10 Years Later: Do you support the Patriot Act?

[Hotdoger]

There have been instances where the USA PATRIOT Act has been used against individuals to see what books they've checked out at libraries and what they might have done on library computers. This was an issue that was addressed early on in the Acts debate and it just so happened to be one that the government had acted on. Seems like you might have been asleep at the wheel.
Features - The USA PATRIOT Act and Patron Privacy on Library Internet Terminals | LLRX.com

The Patriot Act and Civil Liberties | US Opinion and Editorial Right Side News

Had to be approved by a judge:
Section summary of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hotdoger]

Here's a case that puts the secret in secret police. Gag orders from the stasi that forbid you to talk about their secret letters.

How the Patriot Act stripped me of my free-speech rights - The Washington Post

"Senator Rand Paul stated that the non-disclosure is imposed for one year"

Is Rand lying?

 

[ocsdor]

While we are on the subject, which GOP candidates are for the immediate repeal of the Patriot Act?

 

[mrjarrell]

"Senator Rand Paul stated that the non-disclosure is imposed for one year"

Is Rand lying?

He could certainly be misinformed, wouldn't be the first time that a politician was ignorant.

 

[mrjarrell]

Had to be approved by a judge:
Section summary of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Special, hand picked judges who have had a penchant for rubber stamping whatever came their way. I think we get it, tho. You're in favour of the Act and the government's actions under it. We get it.

 

[rambone]

The attacks of 9/11 were not the reason for the Patriot Act, but the means for passing it. The Establishment had been trying to seize the powers contained in the law multiple times since the 1980s. They failed then, but when 9/11 happened, they just pulled it out of a drawer and had it put into law within 45 days.

The USA PATRIOT Act Was Planned Before 9/11

 

[Lead Head]

The Patriot Act was/is a back door into every American Citizen's life.

You are guilty until proven otherwise.

Welcome to the future.............

 

[rambone]

"Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists."
- George W. Bush

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I voted "No" only because "HAHAHAROTFLMFAOHAHAHA HELLLLL NOOOOO!!!!11!!!" wasn't an option.

 

[tmkr]

Patriot Act,
another license for the fed to spend billions and violate our rights

 

[quicksdraw]

The "Patriot Act" (an ironic name for something so blatantly at odds with American ideals) is proof that no good occurs when a bunch of hysterical, candy a**ed politicians decide they have to do something, anything, to placate their equally hysterical constituents.
I thought that then, I think it now, and I will continue to think it until Big Brother disappears me.

 

[Lex Concord]

The "Patriot Act" (an ironic name for something so blatantly at odds with American ideals) is proof that no good occurs when a bunch of hysterical, candy a**ed politicians decide they have to do something, anything, to placate their equally hysterical constituents.
I thought that then, I think it now, and I will continue to think it until Big Brother disappears me.

Not ironically named. The name was specially-crafted propaganda.

Acronyms are easy.

 

[dross]

Hell, I thought of voting yes without explanation just to give everybody a reason to pile it on.

This whole thread is stupid. The premise is stupid. The request is stupid. Why would anybody open himself up to the kind of vitriol he's sure to receive? Just stupid.

Just out to pick another fight, eh?

Yeah 88GT, stop picking fights. Try to follow the forum-pacifistic model of mrjarrel.

At least you don't hit and then run and hide.

 

[rambone]

I knew the Patriot Act was unpopular, but even in a very Republican hangout it is still polling at 5%. Imagine what the numbers would look like when you add in those Bush-hating libtards as well.

 

[rambone]

 

[rambone]

Herman Cain: Patriot Act is 90% right on

Herman Cain on the War on Terror

Q: Tell me about the domestic side of our counter-terrorism efforts. What kinds of protections should be in place in terms of federal law enforcement going into people's bank records or listening to their phone calls. Do you think that should require a warrant?

CAIN: I'm a little troubled by police officers being able to go into a home without a warrant or a court order... But that being said, I would rather error on the side of detection - in terms of making sure that we have every opportunity to detect as well as anticipate any threats toward this country. I do believe in individual rights. I believe in privacy. But I also believe that we've got to give our intelligence agencies the leeway in order to be able to protect us. If I have to choose between political correctness or doing what's right to protect us I'll go with doing what's right to protect us every time.

Q: Is there anything in the PATRIOT Act that bothers you, that you'd want to see reversed, or are you pretty much okay with that legislation?

CAIN: I think that the PATRIOT Act is about 90 percent right on. I can't delineate to you exactly what I would want to change, but here again I would rather error on the side of caution and protection, rather than worry about that ten percent that I might have a problem with. Perfect legislation doesn't exist. But I'm happy with legislation that's 90 percent right on especially if it's going to protect the people.

Q: What would you say to a civil libertarian who argued that we all want to safeguard American lives, but that if you don't draw some legal line then the government is going to tend to use its authority for nefarious purposes?

CAIN: What I'd say to them is this. I think it's one of our founding fathers who said - I think it might have been Thomas Jefferson, it might have been Abraham Lincoln, I'm not sure - if men were angels, we wouldn't need laws. Men are not angels. I'm okay doing what we need to do to protect this country. And if we see an opportunity where we need to change a law, then let's change it. Because if we try to debate hard and long how we create the perfect law, we could be annihilated by then. Let's pass laws that are 90 percent right on, and then go back and debate whether or not we need to change somethings - rather than waiting until we have a law or legislation that everybody feels is 100 percent.

 

[rambone]

Mitt Romney: Most important civil liberty is security

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaXfwuGmxg[/ame]

 

[rambone]

Michelle Bachmann: Voted to extend the Patriot Act in Feb 2011

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoVFMiKYvH8[/ame]

 

[rambone]

Ron Paul: Repeal the unconstitutional "Patriot" Act in its entirety!

Reconsidering the Patriot Act by Rep. Ron Paul

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Patriot Act waters down the Fourth amendment by expanding the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mails and internet communications. I wonder how my congressional colleagues would feel if all of their e-mail headings and the names of the web sites they visited were available to law enforcement upon a showing of mere “relevance.”
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. We must understand that politicians and bureaucrats always seek to expand their power, without regard to the long-term consequences. If you believe in smaller government, ask yourself one simple question: Does the Patriot Act increase or decrease the power of the federal government over your life? The answer is obvious to those who understand that freedom cannot be exchanged for security.[/FONT]​

​

​

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdvpiA7-gss[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAOPZVK2q0M[/ame]

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

For the sake of argument:

The word warrant appears one time in the Constitution - in the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment says:

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.

Warrants are issued according to law, not the Constitution. There is no constitutional requirement that warrants be issued by the judiciary - just that they be issued based upon presentment of probable cause supported by oath. While I am not a fan of the Patriot Act, I fail to see where the provision Paul complains about is unconstitutional.