The Patriot Act

[ledhed]

What are your thoughts on the patriot act ? Has the government gone to far ? What rights are you willing to give up for more security ?
Go to http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html to see the actuaul act.
Go to http://www.aclu.org/congress/l110101a.html to see the downside as the ACLU see's it

 

[Klostrophobic]

Well, I'm not willing to give up any rights for security. It's only a matter of time before the country is a police state. Maybe some extremists would say it already is.

Give me liberty or give me death.

 

[Timmotheus]

Originally posted by Klostrophobic
Give me liberty or give me death.

How very ironic.

Have you read "Common Sense?" It's a fantastic piece of work. If you interperate it the right way, it applies to this situation.

Since I doubt that I, a 14 year old white male, am going to be suspected of collaboration with terrorism any time soon, I don't have much of an opinion on the subject. However, if electronic media was mentioned in the Bill of Rights (I honestly can't remember which ammendment) the act would be unconstitutional. If you ask me, just restrict the act to those who aren't American citizens, but are living on American soil. Then nearly everyone is happy.

 

[Klostrophobic]

Originally posted by Timmotheus
How very ironic.

Maybe 'Give me liberty and give me death?'

 

[Solid Lifters]

Originally posted by Klostrophobic
Maybe 'Give me liberty and give me death?'

I say "Give me a dollar, and a chick filled G-string to stuff it in."

 

[milefile]

If you're a law abiding citizen who minds his own business, you have nothing to worry about. Obviously then, law abiding citizens who mind their own business but are still bothered by this must object to it on principle.

I could get into much detailed minutia about the specific "freedoms" that are eliminated in the Patriot act. But underlying it all is one basic fact that troubles me most: By redefining freedom in response to terrorism the terrorists have, in effect, won, and America has admited that it's pre-911 vision for it's people was wrong, that the government needs be omniscient and omnipresent. This is never a good thing and has failed repeatedly in history (USSR, Naziism, Iraq).

It may be argued that the Patriot Act is designed to protect the very freedom that I just suggested it hurts, and this is the main argument for it. But it's an argument for slow, mentally challenged individuals who trust and depend on government to begin with. Freedom is comodified in the hands of the Bush administration. It is depicted as something that can they can give us. We know better. All government can hope to do is either enhance or degrade what allready existed before it, in the American case, freedom.

If you can't say the Patriot Act has enhanced freedom in America then you have to say it has degraded it. Freedom is dynamic and active. It cannot be static.

We are free to not be patriotic.

We are all born free. Certain types of government keep us from knowing it.

 

[Kent]

Flat out, I care nothing about the patriot act.

And with good reason.

I abide the laws of the land.

I dont move drugs, Im not a terrorist and I dont sell weapons. (nor raise funds for terrorist)

But to all of you opposing this act, the act itself represents an infringement on your freedoms.

However, I dis-agree.

Infact, I feel that this is another b.s. attempt to fight a republican administration.

This has nothing to do with freedom or personal ideologies.

Oh no, this is pure dis content for the bush administration being materialized into angst ridden, politically driven, rhetoric filled essays, by leftist fools. (sorry fellas)

Notice the biggest indication of this...

The very first post does not give a link to the actual goverment sites dealing with the patriot act... oh no, couldnt do that, it might be a legitimate way for people to make up their own minds...

Instead, links to 2 different organizations, with well known liberal agendas, are given to the average gtp reader.

The aclu

What a joke.

How about this... http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/

Try that on for size and maybe you will understand why the fbi, thanks to the former admin., was unable to search and exploit the info on Mussaui's laptop computer, even though the comp. was in the possession of law enforcement for over a month before the attacks of 9/11.

Those of you oppossing this are fighting the administration for yourselves, and nothing more. (and your especially not fighting for the citizens.)

Stand up for what you believe in, but dont hide behind important real world issues, when your just trying to "get back" at the government for your own selfish reasons.

Double standards all over...

Operation Iraqi freedom compared to operation desert fox. (for example purposes.)

In the end, you are all just picking at the "right" and not taking responsible stances on the issues at hand. (nor reasonable/informed stances at that.)

Double standards and Ignorance reigning as political activity... these problems are what have shaped the left over the last 20 years. (Im not even gonna mention the special interest... cough, environmentalist, cough, labor unions, cough, gay/lesbian, cough, minority exploitation, cough, socialist ideological think tanks, cough.)

And those problems are the exact reason that intelligent independents will always be forced to side with the right.

You guys go ahead and keep your NAMBLA defending ACLU friends and sources... Im gonna be sitting over here at the morally superior, moderate/independent table. (seats are always open, but if your coming from either side of extremes, your mind better be open too.)

 

[milefile]

Well that was a stale breath of rancid crap.

