ACLU files lawsuit against Patriot Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm curious, for all of you railing against the PATRIOT act, how many have actually read it???
Click to expand...

edit: I reread your posts CMichael, do you think the the PA violates the 4th, 5th, or 6th amendments? The act does exactly what the founding fathers said the .gov could absolutely not do.

No one should pass laws without reading them, or debating them.

I will quote parts later tonight(8-4-03), I have to leave soon.
 
Last edited:
The ACLU is selectively liberal. Liberal when it comes to dirtbags and convicts. Haughty when it comes to firearms. In respects to the Patriot Act, I'm glad they filed.
 
Where are you guys getting your information??? "Random wiretapping"??? Where did you get that??

Again - please don't listen to the liberal media (the very same media you flame on every other issue), but actually go and read the act - I think you'll see things in a different light.

CMichael, you've obviosuly read it. I re-read it again yesterday after some of the more ignorant statements made in this post and can't believe the inflammatory rhetoric being spewed here.

Someone, please point to me where it guts the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments??? Most of the "increased security" must be pursuant to an already ongoing criminal investigation. It merely removes some of the ties from sharing information amongst agencies. You all need to take some lithium and go read the act.

Are you all also aware that it provides for civil and criminal sanctions for misuse?? There are a lot pf protections buit into it. Why do you think even the 'rats voted for it??
 
JimP:

In part, you wrote: "Are you all also aware that it provides for civil and criminal sanctions for misuse?? There are a lot pf protections buit into it. Why do you think even the 'rats voted for it??"

Jim:

Re the above, a couple of querstions if I may.

1. Re the civil and criminal sanctions for misuse, one assumes of power/authority under the PA, likely looks good on paper, as have other things, however can you cite or remember any instances of what have been described as JBT's, ever having been seriously called to task for their abuse of authority, or for riding rough shod over the rights of individuals? I don't believe that I can, however it is certainly possible that I'm missing something.

2. I haven't read the PA, however respecting the "'rats" having voted for it, if claims to the effect of their socialist leanings are correct, and given that the PA greatly broadens the powers and authority of government, is anyone all that suprised at the Democrats having voted for the thing?

3. Would you please clarify "pf" as in pf protections for me. Thanks.
 
Jim I did indeed read it and I posted it here several times trying to get a discussion going on the substance. I wasn't successfuly.

Basically all I get back is how it violates the constitution (not saying how exactly of course) and how it's like nazi germany.

It's kind of frustrating.:rolleyes:
 
"I've posted it on here before..."

All 300 pages? Neat trick.

"I've read it..."

Which is an isometric exercise without an annotated copy of the U.S.C. handy, since a good 50% is amendments, insertions, and alterations to existing law.

Like I pointed out before, though, don't feel too bad, as those who passed it into law didn't read it, either. ;)


Most of what it does is slightly modify already loathesome and intrusive laws to make them slightly more loathesome and intrusive. It weakens posse comitatus, loosens requirements for warrants, broadens their scope, and if it had been proposed by a Demican administration rather than a Republicrat one, there'd be ringing cries of "traitors!" and "impeachment!" As a matter of fact, several of the laws that it polishes up a bit were lambasted by the same crew now praising it. I can't recall that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act were exactly darlings with the "Conservative" set when they were passed during the Clinton and Carter regimes; as a matter of fact, they were decried for their intrusiveness. Now the get expanded and made more intrusive, but that's suddenly "okey-dokie". This "cheering for my team" school of politics will be the death of this country yet...

And it does make a difference that the ACLU is against it. It shows what a great Act it really is.
Click to expand...

Sec. 1; replace "ACLU", "against" and "great" with "CMichael", "for" and "anti-freedom". ;)
 
The legislation is organized in chapters. If you want to you can easily find the topic you are interested in and see what it says about it.

I don't see how so many people here can be so adamant against it and have no clue what is actually in it.

And no I don't care to read the opinion of some biased organization in its interpretation of it.
 
Yes, CMichael, I've read it.

I even took the time to really read it.

Here's a bit at random:

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:...
Click to expand...

Quick, CMichael, what's Sec. 3103a of title 18, U.S.C. say?
Without knowing, how does "reading the Act" give you any understanding of it?
 
Okay. The big one? Section 215. Do you see the words "probable cause" in there anywhere?

A warrant to search and seize tangible property requires good probable cause to believe that the property sought and seized is criminal or is linked to criminal activity.

Well, it used to be.

Thanks to section 215 of the Patriot Act, the only thing required to search for and seize tangible property is: "shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."

No "probable cause to believe that the records...etc." just some Fibbie telling a US magistrate that "We need these records to protect against terrorism."

Horse Hockey.

And what's even better is that Congress was worried enough about potential misuse of this endrun around the Fourth Amendment that Congress specified that each and every request to seize tangible property under this statute shall be reviewed by part of Congress on a semi-annual basis.

