The Patriot Act

Remove all ads!

The Patriot Act is a flagrant violation of Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties. But at least it's being used against terrorists, right?

Before I go posting links, does anyone want to guess if the powers granted to law enforcement agencies are being used primarily against terrorists? If not, who *are* they actually being used against?

 

What is it with America and the word 'patriot'.

 

In my opinion, when someone tries to ram the word "patriot" down your throat, theyre generally doing something very unpatriotic

 

I'm sorry. Are we supposed to participate in this thread? I just want to make sure that I won't be ignored after I got through the trouble of informing myself.

 

I'm guessing no.

Oh, goody! I get to go again! This time, I'll guess "anyone who calls themselves mordea".

Do I win?

 

What Mordea has tapped into is that the US government has been chipping away at the contract it has with its citizens [the Constitution]: its obligations to its citizens and the rights that the citizens hold in return for being so called "productive members of society." I realize that Mordea's tactics are heavy-handed and a bit emotional, but nevertheless, that does not invalidate the over-arching point.

What I find a bit refreshing about his comments is that it not the usual, phony, "Republican vs Democrats" rant, which usually accompanies most discussions about the Constitution and citizen rights in the US. Just my

 

What could be more patriotic than violating your constitutional rights? : D

 

Not exactly.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SneakAndPeakReport.pdf

65% of applications for delay-notice search warrants and extension requests made under the Patriot Act were in relation to drug offenses, not terrorism.

Americans surrendered their rights in order to 'fight terrorism', and the additional powers that have been granted to the police as a result are being used to carry out the War on Drugs.

LOL, suckers. Further proof that you can't trust government and law enforcement.

 

mordea,
are you telling me that it is news that the Ashcroft Justice Department sold the Patriot act as a solution to the problem of terrorism while it actually amounted to a compilation of things the Feds wanted to do for a very long time? Because it is not. In fact, it isn't news for a couple of years now.

Factually you are very correct to point out that the measures in the Patriot Act are rarely used in Terrorism investigations. Or instruments like national security letters and the general lack of judicial recourse. If you wouldn't then interpret it through your kaleidoscopic 'government is the suck' lens and then, for good measure, collectively insult all American readers on this forum this might be a starting point for getting somewhere. But you just can't help yourself I guess.

Obama is IMO very much at fault for allowing these Bush era practices to persist (to my dismay, the Holder Justice Department has invoked State Secrets privilege in a case involving the assassinations of US citizens), but so is a bipartisan Congress voting to extend Patriot act measures. Frankly, I don't see Americans as very concerned about that, and I think they are in that sadly in error. The ways the Patriot Act opens for the government to invade privacy are very intrusive. If they would be less afraid, they'd be less likely to put up with that. Alas they are not. The Patriot Act has bipartisan support. Is that a good thing? No.

In part responsible for the persistence of intrusive laws like the Patriot Act, and even more drastic measures, are scaremongering slime bags like Liz Cheney, and fellow Republicans who then fall in line because they see political benefit in that line of attack, reason be damned. These loons will then turn into the political equivalent of a herd of rampaging baboons throwing excrement, immediately and hysterically accusing everyone calling for a repeal of Bush era practices (on the Patriot Act, torture, the travesty of Military Tribunals, illegal wire tapping or Guantanamo Bay) of surrendering to the terrorists. Such non-contributions to the debate make a reasonable discourse on such important issues nealy impossible - I wonder why anyone is still listening to these fruitcakes. In a sense, they, Liz Cheney in particular, function as the the rear guard of the right wing of the last administration.

What does this make me wonder about is whether in the current political climate the US are capable of meaningful reform. Obama has shown no inclination to get himself bogged down in fighting the loons on Bush era policies, apparently in order to at least get something else done, which appears hard enough.

Fortunately the US government has dispensed with the Bush era tradition of publicising colour coded terror warnings. The funniest one that I recall was one warning that 'terrorists may be planning to attack a school in Texas'. Or not. But be afraid! Very afraid! Sending an entire state into panic, over something as unspecific as that, after all, how many schools does Texas have? Point is, such terror warnings had a measurable effect - presidential approval ratings rose. It is likely the Bush administration used it for that end. Which would be shameful.

 

There is nothing new with THAT. The biggest fear is that it would be used against "political enemies" of the administration (think if Nixon had such broad powers), regardless of who was in power. But we had that debate and some Americans were very much opposed to the Patriot Act for those reasons.

 

Must be because of Mel Gibson...or such...

 

I've always thought that the Patriot act was one of the most overblown hysterias we have ever had. I know everyone is concerned about the "slippery slope", but I could care less about the monitoring overseas phone calls and bank wires and all of that stuff. When a government operative interrupts my phone call while I'm ordering Chinese food and calls me a fatty, then I'll get upset about this.

I'm way more concerned about the police officer who is handing out chicken-**** tickets to raise money as opposed to stopping a real crime. I don't believe I'm aware of a single person who has any knowledge of their lives being impacted by the Patriot Act.

 

Here is one, and here's more about his case which is Doe vs. Holder. The suit — the first of its kind — was brought on behalf of a "John Doe" Internet Service Provider that had been served with an NSL and had been prohibited from disclosing — to anyone — that the FBI had demanded records.

And then there is the matter of 'sneak and peek' searches, who are by their very nature covert - i.e. it is the very point that the people who get searched, perhaps wrongly, have any knowledge of their lives has just been impacted by the Patriot Act.

One of the key problems is the secrecy involved, and the lack of recourse.

More:
Anti-Terror Laws Invoked Against Crimes Unrelated to Terror, Report Says
'Sneak and Peek report [PDF]

​