Whats so wrong with the Patriot Act

[Yup!]

Ok, slam away, but seriously, what's so wrong with the Patriot Act. I don't know much about it, and I will invest some time into researching it, but I'm curious where to start the research.

Conceptually it sounds like a good idea, who doesn't want to know about terrorism before it happens?

 

[Lex Concord]

Ok, slam away, but seriously, what's so wrong with the Patriot Act. I don't know much about it, and I will invest some time into researching it, but I'm curious where to start the research.

Conceptually it sounds like a good idea, who doesn't want to know about terrorism before it happens?

Every last word of it...but coming from a guy who would be okay with an "assault weapons ban", the question doesn't surprise me.

 

[Yup!]

Every last word of it...but coming from a guy who would be okay with an "assault weapons ban", the question doesn't surprise me.

Thanks for furthering my education.

 

[Sylvain]

Im surprised you even ask, you probably dont know much about world history.
Bad things happened in the past with similar laws.

Giving more power to the government and taking away liberties from the people is NEVER a good idea, no matter if it protects us against terrorism or not.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."​

Benjamin Franklin​

 

[Stschil]

Will Mr Rambone please pick up the white courtesy phone?

Paging Mr Rambone, you have a call on the white courtesy phone...

 

[mydoghasfleas]

"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."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act

 

[Lex Concord]

Thanks for furthering my education.

It was truly my great pleasure.

Here is a link that might help.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=USA+PATRIOT+ACT

 

[henktermaat]

All snarkiness aside, It gives the government greater powers than they should have. Powers specifically banned by the 4th Amendment of the US constitution - as one previous poster stated:

"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."

It basically allows the government to spy on US citizens. And it has been around long enough that it's obvious that it has already become the proverbial "slippery slope." now, they can do just about anything to us under the guise of protecting us. It results in a severely limited amount of freedom, which is not the founding Father's intent for the government.

 

[Que]

Yup! To be in favor of the act, you must have some idea about what is included, besides the notion that we have further protections against terrorists. So, what parts do you find most appealing?

EPIC - USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)

Patriot Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lex Concord]

All snarkiness aside, It gives the government greater powers than they should have. Powers specifically banned by the 4th Amendment of the US constitution - as one previous poster stated:



It basically allows the government to spy on US citizens. And it has been around long enough that it's obvious that it has already become the proverbial "slippery slope." now, they can do just about anything to us under the guise of protecting us. It results in a severely limited amount of freedom, which is not the founding Father's intent for the government.

I tried to rep you for being a bigger man than I, but I'm all out...catch you next time.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ok, slam away, but seriously, what's so wrong with the Patriot Act. I don't know much about it, and I will invest some time into researching it, but I'm curious where to start the research.

Conceptually it sounds like a good idea, who doesn't want to know about terrorism before it happens?

1. It created a new federal bureaucracy of immense power which has consolidated virtually all domestic law enforcement resources.

2. It allows for spying on citizens without a warrant and in secret to the extent that anyone who manages to communicate to the person being spied on that they are being spied on is subject to charges. This means secret access without judicial oversight into your communications, banking and financial records, with the accompanying gag order automatically appended to all such demands. In other words, the Fourth and First Amendments are out the window.

3. It created the TSA as we know it.

4. It has directly led to intense preemptive scrutiny of citizens. A good example would be the two separate FBI background checks required of me TO DRIVE A DAMNED TRUCK.

Granted, this is just the short version from memory, but it should be an adequate start. Never forget that anything which can be arbitrarily revoked is not a right but a privilege. Does the Constitution have appended to it the Bill of Rights, or the Bill of Revocable Privileges? Never forget that if one is negotiable or can be effectively overridden, then any right can be given such treatment. Assuming that the criticism previously directed at you is valid, that would include ;picking and choosing the specific arms one may bear in spite of the Second Amendment containing the remarkably clear language 'shall not be infringed'.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I tried to rep you for being a bigger man than I, but I'm all out...catch you next time.

Got him!

 

[Yup!]