Moderates. Heh.

 

[Kent]

That is the perfect response... keep it up and I just might be able to fool you into proving my points.



Oh yeah, I neglected to mention what a brilliant example of honest intellectual debate that last post of milefile's was...

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by GoKents
That is the perfect response... keep it up and I just might be able to fool you into proving my points.



Oh yeah, I neglected to mention what a brilliant example of honest intellectual debate that last post of milefile's was...

Well then let me ask you a couple of questions: Is there any point at which compromising the particulars of American freedom becomes bad? Does it not look like protecting what is being destroyed by the means?

Oh and did you my previous post? If you want to address anything in there, specifically, rather than going off on a generic rant, you might get better responses.

Don't be so preachy.

 

[Kent]

Ok, sure, I'll go back and waste my time on your post... I dont mind, Im off for the day.

But lets get a couple of things right...

First, I am not preachy. Especially if you consider yourself not to be preachy. (and if you do, then your a hipocrate for trying to tell me not to do what you are already doing.)

Second and most importantly.

You ask if there is a point at which comprimising our freedoms becomes bad... well, yes there is.

But thats just the thing, your thinly veiled attempts to knock on the patriot act, actually ignore the simple fact that the patriot act in no way affects the law abiding citizens of this country.

You should also know that we are not destroying what we are trying to protect when we en-act something such as the patriot act...

Rather, we are destroying what is threatening "us"... not threatening our freedoms or our way of life, but "us" as human beings.

Our lives for god's sake man.

That is what the patriot act is designed to help with... protecting our lives.

btw, why dont you practice what you preach and get down on the specifics of what I have to say.

Oh yeah, and while your at it... work on editing your post a bit... perfect grammar first time around on a reply is hard (I cant do it) but with a little editing, I may actually be able to read your questions without filling in words or fixing the tenses/plurality of your statments.
(it also really calls into question your ability to communicate on an intellectual level... not to mention your snappy come backs about rancid crap!)

I just dont see why this act matters to you so much anyway... Are you a terrorist?

Are you involved in activities that could warrant the search and siezure of your computer?

Is a phone tap a real possibility in your house hold?

Or are you just whining about what ever you can in an attempt to make the current admin look bad.

Well if thats the case... take your time, hes not going anywhere, and I have a belief that leftist like you are pushing more people onto the right side of the political line everyday.

I think the bottom line for me in this thread is...

Im done, you've proven yourself (milefile) to be of (imo) no honest intellectual merit and deserve no more of my time or anyone elses.

I suggest you take responses about how you COULD get into the specifics of the patriot act to a leftist little ACLU fan site or something.

Because to me, the proof is in the pudding; and with the pudding you put on the board, I would say you dont have much content at all in your post.

Actually, I dont think you even have a legitmate non-biased thought...

I mean, do you really think your the only person to worry about the government overstepping their boundries?

If so, maybe you should think about how the "righties" reacted when a man's wife, dog and son were all murdered by the FBI under Janet "quick draw" reno and bill "the playboy" clintons reigns of terror.

Can you say waco?

Ruby ridge and Waco go down and not a damn liberal in sight says a word...

Yet legitmate actions to prevent terrorism are taken and every lefty in america starts *****ing about the freedoms that will be eliminated.

This is total crap, and your double standard on issues like this are the reason no futher discussions are nessacery to prove you are full of it.

Sorry to be insulting, but your crap will never work on me, or anyone with half a brain.

Good luck buddy, and if I may suggest... move to san fran or boston, they love your kind in those areas.

 

[ledhed]

Go Kents I'm so far from a liberal I droop...I voted republican for pres in every election since Nixon..except Bob Dole. I'm a lifelong NRA member. so profiling won't work. In reguards to an erosion of everyones cival rights. the patriot act is a new peice of legislation and breaks new ground, the links I gave were to the peice of legislation itself with NO comments good or bad and the aclu's argument against it. The pro Patriot act dudes are going around tring to sell it as we read this. Try to remember that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance..especially when the government asks you to trust them.
In any case I'm still tring to make my mind up on the entire piece of legislation, alot of it is good but some parts are scary..all the parts that lack oversight. Bottom line is to most people I am the right or a good representative of it, but that does not mean that the right couldn't find that the end justifies the means and push bad legislation down our throats. Our laws are based on precidents and what does this one set ? I wan't to be very sure before I sign on.

 

[Kent]

Your opinion is far more developed and far more intellectual than milefiles. (sorry mile )

I also very much appreciate your honesty about your affiliations.

Infact, nothing you have said has insulted or outraged me.

I apoligize if you took insult or felt "stereotyped" into some of the general groups I mentioned.

