Whats so wrong with the Patriot Act

[Lex Concord]

The mere naming of the act screams Orwellian propoganda (USA PATRIOT = Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism).

How could any red-blooded American be so unpatriotic as to oppose an act with such a name?

I wonder how long it took for them to come up with the verbiage behind the acronym...I'm guessing less than 30 minutes...it's a fun game to play (the Acronym Game) when you have the time; very easy with practice.

 

[Lex Concord]

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.

I didn't take it as a slam on NYPD at all...I just thought you had a problem with the Irish and Italians

 

[Yup!]

So apparently I'm very naive. While I'm usually in the camp that says, "Go ahead, search my car, I have nothing to hide" I realize the dangers to that statement. While I see the dangers as you have outlined them, I'm trying to understand the likelihood that the gov't has the energy to spy in on me, then if they do, they will surely be pretty bored with their findings.

Now the issue of trust comes in. No, I don't trust the gov't, just like I don't trust the police (as a whole) because both organizations are made up of people, and people usually beat to their own agenda, regardless of what policies may prevent them from doing. So I don't trust individuals, though the organization as whole may mean well.

I'll dig into this more.

 

[Lex Concord]

So apparently I'm very naive. While I'm usually in the camp that says, "Go ahead, search my car, I have nothing to hide" I realize the dangers to that statement. While I see the dangers as you have outlined them, I'm trying to understand the likelihood that the gov't has the energy to spy in on me, then if they do, they will surely be pretty bored with their findings.

Now the issue of trust comes in. No, I don't trust the gov't, just like I don't trust the police (as a whole) because both organizations are made up of people, and people usually beat to their own agenda, regardless of what policies may prevent them from doing. So I don't trust individuals, though the organization as whole may mean well.

I'll dig into this more.

With advances in technology, they don't need that energy, just the desire and the resources (real or manufactured) to implement the necessary technology. Spying doesn't take nearly the manpower it used to.

Look up CARNIVORE and ECHELON for details to this end.

Edit: Then, for fun, you can watch this movie (English title: "The Listener")

 

[Yup!]

Just a question:

Senate and House Vote on Patriot Act

It wasn't even close?

Has it changed significant since it was introduced, or was it such a knee jerk reaction that it was something we all thought we wanted until it actually got here?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Just a question:

Senate and House Vote on Patriot Act

It wasn't even close?

Has it changed significant since it was introduced, or was it such a knee jerk reaction that it was something we all thought we wanted until it actually got here?

Just because a majority supported it, even a large majority, that doesn't make it right. This is before you consider that most of those bums don't even read the legislation they vote on.

 

[sepe]

Just a question:

Senate and House Vote on Patriot Act

It wasn't even close?

Has it changed significant since it was introduced, or was it such a knee jerk reaction that it was something we all thought we wanted until it actually got here?

Can't say that I honestly ever heard a single person that I know (even those dirty, commie libs) say they wanted something like the Patriot Act.

 

[Yup!]

Just because a majority supported it, even a large majority, that doesn't make it right. This is before you consider that most of those bums don't even read the legislation they vote on.

And I get that. But from another forum, blasting Ryan because he voted for the Patriot Act, seems hardly fair, if a large majority of the world wanted it back then. 2001 was different, the world as we know it changed, and I think the American Sheeple, (me included) wanted to feel protected, and this is how this came about.

The premise for me, continues to be, that if you truly have nothing to hide, what's the big deal? If the cops knocked on my door right now, I'd have no reason not to let them in.

 

[hacksawfg]

And I get that. But from another forum, blasting Ryan because he voted for the Patriot Act, seems hardly fair, if a large majority of the world wanted it back then. 2001 was different, the world as we know it changed, and I think the American Sheeple, (me included) wanted to feel protected, and this is how this came about.

The premise for me, continues to be, that if you truly have nothing to hide, what's the big deal? If the cops knocked on my door right now, I'd have no reason not to let them in.

While you may have nothing to hide now, the government has shown it's ability several times about arbitrarily changing the rules. Something perfectly acceptable today (buying a handgun for example), may be something they decide to investigate tomorrow.

 

[IndyDave1776]

And I get that. But from another forum, blasting Ryan because he voted for the Patriot Act, seems hardly fair, if a large majority of the world wanted it back then. 2001 was different, the world as we know it changed, and I think the American Sheeple, (me included) wanted to feel protected, and this is how this came about.

The premise for me, continues to be, that if you truly have nothing to hide, what's the big deal? If the cops knocked on my door right now, I'd have no reason not to let them in.

Well, Even if a majority or at least a strong plurality of people where in a giant knee-jerk emotional reaction, anyone fit for leadership should have known better.

As for the notion of having nothing to hide, read the Fourth Amendment. Unless they have reason sufficiently compelling to persuade a judge to issue a warrant, it is none of their damned business and they can go pound sand simply because it is none of their damned business.

 

[Yup!]

Well, Even if a majority or at least a strong plurality of people where in a giant knee-jerk emotional reaction, anyone fit for leadership should have known better.

So 357/66/9 says that the a large majority are unfit to be leaders? Could this be a better example of an earlier post here, that while the intentions were good, the unintended consequences were and continue to be bad.

As for the notion of having nothing to hide, read the Fourth Amendment. Unless they have reason sufficiently compelling to persuade a judge to issue a warrant, it is none of their damned business and they can go pound sand simply because it is none of their damned business.

I truly understand that. So playing devils advocate, if the patriot act, could have prevented 9/11 had it been in place already, would that not have been a good thing?

Is there a way to craft the legislation to still provide the ability to potentially limit our risk, without imposing on the rights of citizens. It doest seem possible.

I"ll go digging,, but is there a large movement to repeal this Act?

 

[griffin]

I am extremely right wing, and I was against the Patriot Act when it was proposed. Still am.

 

[Lex Concord]

I truly understand that. So playing devils advocate, if the patriot act, could have prevented 9/11 had it been in place already, would that not have been a good thing?

IF

That's a very big "if". Would stopping 9/11 have been a good thing? Sure. When you do your research, you should ask yourself this question. "How would this portion of the legislation have helped in preventing the attacks?". I would contend very few of the provisions would have been helpful to that end.

Is there a way to craft the legislation to still provide the ability to potentially limit our risk, without imposing on the rights of citizens. It doest seem possible.

The claim at the time was that rules preventing communication between law enforcement and intelligence communities (think FBI & CIA/NSA) were a big part of the problem. How running roughshod over the Constitution clears up any of these issues is beyond me. While some portions of the act may address these concerns, much of it does not.

I"ll go digging,, but is there a large movement to repeal this Act?

Sadly, no.

 

[IndyDave1776]

IF

That's a very big "if". Would stopping 9/11 have been a good thing? Sure. When you do your research, you should ask yourself this question. "How would this portion of the legislation have helped in preventing the attacks?". I would contend very few of the provisions would have been helpful to that end.



The claim at the time was that rules preventing communication between law enforcement and intelligence communities (think FBI & CIA/NSA) were a big part of the problem. How running roughshod over the Constitution clears up any of these issues is beyond me. While some portions of the act may address these concerns, much of it does not.



Sadly, no.

 

[rambone]

So playing devils advocate, if the patriot act, could have prevented 9/11 had it been in place already, would that not have been a good thing?

I'll just have to be "that guy." No. Living in a police state is not worth the false promise of security.

I"ll go digging,, but is there a large movement to repeal this Act?

Yeah, except anyone who opposes it will be shunned by radio hosts and party elites. Around here they get called anarchists for some reason.

 

[rambone]

Here are some threads to review on the Traitor Act.



10 Years Later: Do you support the Patriot Act?

The Patriot Act: Used for non-violent, non-terror crimes 99% of the time

There's a "Secret" Patriot Act, worse than we thought. Feds datamining everyone

The Federal No-Sell List; prohibitions on Auto Dealers via the Patriot Act

Suspicious activity at the Post Office today!

Had to pass Patriot Act screening to buy a car

 

[rambone]

Ron Paul before Congress, urging it not to renew the law in 2011.

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

 

[rambone]

The Feds can arrest librarians for telling citizens that the Feds are spying on their library book rental.

 

[rambone]

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]​

 

[Arthur Dent]

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?

Seriously? It can be summed up in three words: All of it.