All snarkiness aside, It gives the government greater powers than they should have. Powers specifically banned by the 4th Amendment of the US constitution - as one previous poster stated:



It basically allows the government to spy on US citizens. And it has been around long enough that it's obvious that it has already become the proverbial "slippery slope." now, they can do just about anything to us under the guise of protecting us. It results in a severely limited amount of freedom, which is not the founding Father's intent for the government.

Thanks.

 

[SSGSAD]

I tried to rep you for being a bigger man than I, but I'm all out...catch you next time.

GOT HIM for YA !!!!!

 

[jamil]

Ok, slam away, but seriously, what's so wrong with the Patriot Act. I don't know much about it, and I will invest some time into researching it, but I'm curious where to start the research.

Conceptually it sounds like a good idea, who doesn't want to know about terrorism before it happens?

Well, yes, it's great to know about terrorism before it happens but what freedom are you willing to permenantly ceede the government to have that. What stops the government from using this new power for other purposes? Do you trust that they will only use it to discover terrorist plots? I don't.

 

[Yup!]

Yup! To be in favor of the act, you must have some idea about what is included, besides the notion that we have further protections against terrorists. So, what parts do you find most appealing?

EPIC - USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)

Patriot Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not in favor of it, but when it was enacted, I either didn't care, or didn't pay attention. So now that it continues to come up, I'm trying to figure out which it was and why.

I don't have an educated opinion on it, and since the majority here are opposed to it, I figured Id pose the question to start looking into it further.

 

[hacksawfg]

How the USA PATRIOT Act redefines "Domestic Terrorism" | American Civil Liberties Union

"The civil asset forfeiture power of the United States government is awesome. The government can seize and/or freeze the assets on the mere assertion that there is probable cause to believe that the assets were involved in domestic terrorism. The assets are seized before a person is given a hearing, and often without notice. In order to permanently forfeit the assets, the government must go before a court, but at a civil hearing, and the government is only required to prove that the assets were involved in terrorism by a preponderance of the evidence. Because it is a civil proceeding, a person is not entitled to be represented by an attorney at public expense if they cannot afford to pay an attorney. The time between seizure and forfeiture can sometimes be months; meanwhile, organizations or individuals whose assets are seized are forced to make do without the assets. Only the most financially flush non-profit organizations would be able to successfully defend themselves against government forfeiture. In short, without the full due process afforded in criminal cases, the U.S. government can bankrupt political organizations it asserts are involved in domestic terrorism."

Big paragraph there, but lots more to read in that article.

Also

[Infographic] Surveillance Under the Patriot Act | American Civil Liberties Union

Now, the government has already given itself the power to assassinate without due process American citizens on foreign soil. And they're building a data mining center in Utah (google it) that will decrypt and store every single piece of electronic communication, so all your emails, online purchases, cellular calls or calls over VOIP will be kept in a massive storage facility and disseminated by computer. So if you are OK with the government having all of this information and power available to them, just remember that they are the ones who get to set the rules on who is or not is a terrorist.

Is it outside the realm of possibility for them to track legal gun-owner purchases, and then search and seize those who may have a higher purchase rate than normal?

Is it outside the realm of possibility to think that unscrupulous types wouldn't gain access to this data? In this day and age, nothing is unhackable. If the government wanted to, they could find out ANYTHING about you. I personally have a BIG problem with that.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

It violates our freedom to protect our freedom.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yup, several years ago, the sister of a police officer wrote a book on police that I found very fascinating. One of the issues she raised was the efforts of the NYPD to diversify. I forgot which mayor decided that they needed more Hispanics on the force, so he lowered the height requirement for officers. As a result they hired a bunch of short Irish/Italians. He also decided that the force needed more black officers and reasoned that most candidates come from the ghetto and further reasoned that it is virtually impossible to live in such a culture with having had a brush or two with the law, so he mandated lowering the moral/ethical standards for new officers. As a result, NYPD hired a bunch of crooked Irish/Italians.

The point is not to slam the NYPD but rather to use a nice, compact example of how the supposed purpose of government action and the actual results can be very different. In the case of the PATRIOT Act, it supposedly gives the .gov the tools to combat terrorists but in practice gives the .gov the tools to end liberty as we know it and totally bypass the Constitution.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It violates our freedom to protect our freedom.

You just have to love circular logic, don't you?