However, before I bend over backwards to show my respect for your view, I must have confirmation of your own acknowledgment of the difference in the legitimate worries you have with the patriot act, compared to the "problems" milefile expresses.

As for the links, I still think supplying the http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/ is the way to go...

Especially when trying to show an honest overview of the stated goals the patriot act intends to achieve.

Giving a link to the ACLU is like giving a link to "the dairy farmers of america" when addressing the growing population of vegans in this country.

Indeed, I do respect your honesty and forward nature.

Of course, the main thing you've got, that makes an honest difference, is respectful and intelligent, journalistic skills. (if I can say that about any internet post)

Of course, none of this changes a word I said. ( and I am glad about that.)
It only means that you can not be stereotyped into the groups of leftist I had mentioned.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by GoKents
Ok, sure, I'll go back and waste my time on your post... I dont mind, Im off for the day.

Good start. I'm all ears now.

But lets get a couple of things right...

First, I am not preachy. Especially if you consider yourself not to be preachy. (and if you do, then your a hipocrate for trying to tell me not to do what you are already doing.)

Yes you are. In fact, you are one of the preachiest posters on the forum, hands down. People with strong opinions always sound preachy, so it's not necessarily a bad thing. But it always helps to back yourself up with something, anything. Taking 400+ words to say you're a moderate and think everybody else should be, too is, by definition, preachy.

Second and most importantly.

I'm on the edge of my seat...

You ask if there is a point at which comprimising our freedoms becomes bad... well, yes there is.

But thats just the thing, your thinly veiled attempts to knock on the patriot act, actually ignore the simple fact that the patriot act in no way affects the law abiding citizens of this country.

Yes. I know. That's why I said:

• 
  [*]"If you're a law abiding citizen who minds his own business, you have nothing to worry about. Obviously then, law abiding citizens who mind their own business but are still bothered by this must object to it on principle."

You should also know that we are not destroying what we are trying to protect when we en-act something such as the patriot act...

Rather, we are destroying what is threatening "us"... not threatening our freedoms or our way of life, but "us" as human beings.

Our lives for god's sake man.

That is what the patriot act is designed to help with... protecting our lives.

I beg to differ. I thought it was called the Patriot Act because it related to protecting our nation. There are reasons why our nation is worth protecting; America is (can be) a unique place in the world where people live free. This is what terrorists hate and envy and want to destroy; we have begun to do it for them by using fear as a manipulative device. Why does John Ashcroft have to tour the nation and promote this so-called Patriot Act? Because people are suspicious. Why should the government be allowed to be secretive if it's citizens can't even have privacy? Why is it wrong to have universal healthcare and seatbelt laws because it's unfair to law abiding, hardworking citizens, but it's acceptable to make laws that remove privacy, due process, and essentially throw the constitution out the window at everybody's expense? It is all the same big government breathing down your neck. It is never good, even when you have been conned into being afraid.

btw, why dont you practice what you preach and get down on the specifics of what I have to say.

I am. Are you reading the same forum as me?

Oh yeah, and while your at it... work on editing your post a bit... perfect grammar first time around on a reply is hard (I cant do it) but with a little editing, I may actually be able to read your questions without filling in words or fixing the tenses/plurality of your statments.
(it also really calls into question your ability to communicate on an intellectual level... not to mention your snappy come backs about rancid crap!)

Okay. But you know what's funny? It is blatantly obvious that you are barely literate, yet you jump all over a typo by someone who actually does use grammar and complete sentences. That's a laugh. And it's almost enough to dismiss you altogether. Quit reaching. It makes you look desperate.

I just dont see why this act matters to you so much anyway... Are you a terrorist?

You never know.

Are you involved in activities that could warrant the search and siezure of your computer?

I aint sayin' nuthin'.

Is a phone tap a real possibility in your house hold?

Who want's to know?

Or are you just whining about what ever you can in an attempt to make the current admin look bad.

They do just fine on their own.

Well if thats the case... take your time, hes not going anywhere, and I have a belief that leftist like you are pushing more people onto the right side of the political line everyday.

Now that that is some funny stuff.

Im done, you've proven yourself (milefile) to be of (imo) no honest intellectual merit and deserve no more of my time or anyone elses.

I suggest you take responses about how you COULD get into the specifics of the patriot act to a leftist little ACLU fan site or something.

Because to me, the proof is in the pudding; and with the pudding you put on the board, I would say you dont have much content at all in your post.

Where is yours? This entire thread does nothing, says nothing at all but how angry you are. Here, I'll show you:

The non-flaming aspects of your post

• 
  [*]You ask if there is a point at which comprimising our freedoms becomes bad... well, yes there is.
  
  But thats just the thing, your thinly veiled attempts to knock on the patriot act, actually ignore the simple fact that the patriot act in no way affects the law abiding citizens of this country.
  
