Have you read the actual Patriot Act?

[ProGlock]

Many of us discuss this horrible excuse for a law, but many don't even know what's in it. I urge those of you interested to save this document for future reference. Please read the whole thing. The blatant violations of the Constitution should be obvious.

http://www.fincen.gov/hr3162.pdf

 

[mbs357]

Good find, and thanks for the link. I currently don't have Adobe Reader, but I have saved it. Again, thanks. =D

 

[MrTuffPaws]

I have read the parts dealing with law enforcement expansion of powers. I stopped there, being to degusted to go on.

 

[JimP]

I've not only read it; but worked with it.

1) what are the constitutional violations you fear??

2) If it was so bad, why did almost ALL Democrats vote for it??

 

[Zundfolge]

...I currently don't have Adobe Reader...

Not having a PDF reader is just not acceptable

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

 

[dustind]

I have read parts of it. I swear they made it intentionally hard to understand.

2) If it was so bad, why did almost ALL Democrats vote for it??

Democrats frequently vote for bad things, that statement does not help your argument with me.

 

[Michigander]

2) If it was so bad, why did almost ALL Democrats vote for it??

It is my understanding that the act was not available to Congress when they voted to pass it.

Is this just a myth?

 

[larryw]

Interesting take from last year:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/291ryznn.asp?pg=1

[snip]

How's about we concentrate on some facts, Feinstein suggested.

"I've tried to see what has happened in the complaints that have come in," she said, "and I've received to date 21,434 complaints about the Patriot Act." Except these turned out to be unrelated civil liberties gripes, or complaints about a "Patriot Act II" that doesn't yet exist. "I have never had a single [verified] abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff emailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They emailed back and said they had none."

The widespread hullabaloo over the Patriot Act, Senator Feinstein concluded, proceeds from "substantial uncertainty . . . about what this bill actually does do." And "perhaps some ignorance," she added.

We'd challenge that "perhaps" part. Otherwise, we're with Dianne Feinstein a hundred percent. Wonders never cease.

 

[ProGlock]

what are the constitutional violations you fear??

I very much appreciate what the 4th amendment enumerates for all people, that being they are to be free from unreasonable searches on their persons, papers and effects unless served with a warrant.

Lovely how the patriot act allows for the searches, and then the warrant can be served AFTER the search is done.

 

[Michigander]

Lovely how the patriot act allows for the searches, and then the warrant can be served AFTER the search is done.

Actually, I believe Section 215 of the act allows for searches and seizers of your personal effects and they NEVER have to inform you that a search has taken place.

Talk about "no knocks."

 

[griz]

Well I just looked at it, read would not be the right word. The reason is most of it reads like this:

"The heading for section 481 of title 18, united states code, is amended by stricking "or stones" and inserting "stones, or analog, digital, or electronic images".

This is on page 184 of 342 or so pages.

My copy of the United states code turned up missing, OK I never had a copy, so it's more than a little difficult to piece it together and figure out what any of it means.

One thing that caught my attention just in the contents was Title IV, Protecting the border. Under that are these: Subtiltle A is Protecting The Northern Border, Subtitle B is Enhanced Immigration Provisions, and Subtilte C is Preservation of Immigration Benifits for Victims of Terrorism.

Do you see what's missing? Well unless I missed a memo the southern border is pretty pourous, where is the protection for that gateway for terrorists?

 

[The Rabbi]

Have there been any actual documented complaints of civil rights violations due to the Patriot Act? Not aware of any.

 

[Michigander]

Have there been any actual documented complaints of civil rights violations due to the Patriot Act? Not aware of any.

Considering that you NEVER have to be notified that a search of your effects, records, etc., has been conducted and that your right to privacy has been violated, and those who may know of said search (i.e. Internet Service Provider, Psychiatrist, etc.) are forbidden (permanent gag order) to EVER tell anyone about it (even in general terms), who can lodge a complaint?

 

[The Rabbi]

Considering that you NEVER have to be notified that a search of your effects, records, etc., has been conducted and that your right to privacy has been violated, and those who may know of said search (i.e. Internet Service Provider, Psychiatrist, etc.) are forbidden (permanent gag order) to EVER tell anyone about it (even in general terms), who can lodge a complaint?

What is your source for this?

The DOJ website's FAQ's tell a different story. Of course for people intent on believing the worst that would just be considered additional evidence for how sneaky the gov't is.

 

[Michigander]

What is your source for this?

The text of the law itself.

I cannot find anywhere in the USA PATRIOT Act where an order issued under Section 215 must be presented to the person who's effects, records, etc. are to be (or have been) searched. Neither could I find it in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. If you know where it says this, please inform me.

As for the perepetual gag order:

(c)(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that
it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection
(a).

Not even the order itself discloses the purpose of the search.

(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.

A librarian would be in violation of this law if he disclosed to me that the FBI had contacted him in order to search under this law. Whether my activities were the focus of the search or someone else's, that librarian (doctor, ISP, psychiatrist, employer, etc.) would be in violation of this law. Even if I were merely taking a poll of various libraries to see how many FBI investigations have occurred under this act, that librarian would be breaking the law if he told me.

Notice there is no time limit for the expiration of this gag order.

 

[DMF]

Lovely how the patriot act allows for the searches, and then the warrant can be served AFTER the search is done.