Excuse the hell out of me, does anyone around here think that a room full of sleepy congress-critters listening to a monotone recitial of each seizure of tangible property over the last six months is going to twig onto the misuses of this?

Wait! It gets better. When the Fibbies come and take away your tangible property, they don't have to tell you why they're taking it away.
`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
Click to expand...

"Why are you seizing my hard-drive?"

"None of your business. Hand it over."

Hang on just a minute, it gets better!

d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
Click to expand...

If you decide to go to a lawyer for the purpose of getting your stuff back, you just committed a Federal crime!

If you decide to complain to your congress-critter to try to get your stuff back, you just committed a Federal crime!

If you seek recompense for your seized stuff through the courts, you just committed a Federal crime!

The Feds can: 1)seize your tangible property on a whim, 2)Not tell you anything about the seizure, and 3)throw your butt in Federal lockup if you tell anyone -lawyer, minister, Congress-critter, Senator, Judge, editor of the local paper - it happened.

And this is Constitutional??

LawDog
 
The problem with legislation such as the Patriots Act is that it is a technical correction to existing code. Only a small handful (3 to 5 ) of staffers who researched and wrote the bill knows what it actually says. More than likely the changes made have been in the works for decades waiting just the right vehicle. The continuing bureaucracy at CIA, FIB, NSA, etc are the ones who have agendas that are not necessarily those of the president. Legislation such as the Patriots Act gives visibility to the great shadow government that has plagued presidents throughout the 20th century.

That is why the only proper defense is an ironclad, lead pipe cinch sunset provision. Which BTW should be attached to any and all federal legislation.
 
I ain't done yet.

Up until section 213 of the Patriot Act, a search of your home required that you be presented with a search warrant at the time of the search, said search warrant to clearly state what was being searched for.

No longer!

Now, not only can the feds search and seize your property without telling you why they're doing so, they can search and seize your proprety without telling you they are doing so!

For example, when you leave your house the next time, the Feds can enter into your house, search it and not tell you that they have done so!

Not only can the Feds enter your house without telling you so, but they can seize your tangible property without telling you so.

I don't know about y'all, but around these parts we call that 'burglary'.

You will note under section 213 that the Feds are required to tell you that they snuck into your house and stole (excuse me, seized) your computer hard-drive "within a reasonable period."

And guess who defines "reasonable period"? Yes! The same people who snuck into your house and took your stuff without telling you in the first place! And if that wasn't enough, a court can extend the period before the Feds have to tell you that they snuck into your house and seized your stuff for an indeterminate period.

Do note that this bloody significant change in the law is not limited to anything the Feds decide is terror related.

Nope, this little darlin' extends to anything that "constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States".

Let me tell you how this one works. I think that you, CMichael, are a dirty, nasty little criminal. I can't prove that you are a blot upon baseball, motherhood, and apple pie, but my gut says that you're a criminal. Thanks to the Patriot Act, if I can find a sympathetic judge, I can sneak into your house while you're gone tomorrow evening and rifle the place looking for criminal evidence. If I don't find anything, I can sneak back in there next week, and the week after, ad infinitum until I find something.

That sound you hear in the back is the Fourth Amendment taking it in the neck.

LawDog
 
The fact that the ACLU is against the Patriot Act definetly increases the credibility of the Partriot ACt.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that is probably true. As a rule, the general public tends to be for anything the ACLU is against. BTW, this is not without cause since they are typically out defending child molestors and crack-addicted welfare queens. However, ever once in a blue moon they file a case that has some merit. This would seem to qualify.
 
CMichael:

The following, below my thoughts, was posted by Tamara.

For myself, I haven't read the PA, just bits and pieces thereof, however with regard to the following, i seems to me that the s.o.b's, congressional/senate staffers who "wrote" the PA deliberately intended to OBFUSCATE. They managed pretty well, to achieve that end, and one suspects that their bosses haven't read the thing, to this very day.

I'm not an attorney, nor do I have anything much in the way of legal background. Matter of fact, prior to retirement, I guess that I was a 1/4 baked machanical engineer, actually a Piping Designer/Checker, sometime Field Engineer/Construction Supervisor.

It does seem to me that re the law, it should be written in such manner as to allow any reasonably intelligent citizen to be able to understand exactly what is required of them, with a minimum of effort on their part. Looking at the way the thing was written, see below, this is the very last thing achieved, or intended, and there is something terribly wrong with such a situation. At least, that is the way it appears to me.

By the way, it also seems to me that if law cannot be written, as above described, then quite possibly, it shouldn't be written at all. It also appears to me that if you for instance, are either unable or unwilling to CLEARLY state exactly exactly what it is that you are after, that others are well advised to view your actions with great suspicion. The same applies to the PA, and those who wrote it. By the way, no personal attack on you is intended, after all, you didn't write the PA, did you?