  You should also know that we are not destroying what we are trying to protect when we en-act something such as the patriot act...
  
  Rather, we are destroying what is threatening "us"... not threatening our freedoms or our way of life, but "us" as human beings.
  
  Our lives for god's sake man.
  
  That is what the patriot act is designed to help with... protecting our lives.

*This next part is borderline, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because it somehow barely relates to politics and government.

• 
  [*]If so, maybe you should think about how the "righties" reacted when a man's wife, dog and son were all murdered by the FBI under Janet "quick draw" reno and bill "the playboy" clintons reigns of terror.
  
  Can you say waco?
  
  Ruby ridge and Waco go down and not a damn liberal in sight says a word...
  
  Yet legitmate actions to prevent terrorism are taken and every lefty in america starts *****ing about the freedoms that will be eliminated.

Not much there, is there? And the rest of the post is just attacking me, ineffectually. So less than one third of your post relates to the topic at hand, and even that part is scattered and malicious.

Actually, I dont think you even have a legitmate non-biased thought...

I mean, do you really think your the only person to worry about the government overstepping their boundries?

Of course not. I never suggested that.

If so, maybe you should think about how the "righties" reacted when a man's wife, dog and son were all murdered by the FBI under Janet "quick draw" reno and bill "the playboy" clintons reigns of terror.

Wait... Clinton was a moderate. Didn't you say:

• 
  [*]"Im gonna be sitting over here at the morally superior, moderate/independent table."

Can you say waco?

w - a - c - o

Ruby ridge and Waco go down and not a damn liberal in sight says a word...

Bush Sr. was president when Ruby ridge happened. Big Surprise.

Yet legitmate actions to prevent terrorism are taken and every lefty in america starts *****ing about the freedoms that will be eliminated.

This is total crap, and your double standard on issues like this are the reason no futher discussions are nessacery to prove you are full of it.

Really? Because from where I stand all I see from you are errors and incomprehensible rantings. Oh, and anger. Lots of anger.

Sorry to be insulting, but your crap will never work on me, or anyone with half a brain.

Yes. One would require an entire brain, of course. Is that your problem? Geeze I'm sorry I didn't realize…

Good luck buddy, and if I may suggest... move to san fran or boston, they love your kind in those areas.

My kind? Oh wait, you mean people who think. Gotcha. However I'd have to disagree. I did live in San Francisco for nine months and found the city annoying. Actually, you remind me quite a bit of the political whining and crying common to those parts.

In conclusion, you are controlled by fear, so much so that you are blinded to the risks being forced upon us by your willingness to entitle the government to secrecy and unmonitored power; so much so that you risk being exposed for the bumbling idiot you are by posting absolute nonsense and not even trying to make it appear legitimate.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by ledhed
but that does not mean that the right couldn't find that the end justifies the means and push bad legislation down our throats. Our laws are based on precidents and what does this one set ? I wan't to be very sure before I sign on.

Bravo. I don't see how what I said differs from this in any way besides style and wording.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by milefile

Yes. One would require an entire brain, of course. Is that your problem? Geeze I'm sorry I didn't realize…

My kind? Oh wait, you mean people who think.

Well done. Don't get banned, we like you!

 

[Kent]

I cant believe this has just happend... (and dont worry, I dont think anyone will get banned today. )

I erased an entire response to you in order to put one smilie down...

So now this will be short.

Basically, I stand corrected, ruby ridge was in 1992.

Waco texas was in 1993.

One was bush, the other was clinton.

This plays a key role in almost 50 to 60 % of my post that has been responded to with such "witty" flavor.

Im gonna go through your post really quick now. Keep in mind my open mistake.
I apoligize.

Preachy: You have no right to judge me as preachy. Flat out. Just get over it. (its almost childish)

Priciples and government: If your priciples drive your application of law and government, you will be governing from ideologies and not reasoning/logic.
Law and government (imo) should be based on real world application, not the theoretical beliefs of what a nation should represent.

Worth protecting: Our nation is worth protecting with out a doubt. Our freedoms and way of life are a cause of envy and hate for many. (as you stated of course.)
However, on that day, we should have learned our freedom wasn't the only thing these terrorist and fundamentalist want to take away/destroy.

Qouted from Milefiles post with cut and paste functions:
Why should the government be allowed to be secretive if it's citizens can't even have privacy? Why is it wrong to have universal healthcare and seatbelt laws because it's unfair to law abiding, hardworking citizens, but it's acceptable to make laws that remove privacy, due process, and essentially throw the constitution out the window at everybody's expense? It is all the same big government breathing down your neck. It is never good, even when you have been conned into being afraid.