You think delayed notification warrants are an invention of the USA-PATRIOT Act? Further proof that people go off half-cocked and rant without knowing any of the facts.

Delayed notification warrants have been around for decades, and the USA-PATRIOT Act, just standardized how they are done. There is nothing about the delayed notification warrants that violates the 4th Amendment. LE still has to establish PC to the judges to get a warrant issued.

EDIT TO ADD: For those whining that you never have to notified, please read this: http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/docs/patriotact213report.pdf

 

[DMF]

Is this just a myth?

Yes.

 

[rock jock]

Considering that you NEVER have to be notified that a search of your effects, records, etc., has been conducted and that your right to privacy has been violated, and those who may know of said search (i.e. Internet Service Provider, Psychiatrist, etc.) are forbidden (permanent gag order) to EVER tell anyone about it (even in general terms), who can lodge a complaint?

Doggone it! I KNEW that someone has been rifling around in my house when I'm out. Just the other day I was looking for my left Spongebob sock, and it was MISSING!!! Those damn feds! Will they never stop screwing with my mind?

the preceding rambling delusional and factually baseless paranoid fantasy has been brought to you by rock jock in an attempt to relate to certain members of THR

 

[Michigander]

http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/docs/...ct213report.pdf

No where, in the above link, is any reference to Section 215.

Also, Section 213 states, in part:

(2)‘(b) DELAY.—With respect to the issuance of any warrant or
court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search
for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence
of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States,
any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may
be delayed if—

(emphasis added)
Notice that this delay applies only to "property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense." If they go fishing and find no "evidence of criminal offense," this delayed notification section would appear to not apply.
And the phrase "or that may be required" indicates that such notice may not be required.

It continues:

(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing
immediate notification of the execution of the warrant
may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property,
any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section
2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any
stored wire or electronic information, except where the court
finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

Without looking up up section 2510 or chapter 121 for now, my only comment about this subsection is that I noticed that items have to be prohibited from the warrant. That is opposite of the words and intent of Amendment IV.

Then:

(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice
within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may
thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.’’.

I suppose "good cause" is open to interpretation. In any case, it certainly leaves the door open to delay notice indefinitely.

 

[DMF]

Michigander you neglect to note in your analysis that the courts, not LE agencies, determine how long they may delay notification. Before and after the USA-PATRIOT Act, delayed notification warrants are extremely rare, because judges are loathe to grant them, and very cautious about how long they allow the delay.

 

[Wildalaska]

DMF please dont insert a knowledge of the law into a chicken little argument

And yes fellow traveelrs, I HAVE read the Patriot act

WildandtheusctooAlaska

 

[dustind]

Keep in mind that no one read it before passing it.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/feds/justice_redaction.htm Justice department censures supreme court quote.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml CBS article about abuses, the first thing that google turned up. It looks to have some credible claims.

The ACLU has been against it for a very long time, and has many examples. Feinstein is lying as usual.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/lynch-030910.html Talks about section 215, and how the judges must comply. "Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter." Plus it includes a gag order so you can not tell anyone about the abuse.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=344&issue_id=68 Has more on section 215, basically a court working in secret (no one knows what they are considering or doing, except congress twice a year and the FBI) must rubber stamp anything that is filled out properly.

There where a few good threads about this before.

Disclaimer: I could be wrong about a few things I said. If I am, try to act like an adult about it please, and take the high road.

 

[DMF]

Keep in mind that no one read it before passing it.

Oh where does this crap come from?

No one read it? Are you aware of any of the procedures to get a bill through both houses of Congress, then signed into law by the President? If no one read it, who wrote it, and proposed the legislation in the House, and Senate? 67 people (66 in the House and 1 Senator) voted AGAINST the Act. Do you think maybe they read it, and saw something they didn't like?

It amazes me that people here on the THR, who claim to love the Constitution, and are so concerned about the civil rights it protects, don't even understand the basic mechanisms of the government the Constitution creates.
:banghead:

Can we please skip this tinhat nonsense when these topics are discussed and get on with real discussions?

Disclaimer: I could be wrong about a few things I said.

Why not do some research first, rather than put this caveat here, and post BS that you haven't properly researched.

 

[LadySmith]

Keep in mind that no one read it before passing it.

They voted for it before voting against it.

 

[Ryan in the House]

I have read summaries of the Act and then went to look up the controversial passages in it.

About the FBI searching my records... I can kick and scream and call it an invasion of my privacy all I want, but I shouldn't be hiding anything anyway - I'm not a criminal in hiding. So let's say I am prematurely notified that my records are being watched. If this same luxury had been applied to a terrorist, he or she may have a chance to get away and live to fight another day. We want the terrorists to be apprehended, not scared off. You're willing to sacrifice the lives of Americans just so you can keep your records to yourselves? Is there something that you don't want the FBI to see? Or are the records of terrorist suspects being privately monitered by government officials a non-issue to you? The same goes for delayed warrant notification.

I'm willing to give up a little privacy, being that this technique will not be misused to discriminate, to thwart the attempts of a terrorist who is planning to, for example, gas a subway train in the D.C. / Metro area. Sacrifice for your country is what being American is about.

I just consider that these tactics are being used to protect us, not to harm us.

Then again, I'm going to hear some speculation here that "the man" is out to take our guns and what not... go ahead and hit me with it now. :banghead: