How many here agree with the Patriot Act?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there a site or publication that breaks down what the Patriot Act authorizes and w

It's electronic surveilance law and it's generally behind the technological 8 ball by the time law is written and passed. The problems lie in what "they" do before it is discovered and covered by law.

Go here, click on document delivery and download 47 page PDF to desktop. Get large coffee, comfy chair and quiet time to read. Pro's and cons ought to be self evident.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=445180

Vick
 
I support the Patriot Act also. It's not my favorite piece of legislation but I do see the point of it. It IS the Governments responisbility to TRY and protect the citizens from large threats, which definetly includes terrorism. As another poster said most of the things in the Patriot Act, the government has been doing for a long time anyways, they're just letting you know their doing it now. Worried about Uncle Sam, I'd be more worried about what companies, banks, healthcare providers, Insurance Co.s, etc have access to. It's a global world with electronic control of most of your personal information, get used to it. Also what's wrong with Jessica's Law?:confused: I kinda like sending child rapists/ killers, to prison for a very long time. Only bad thing about it is why they aren't hung right after their trial.
 
Is there a site or publication that breaks down what the Patriot Act authorizes and why it is bad?

I have a negative impression of the Patriot Act and generally am happy when it hits roadblocks and setbacks. But I don't know why other than the rhetoric that gets spewed here and other places I frequent.
 
sturmruger said:
Since I do not do things to piss off the federal goverment the Patriot Act will have no effect on me. If they want to look at my library card records they can go right ahead do so. I still believe that catching slimy terrorists in our country is important enough to do what we can.


I am totally SERIOUS
Click to expand...

Most of the law is a simple power grab. Very little deals with actual terrorism. What may not piss this administration off may very well the next and chances are you won't know it till it is too late...

Section 215 modifies the rules on records searches so that third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it's trying to protect against terrorism.
Section 218 amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), authorizing secret searches without public knowledge or Department of Justice accountability, so long as the government can allege a foreign intelligence basis for the search.
Section 213 warrants -- "Sneak and Peek" -- extend the authority of FISA searches to any criminal search. This allows for secret searches of one's home and property without prior notice.
Section 214 permits the removal of the warrant requirement for "Pen registers" which ascertain phone numbers dialed from a suspect's telephone and "Trap and trace" devices which monitor the source of all incoming calls, so long as the government can certify that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing investigation against international terrorism.
Section 216 clarifies that pen register/trap-and-trace authority applies to Internet surveillance. The Act changes the language to include Internet monitoring, specifically information about: "dialing, routing, and signaling." It also broadens such monitoring to any information "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."
Section 206 authorizes roving wiretaps: allowing taps on every phone or computer the target may use, and expands FISA to permit surveillance of any communications made to or by an intelligence target without specifying the particular phone line or computer to be monitored.
Section 505 authorizes the use of an administrative subpoena of personal records, without requiring probable cause or judicial oversight.
Section 802 creates a category of crime called "domestic terrorism," penalizing activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States," if the actor's intent is to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."
Section 411 makes even unknowing association with terrorists a deportable offense.
Section 412 gives the attorney general authority to order a brief detention of aliens without any prior showing or court ruling that the person is dangerous.

I also find it disturbing that Bush made a special trip to the office on a Saturday to sign Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003 on the same day most Americans were watching Saddam being checked for lice and probed for DNA.
 
PATRIOT Act is an abomination.

Given how quickly after 9/11 that the Government power grab euphemistically called the PATRIOT Act was trotted out and passed, it had to have been ready before 9/11. The government was just waiting for the right time.

"Law for Men, or Men for the Law" http://www.lewrockwell.com/hein/hein120.html discusses the law and its relation to men. The opening paragraphs:
Something has gone seriously awry with the law. Originally it was written for the people, who could understand it without expert assistance. It protected them from murder, theft, adultery, lying, and other anti-social – not to mention immoral – behavior, by punishing the murderers, thieves, adulterers, liars, etc. Perhaps the problem began when people who fully intended to break those laws were able to convince others than the law wasn’t as simple as it seemed. There were subtleties to the law, so that what it seemed to say it didn’t mean at all, whereas it did mean what it didn’t seem to say. Under the guise of clarifying matters, more laws were written, and more written to clarify those. Anyone who commits a crime today will stand accused of violating a half-dozen laws; the prosecutor is going to win come what may.

The U.S. Constitution, of late memory, was a simple statement limiting the powers of government, with all powers not delegated by We the People to the government remaining with the people, or the states. It was little more than a booklet, even with the addition of Amendments. Recently, Congress "passed" the Patriot Act, which was 500 pages of legalese that, we can safely assume, wasn’t read by a single Congressman. Yet we are expected to know the "law," and obey it. How often have you heard the old saw: ignorance of the law is no excuse? In reality, could there be a better excuse? How can you obey a law that you’ve never heard of? Today it might be said that the law is no longer to protect the people, but to protect the government from the people, or to color its actions with legality. For We the People, the law is either incomprehensible, or, if it suits the government, it doesn’t mean what it says, or say what it means.
Click to expand...
:uhoh:
 
Speaking of this did y'all see this??


"In Congress, where numbers are everything, the math on the Patriot Act suddenly seems to be moving in favor of Sen. Russell Feingold.

He was a minority of one four years ago, when the Wisconsin Democrat cast the lone Senate vote against the USA Patriot Act in the traumatic weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks. The law, he said then, gave government too much power to investigate its citizens. Ninety-nine senators disagreed.

Now add more than two dozen senators to Feingold's side, including the leaders of his party and some of the chamber's most conservative Republicans, and the balance of power shifts....

Moments later, the senior Democrat on the issue, Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., told reporters that more than 40 votes exist to sustain a filibuster in a test vote Friday....

Feingold finds himself with some unlikely allies, including the Christian Defense Coalition. Notably, the National Rifle Association has not endorsed the Patriot Act renewal that was personally negotiated by Vice President Dick Cheney. The NRA's non-position allows its Senate supporters to oppose renewing the law in its entirety.

"Folks, when we're dealing with civil liberties, you don't compromise them," said Sen. Larry Craig (news, bio, voting record), R-Idaho, an NRA board member....
Full story here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051215...5kuBrOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

Good to see a little bipartisan cooperation finally on something a lot of people are in agreement on:cool:
 
Good to see a little bipartisan cooperation

Yes, however this time the bipartisan cooperation is opposing Patsy ll.

Strange bedfellows up there. Where does the clinton dynamic duo stand on this? I haven't yet heard, or cared enough about their opinions to listen, now I'm curious. I'd suspect they'd be for it.

Vick
 
Last edited:
longhorngunman said:
Also what's wrong with Jessica's Law?:confused: I kinda like sending child rapists/ killers, to prison for a very long time. Only bad thing about it is why they aren't hung right after their trial.
Click to expand...

As much as the idea behind the law is good, the rationale of using a deseased childs name on legislation, specifically intended to illicit an emotional response and overload the CRITICAL THINKING aspects of the human brain, causes me to want to :cuss: and then :barf:!! Dead children are not political chips, to be tossed around in order for some idiot legislator to look good for the soccer moms...What did Jessicas law do that was not already covered by another law:confused:. Raping/murdering adults or children, as far as I know, has been illegal in the US for a long time. If this is supposed to make people feel better then it should have a childs name attatched to it ie, Jessicas Center or something... Not Jessicas Law, it just don't seem right. Same with Assault weapons ban, or anything else I mentioned. I did forget the aptly named FOPA..
 
BAN THEM ALL!!!!!

drinks said:
Too many choices;
How do you make an emotional respose illegal?:what:
Click to expand...

Ohh, Ohh, pick me!!!! Ummm, You don't make an emotional response illegal, duh:rolleyes:...I have never, and never will advocate baning anything as a solutuion, especially not someones ability to be an idiot(not talking about you). But if someone tries to make a decision off of the name of a piece of legislation alone,they are an idiot, and you(read as: we) end up with poison pill ammendments like in the FOPA of '86, that later get used against you(read as:we)for other purposes...
 
saltydog said:
What I can't figure out is, if most people don't support the P.A. then why did the house pass it? I see changes coming to the Congress next year.
Click to expand...

This is what bothers me also. How can legislators vote for an unpopular bill of this magnitude and expect to be reelected. Anyone know where a list can be found of the congressmen who voted for this new atrocity?

Tom
 
Tomcat1066 said:
This is what bothers me also. How can legislators vote for an unpopular bill of this magnitude and expect to be reelected. Anyone know where a list can be found of the congressmen who voted for this new atrocity?

Tom
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it has to do with an entirely different concept known as redistricting (or gerrymandering, lately the two are pretty much identical).
 
Have you read Jessica's Law? It makes it a mandatory 25 year term for child molestation. So the next time some scum sodomizes a two-year old, instead of getting out in 3 years and doing it again they will serve hard time and hopefully be too old to do it again or God willing they get shanked in prison. Still ain't as good as immediate public hanging.:fire:
 
The patriot act is, among other things,

unconstitutional and an affront to liberty itself. Go after evildoers, not impose the seminal stages of 1984 on the rest of us.
 
Harve Curry said:
Among the other numerous intrusions into your privacy authorities can search your home, take personal property including guns, and then not tell you there was a search warrant for 30 days.

I vote NAY on the Patriot Act.
Click to expand...

I feel that not only is it in direct violation of the Constitution and intentions of the founding fathers, but as far as actual "security" is concerned, it's just thumbsucking.

And you can't save something by destroying everything it stands for.
 
sturmruger said:
Since I do not do things to piss off the federal goverment the Patriot Act will have no effect on me. If they want to look at my library card records they can go right ahead do so. I still believe that catching slimy terrorists in our country is important enough to do what we can.


I am totally SERIOUS
Click to expand...

Yes, and just wait till some min-wage data entry cube grunt enters a 1 instead of a 0 and doesn't care, because it's quitting time...and YOU get labeled a terrorist by error, because someone has a similar name or a SSN one digit off.

You can't see the lists. You can't know about the lists. But the FBI just went through your house and took stuff, and some of your guns are missing. You can't do a thing about it. You try to take a flight, and are told you're on the no-fly list. Error? Who cares, you can't do anything about it.

That what you want?
 
Carl N. Brown said:
Has anyone actually been impacted by the PatAct on a personal level?
I have heard of no one myself. Except people who fret about it.
Click to expand...

That's rather like sitting out on a battlefield, and saying "Well, no bullets have hit me or anyone I know of, so there must not be a threat." Meanwhile, you do hear gunfire, and the occaisional silhouette wearing a uniform of your side can be seen falling down in the distance, but... it's not aimed where you're positioned, right?

Yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Lawmakers Warn That Patriot Act Will Not Be Renewed Without Changes
Replies
7
Views
683
Sergeant Bob
S
W
  • Locked
Ashcroft warns of Bush veto on scaled-back Patriot bill
Replies
0
Views
573
w4rma
W
C
  • Locked
Libraries Rally Against USA Patriot Act
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
sanchezero
S
W
  • Locked
Republican revolt over Patriot Act renewal
Replies
1
Views
477
flatrock
F
S
  • Locked
Challenging Patriot Act is not unpatriotic
Replies
2
Views
295
Zedicus
Z
Back
Top