-I have privacy.
-Universal healthcare and its pitfalls are a totally different subject.
-Virginia, my proud home and conservative state has mandatory, state wide seat belt laws. All passengers, all times, always on. (more or less)
-...Hardworking,law abiding, constitution, out the window... etc.
-Big brother government...

Literacy: Admittedly, I was hard on you for mistakes in grammar. However, I am more ashamed of the way you called out my obvious lack of any literacy. (I am ashamed )

From after this point it fades in terms of what is worth a proper response to...

... remarks....

-Qouted points of mine, flaming and non flaming.

-Non biased thought points...

Clinton was a moderate?

-Ruby Ridge error pointed out.

-Brain size and intellect insults.

-San Fransico comparison remarks. (along with more intellect/brain power/ ability to think stuff)

A qoute for conclusion: (milefile)

In conclusion, you are controlled by fear, so much so that you are blinded to the risks being forced upon us by your willingness to entitle the government to secrecy and unmonitored power; so much so that you risk being exposed for the bumbling idiot you are by posting absolute nonsense and not even trying to make it appear legitimate.
------------------

Secrecy and unmonitored power have been with us in the government since day one.

How that power is used? thats a different story.

At this point in time, there is a threat to the United States as well as any other "western" nation with a secular government.

The terrorist wish to destroy everything about our nations including the very people in these places.

Our lives are what they want, not just our economies or freedoms.

-Then once again, its bumbling idiot .... etc.

Then milefile conveyed the idea that I am afraid of something and I don't even realize it.

A fear that only he can see, a fear of my government and a blindness on my behalf .

I must say, thank you for pointing this out. I had no idea I was living in such an oblivious state of mind about our big (hes not around, its ok) brother...

To be honest, besides the well formated essay/use of qouting, and the expliotation of my own mistake, I would say your post contained almost nothing.

The reasoning behind your opposition of the patriot act and the "ever growing big brother government" was never fully supported besides the use of your priciples above all else.

There is the fundamental difference...

You want to apply your own personal priciples to government, I want to use reasoning/logic along with a basic recognition of what is applicable.

Not what is theoretically the right way to govern.

 

[Kent]

Just to make it clear.

I support this act because it is a direct and basic way of correcting problems within our system of criminal justice and intelligence gathering.

Taking advantage of intelligence, collaboration and active persuit of terrorism is the specific goal of the patriot act.

It is a basic need to all Americans at this point. (after 9/11)

There is my support and my reasoning. Thats all there is to it.

 

[Duke]

It's also, as ledhed put it, a more or less open door for lots of bad legislation to get tacked into/onto it.

Do you remember a few years ago when they were trying to make a case for a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning? Nobody could be American and vote against that, right? Well, guess what, it got loaded down with a lot of really questionable riders just because the authors knew you couldn't vote against it and be American.

 

[Kent]

You all have valuable points about the possibilities of a legislative oversight that may lead to the unconstitutional apprehension (sp?) of an innocent man or woman.

However, the early stages of legislature to deal with the newly arising terrorist threat should not be voted down simply on the basis of possible problems.

The main issue in this subject is- should the patriot act be passed.

Once you say anything more, from time to time it can be an interpretation. So once again, Im gonna try to link... http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/
I hope that did it.

I also want to stress that I understand your example with the flag burning.

The very design of our system allows for "suggestions" at any time. The flag example was excellent for this, as it was an act that should be passed based on the ideals of nationalism, yet it had to be voted down due to b.s. legislation.

With all of that said, I still believe that the patriot act is a necessity during this time.

I would be willing to say that 1 full month is all it would take to organize a terrorist activity.

With that sort of time span, we (the American people) should not take the risk of another 9/11 by acting slowly.

With the laptop being in possession before the attacks and one of the 20 high-jackers in custody, we couldn't do a thing.

The FBI and the CIA didn't even talk to each other before that.

As of recently the two have started working together with productive results.

This act is an attempt to allow these government agencies to do their job when it comes to terrorist.

With the nature of the stated goals in the patriot act, only true criminals of a certain kind would suffer the effects of the patriot act.

If the government was to once again, overstep its boundaries, I would be outraged by it.

Its kinda funny thinking about it, but about 2 weeks ago I saw an assault outside of a bar in Hammond, LA.

I watched the aggressor walk away, then followed him for just a sec. Out of the blue, I got pulled over.

The officer was from the scene and pulled up as I pulled away. Someone said, "those two! in the white car! them!"

The cop came and pulled me over, then treated me like a criminal.

I too mad about being the false accusations. It was the fact that the criminal got away that angered me.

I still keep in mind that the cop wronged me, but in a way he was doing his job.

However, if America did become a police state, this cop would have easily busted me for the pipe/dope in my car.