Please see Tamara's post below.

Tamara Yes, CMichael, I've read it.

I even took the time to really read it.

Here's a bit at random:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Quick, CMichael, what's Sec. 3103a of title 18, U.S.C. say?
Without knowing, how does "reading the Act" give you any understanding of it?








Tamara Yes, CMichael, I've read it.

I even took the time to really read it.

Here's a bit at random:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Quick, CMichael, what's Sec. 3103a of title 18, U.S.C. say?
Without knowing, how does "reading the Act" give you any understanding of it?
 
Quote:

It does seem to me that re the law, it should be written in such manner as to allow any reasonably intelligent citizen to be able to understand exactly what is required of them, with a minimum of effort on their part. Looking at the way the thing was written, see below, this is the very last thing achieved, or intended, and there is something terribly wrong with such a situation. At least, that is the way it appears to me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THAT is probably the best issue raised yet.

I for one, am sick of "See section A, paragrach 32, subsection c, 3rd amendment to paragraphs 16, 19, 32 (a and b), of the amended amendment as seen in........"

yikes....
 
According to Paul, Patriot Act is unconstitutional

Representative Ron Paul gave a speech last weekend that agrees with Lawdog's analysis. Paul also confirmed that no Congressman had the Act available to read it in time for the vote; Dr. Paul said "so of course I voted NO".

Too bad there's only one like him out of 435.
 
Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order.

Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user.

the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge - without having to prove it - that such a warrant would be "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.

"Nationwide" pen register warrants, section 214
Under the Patriot Act PR/TT orders issued by a judge are no longer valid only in that judge's jurisdiction, but can be made valid anywhere in the United States. This "nationwide service" further marginalizes the role of the judiciary, because a judge cannot meaningfully monitor the extent to which his or her order is being used. In addition, this provision authorizes the equivalent of a blank warrant: the court issues the order, and the law enforcement agent fills in the places to be searched. That is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment's explicit requirement that warrants be written "particularly describing the place to be searched."

This section also allows for warents to track transactional data such as urls and email headers, such as subject lines, both contain information on the content.

I starting getting a headache reading the thing, I am a computer programmer, reading stuff like should be second nature. I cheated and starting quoating what others have found.

As for the 4th, 5th, and 6th being gutted, yes I stand by my original statement. I highlighted the parts of them at the beginning of this thread that were violated.

EDIT: Sorry, I know I promised more, and by last night, but I ran out of time, and squandered the rest on other posts :(

Expect more in the next few days, I plan to search to see if there are detailed analysis of any given seaction, and if not, build one for a couple sections and submit them to any group that cares.
 
Last edited:
Anything done in haste by a government is generally detrimental to those being governed. I wonder how many people inside the beltway who had a hand in this monstrosity laugh daily They know congresscritters very seldom to never read legislation. They listen to their aids and vote accordingly.
 
dustind, who wrote in part, the following:

"Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order.

Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user.

the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge - without having to prove it - that such a warrant would be "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.", which leads me to the following question, regarding the actions or antics of those stalwarts of law enforcement, The FBI, regarding this Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Will the Fan Belt Inspectors get after those wonderful folks who innundate my, and likely your e-mail inboxes with endless variations on the theme of cut rate viagra, penis and breast enlargers, yes there is something of a dichotomy therein, special low mortgage rates, free pornography and or adult entertainment, for which there always seems to be a fee of some sort, and so forth and so on? NAH.

By the way, complete this jingle in 25 words or less and you will win an all expenses paid trip to east McKeesport for a weekend. This by the way, is first prize. Second prize is a one weeks trip, same location. No offense intended to the good people of East McKeesport.
 
If you decide to go to a lawyer for the purpose of getting your stuff back, you just committed a Federal crime!

If you decide to complain to your congress-critter to try to get your stuff back, you just committed a Federal crime!

If you seek recompense for your seized stuff through the courts, you just committed a Federal crime!
Click to expand...

So LawDog,

By extension, if I come home and find my house broken into and my computer missing, and I call the local police to report the burglary, if the "burglars" were actually the Feds then I've comitted a Federal Felony?

[/tinfoil hat]
 
Stickjockey:

If the PA actually says what you indicate it says, and you acted as you described, having come home, and finding your abode burglarized, you might well have broken federal law.

You might be wise in demanding a jury trial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
ACLU v Patriot Act. Lawsuit filed.
Replies
23
Views
865
Art Eatman
A
A
  • Locked
from 22 August Reason Magazine, on-line edition
Replies
2
Views
266
alan
A
C
  • Locked
Libraries Rally Against USA Patriot Act
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
sanchezero
S
W
  • Locked
Sen. Sensenbrenner opposes expanded Patriots Act
Replies
3
Views
397
Geech
G
W
  • Locked
City Criminalizes Patriot Act
Replies
5
Views
544
Delmar
D
Back
Top