who knows what will classify as terrorism in a few years.

Find that section and read it, and be very afraid.

DON'T give in to that "it's not all that bad" crap. anyone who values the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution needs to expose and condemn this serious eroding of them.

here is a good collection of links and I urge you to take them seriously:

Civil Liberties in Jeopardy

Here's a pretty good review of the law.


http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

Its lesser provisions are good but the main ones (such as those allowing the government to spy on people who are susspected terrorists) are aweful and quite unconstitutional.

and much, much worse. It undoes guarantees set forth in the Constitution, and gives far too much power to one person, the president.

was stopped from photographing federal courthouse buildings (he is a hobbyist photographer). He shows some of his architectural photography in shows around Portland...anyway, 3 guards surround him, get his drivers license, call in a background check, and tell him not to take anymore pictures.

This is the land of the free you grew up in, right?? NO FUCKING WAYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

they want to create a 3rd world style fascist monarchy where dissent is silenced and the innocent are rebuked.

at the FAA building when a political cartoonist was taking pictures to get a better likeness for his strip

It takes away a lot of our rights for the sake of false security. Do you like the fact that the govt. can get into your bank account, savings, checking, credit card...whatever, and see what you're spending YOUR money on? Do you like the fact that they can search through your personal property with no warrant? As long as they *think* you're a potential "terrorist", they'll do what they want to you.

I for one don't like it. I will not support any candidate that supports the (un)Patriot Act.

<snip>
Finally, I have studied the Patriot Act and have found that along with its many excesses, it contains a few needed changes in the law. And it is certainly true that many of the worst abuses of due process and civil liberties that are now occurring are taking place under the color of laws and executive orders other than the Patriot Act.

Nevertheless, I believe the Patriot Act has turned out to be, on balance, a terrible mistake, and that it became a kind of Tonkin Gulf Resolution conferring Congress’ blessing for this President’s assault on civil liberties. Therefore, I believe strongly that the few good features of this law should be passed again in a new, smaller law – but that the Patriot Act must be repealed.
<snip>

http://www.moveon.org/gore/speech2.html

Bush Jr. Administration must have all been beaten when they were children if they think that this Act will preserve this country’s freedom. How do take away somebody’s rights and say it is preserving our freedoms is beyond me.


edit: added link

that no one bothers to read these rotten bills before they vote on them says enough. They really haven't a clue what extremist and evil things lurk in the thousands of pages when they give their approval, that is a BIG part of the problem. After years of Reno bashing it is hard to believe ANY rethug would have given their approval to this unConstitutional Act if Clinton had proposed something like this. Way too much power to the government!

n/t

...that if Richard Nixon had the patriot act behind him there would have been NO Watergate hearings. The reporters would have been called 'enemy combatants' and incarcerated.

Trekkerlass

Anything that gives the FBI, CIA, and police forces more power against its own people is bad. I don't like the fact that the Feds can get into my bank accounts, credit card accounts, and other financial accounts to see what I have been buying. I also hate the fact that they can check to see if I check out books on terrorism.(Gag...guess I better stop checking out almanacs and my geology books.)

I won't support anyone who supports the 1984 Act...erm the Patriot Act.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think most of 'us' oppose the Patriot act after much informed reading on the subject. You obviously haven't done any.

I'm not even going to waste my time on links. Use google. Enjoy your stay here.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

where the rich can get out of military service, the Bush admin can use the Constitution as toilet paper, and the Patriot act can wipe away any semblance of civil liberties in this country, if you want to be a wuss democrat and take it up the ass, be my guest. Your strategy to win is a losing one.

Don't assume to speak for Dems and Independents. You don't.

Strengthen the Patriot Act? What do you propose could do this? A complete repeal o the bill of rights?

Fewer checks to governmental powers, we might as well switch to a monarchy. I can't believe I'm reading this on this site.