I appreciate my freedom and I don't want it taken away.

But I know what I saw and it was lives being taken away.

I mean, when you have 3,000 people killed in one attack, its no long mind games... its a full on war.

So when it comes to this issue I stand on the side of the patriot act.

We need to act on this situation or there will be another intelligence failure somewhere down the road, and that one is gonna cost human life just like before.

How would you all feel if we left our laws alone until buses in n.y. city were being blown up by terrorist like in Jerusalem?

If we don't give the fbi and the cia a little more freedom to look into the next "zacharias mussaoui breif case" there is a good chance Americans will pay for our hesitation about these laws.

 

[ledhed]

The patriot act was passed. Its law now . has been since Oct 2001 , I beleive. Parts of it are under reveiw and parts are automatically subject to reveiw as part of the bill, if I'm reading it right.Thats the whole point of discussion now , what to keep and whats not working or should not be made permanent. There is alot of good mixed in with the scary parts. IMO we have to find a way to keep the good parts and refine the others or delete them. The problem is as always no one agrees on whats scary and what should be deleted. Thats why I left the links I did. I wanted to get a feel for what you guys found troubling about it if anything. My biggest concern is the privacy issues, the lack of oversight, and the ability to wire tap without a warant .

 

[ledhed]

I am not endorsing this veiw I picked it because it gets to the meat of the subject and illustrates the more sensitive aspects of the act.
The new anti-terrorism law signed into law on Oct. 26 grants law enforcement authorities sweeping new surveillance powers that are not limited to terrorism investigations but also apply to criminal and intelligence investigations.


The new law, known as the USA Patriot Act, reaches into every space that Americans once imagined was private. For instance, police can now obtain court orders to conduct so called "sneak and peak" searches of homes and offices. This allows them to break in, examine and remove or alter items without immediately, if ever, presenting owners with a warrant detailing what they were entitled to do and where.


This seismic shift in the government's power of search and seizure also extends to the examination of records. Authorities can browse medical, financial, educational or even library records without showing evidence of a crime. The law overrides existing state and federal privacy laws if the FBI claims that the information is connected to an intelligence investigation.


In addition, credit reporting firms like Equifax must disclose to the FBI any information that agents request in connection with a terrorist investigation, without the need for a court order. In the past, this was only permitted in espionage cases.


Biometric technology, such as fingerprint readers or iris scanners, will become part of an "integrated entry and exit data system" to identify visa holders entering the United States. Face recognition technology is now being installed in several U.S. airports.


The legislators who rushed these provisions through the House and Senate say that law enforcement authorities need this data to help track down terrorists and prevent future attacks. "We were able to find what I think is the appropriate balance between protecting civil liberties, privacy and ensuring that law enforcement has the tools to do what it must," said Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.) in a statement following the passage off the bill.


But civil liberty groups have been alarmed by this legislation since it started whisking its way through Congress. Jim Dempsey, deputy director of the Washington D.C.-based Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), says he is particularly concerned about the provision in the law that allows the FBI to share with the CIA information collected in grand jury investigations. The 1947 National Security Act states that the CIA should have no domestic police or subpoena powers. But Dempsey says CIA agents could now use their close relationship with the FBI to essentially fill in subpoenas provided by prosecutors. "To do this with no prior judicial approval is a fundamental change in the way we have set up our police agencies and set them apart from our foreign intelligence agencies," said Dempsey. "And it was done with very little debate."


Legislators who voted for the USA Patriot Act pointed out that the most controversial surveillance sections will would expire in 2005. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) announced that a four-year expiration date "will be crucial in making sure that these new law enforcement powers are not abused."


Dempsey says the CDT is hoping there will be a Congressional review prior to any extension of the provisions. But he, and many others, have pointed out that these so-called "sunset provisions" do not apply to the sharing of grand jury information, giving the CIA the permanent benefits of grand jury powers.


The so-called "sneak and peak searches" are permanent as well. And further, the sunset provisions do not apply to ongoing cases. This means that intelligence investigations, which often run for years, would continue to operate under the law even if provisions are not extended past 2005. Also exempted are any future investigations of crimes that took place before this date.


Internet surveillance via "pen register" devices, which capture phone numbers dialed on outgoing telephone calls, and "trap and trace" devices, which capture the numbers of incoming calls, are also exempt from the sunset provisions. These orders were originally used to provide investigators with telephone numbers dialed by suspects. They can now be used to monitor email addressing information and Web pages visited, in some circumstances without judicial oversight. Investigations approved by the secretive FISA intelligence court would also not require notification.


Lee Tien, senior staff attorney for the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, notes that this type of surveillance requires mere certification with no evidence that the person being monitored is involved in criminal conduct or is a suspected member of a terrorist organization. While this online surveillance requires a judge's approval, the law mandates that the judge must approve every request and is not required to evaluate how the order was carried out.


Tien said he will be working with other online civil liberties groups to get the government to notify targets of pen/trap surveillances and increase judicial oversight. "The potential for pen/trap surveillance on the Internet is enormous," says Tien.


The new law also permits any U.S. attorney or state attorney general to order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore Internet surveillance system, which also has the capacity to capture the contents of email messages. The agency says the public must trust that investigators will not review this information.


Unlike trap and trace orders, Carnivore requires that investigators set up an audit trail which includes what information was gathered, by whom and when. But Tien notes the court is not required to review the information and make sure that it complies with the terms of the certification. "No one has that oversight role," says Tien.


While the government has the power to snoop, citizens who engage in similar activities now fall under the government's new definition of terrorists. The current definition of terrorism has been expanded to include hacking into a U.S. government computer system or breaking into and damaging any Internet-connected computer. Prison terms of between five to 20 years can now be used to prosecute the new crime of "cyberterrorism," which covers hacking attempts causing $5,000 in aggregate value in one year, damage to medical equipment or injury to any person.


Even Internet Service Providers, universities and network administrators are authorized under the new law to conduct surveillance of "computer trespassers" without a court order. The new law compels any Internet provider or telephone company to turn over customer information, including phone numbers called, without a court order, if the FBI claims that the records are relevant to a terrorism investigation. The company is forbidden to disclose that the FBI is conducting an investigation, has immunity to provide any sensitive data and is not bound by statutory rights to suppress the information. "There is no incentive for anyone to know about it, or challenge it or rein it in," says Dempsey.


Prior to the passage of the USA Patriot Act, Laura Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington National Office, wrote letters to the House and Senate warning that the bill would give enormous power to the executive branch unchecked by meaningful judicial review. "Included in the bill are provisions that would allow for the mistreatment of immigrants, the suppression of dissent and the investigation and surveillance of wholly innocent Americans," said Murphy.


Civil liberties groups point out that the government has a history of launching investigations against political dissidents. These include the FBI investigations of Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders in the 1960s, illegal spying on anti-war protesters in the 1960s and 1970s and surveillance on the sanctuary movement that provided asylum for those fleeing Central American death squads during the 1980s.


Attorney General John Ashcroft has brushed off these concerns and issued a directive to law enforcement investigators, urging them to aggressively use the new powers, which he says will be used to launch a "law enforcement campaign."


Steve Shapiro, national legal director for the ACLU, says Congress should use its unique subpeona power to get information about investigations and exercise its oversight authority on investigators. "Congress has given them these powers," said Shapiro. "And it has a big responsibility to make sure these powers are not abused."


Tien said the EFF would also be actively opposing calls for national ID cards, for biometric systems and for mandatory record keeping by ISPs, which has already been discussed seriously in Europe.


Dempsey says the CDT is concerned about the possibility that because the FBI has not been able to get to the core of the suspected terrorist cells, they will cast an even wider net. Cut loose from past standards and judicial controls, investigators, he fears, will collect more information on innocent people and be distracted from the task of actually identifying those who may be planning future attacks.


"That is where the law allows them to take it," says Dempsey. "And that is bad for civil liberties and bad for anti-terrorism investigations."


Ann Harrison is a San Francisco journalist who writes regularly for SecurityFocus.com and BusinessWeek.com. Ihope the author won't mind my cut and paste.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by GoKents
Its kinda funny thinking about it, but about 2 weeks ago I saw an assault outside of a bar in Hammond, LA.

I watched the aggressor walk away, then followed him for just a sec. Out of the blue, I got pulled over.

The officer was from the scene and pulled up as I pulled away. Someone said, "those two! in the white car! them!"

The cop came and pulled me over, then treated me like a criminal.

I too mad about being the false accusations. It was the fact that the criminal got away that angered me.

I still keep in mind that the cop wronged me, but in a way he was doing his job.

However, if America did become a police state, this cop would have easily busted me for the pipe/dope in my car.

This is exactly why it is so dangerous to average citizens. Under the Patriot Act this situation could have been done-and-over-with, resulting in you being held without being charged and no access to legal representation, for ever. All it would take is for somebody to say "terrorism".

 

[Kent]

Well no actually, not at all. (I do not agree with your statments about the possible events following my ordeal)

This is for one very specific reason.

The crime in question was an Assault of a young man directly infront of over 20 witnesses.

This makes it impossible to use terrorism in any part of a response to the crime and more importantly, this crime does not have any elements of terror in it.

Conspiracy, murder, or any of the major main stays of terror are all missing.

Then take into account 20+ witnesses (with only one drunk girl accusing me) and you have a false case, as well as no ties to terrorism. (as it doesn't take a brainiac to recognize the difference between a 2 am bar fight and a plot to murder hundreds by means of "conventional terrorist tactics.") (thank god since police are no brainiacs and thats for sure)

The situation I was in proved one thing quite well- that our system does work. (not always as well as it should, but it still works)

But it still shows that a false assualt charge, during a public assualt will not yeild a false perpetrator.

Use other examples if you wish to contest this, but the example above is my first hand experience.

I also believe a comparison between my false assault ordeal and a possible patriot act nightmare is unfair/non-applicable.

The patriot act lays out actions to take against terrorist.
Specifically terrorist.

Im sure you know this, as you resigned yourself to fighting this act on principle alone in earlier post.

I feel that even with theoretical and possible problems, the patriot act serves a very important purpose.
(*I laid out my reasoning for such a statment in the most recent post before this)

The holes in our criminal justice system out wiegh the possible problems with the patriot act.

We need to address the problems that led to 9/11's "mussaoui laptop problem" and not concentrate our work on voting down an act to correct this very problem.

There must be substance to an accusation. We must also address the problems within our system... apprehension/prosecution of terrorist and the collection/exploitation of intellegence should be the first priority in our war against terror.

The possible problems within legislation to address the above problems should take a back seat.

I also wanna mention that it was just wrong for the "un bombing thread" to be closed, and then some mod. comes up and adds another post with some stupid cartoon. (even after it was closed, which shows an abuse of mod. powers as well as un-ethical debate practices.)

 

[milefile]

You put a lot of trust into governmental agencies. You are banking on their goodness and honesty. There is no reason to do this, no evidence to suggest it is a safe bet. I choose not to. They work for me. Not the other way around.

It's also worth mentioning that all the information that was needed to to prevent 911 was in our government's possesion. The FBI, CIA, and INS couldn't work and play well together, though. This was the problem.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by GoKents

I also wanna mention that it was just wrong for the "un bombing thread" to be closed, and then some mod. comes up and adds another post with some stupid cartoon. (even after it was closed, which shows an abuse of mod. powers as well as un-ethical debate practices.)

yep,... that thread was hijacked,... shoulda just booted the perpetraiters instead.

ironic isnt it? A thread about terrorism that was hijacked

 

[Kent]

Lol, thats a good one, but Im writing a pm to the mod that pulled "something of a stunt" at the end of the thread.

I also talked to an admin who gave me advice on what to do....

Now back to the Patriot act.

 

[Danoff]

Terrible peice of legislation - removal of privacy and freedom. I understand that an American citizen was held for like 4 months without access to a phone or a lawyer. That is not what America is about.

 

[Kent]

Originally posted by milefile
You put a lot of trust into governmental agencies. You are banking on their goodness and honesty. There is no reason to do this, no evidence to suggest it is a safe bet. I choose not to. They work for me. Not the other way around.

It's also worth mentioning that all the information that was needed to to prevent 911 was in our government's possesion. The FBI, CIA, and INS couldn't work and play well together, though. This was the problem.

This is what I have been saying since I started responding to this thread.

Just one of the problems the patriot act proposes to fix is the "red tape" and "cross agency relations" of the entire criminal justice system.

I also want to mention that you are only making assumptions about my trust in the government.

Dealing with the real threat of terror is my chief concern when looking towards the future of America.

Look over at Israel and tell me that the "freedom" of the Jews is based on the people’s right to live without worries of the government's intrusion on to their property.

I would say their freedom is more directly related to the strong nationalistic bond against any terrorist activities.

If the free world will buckle down and concentrate on spreading the fundamentals of "humane living," slowly the entire world will see that it is inane to continue settling disputes through terroristic violence.

Unfortunately, this country as well as the majority of the world, can not decide how to confront this most recent form of terror.

Some believe negotiations and appeasement will nullify the terrorist threat...

I personally believe the examples of Israel dealing with Palestinian incursions and Britain dealing with Irish militants should serve as just a beginners guide on domestic terrorism control.

Opinions vary, and of course, as we always say, that's what makes America great.

Of course that’s a bit of a watered down difference in opinions.

Opposing the patriot act by all here is (and should be) out of concern for the interest of the country and our principle beliefs.

Then again, over time the "principle beliefs" of this country have changed.
At one point the country was more or less united on a man's freedom to own and operate a firearm.

Yet as times changed, so did our interpretations of those same freedoms to ownership of certain items. (Including drugs, alcohol, obscene materials and equipment such as vehicles and tools.)

So in many ways, this patriot act could be perceived as a "patch" for our security flaws. (Windows anyone? )

 

[ledhed]

If the patriot act works as good as windows ..we are well and truly screwed..