The Patriot Act?

Please, READ THIS POST before replying--don't just fire off a rant.

I know next to nothing about the Patriot Act, which is why I'm making this thread. I'm hoping you guys can point me to some reliable links on the matter, and can explain the gist of it to me. I am NOT asking for opinions on the Patriot Act. (Not that I don't welcome them--by all means, discuss. Just do me a favor and don't turn it into an anti-Bush Administration rant.)

In short, I'm hoping you can educate me a little. I tried Google, but got half a million blogs and web sites of opinions, most of them anti-Bush administration. Newspapers are biased, so I can't entirely trust them, but I'm hoping there's a complete copy of it somewhere online. If anyone can point me to it, that'd be great. Frankly, I don't have much free time to spare looking for it.

I'll check this thread when I can. Thanks for your time.

Long story short: it gives the federal government almost ulimited power that cannot be scrutinized by anyone outside the government. As in, they still need to go through proper channels, like obtaining search warrents and acquiring probable cause. But those records then get sealed away under "classified" status, in order to protect investigators so they might get the drop on terrorists.

It also restructures the investigative branches in ways that I'm not completely clear on, and are too tedious worry much about unless it affects your job. Toss in some other funding allocations and various bits of infastructure issues... and mix in a paranoia not seen since the days of the Cold War.

Actually, in and of itself, alone, it's not so much different than the atypical "don't know, don't care" mentality of modern america. The only difference is that NOW, slap on the name "patriot act" and you CAN'T find out the details. The closest to a rant I'm going for.

You should be able to find the detailed records in the government records. The changes themselves ARE a matter of public record, conveniently located on file at the Library of Congress and similar sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltimaLimit

Please, READ THIS POST before replying--don't just fire off a rant.

I know next to nothing about the Patriot Act, which is why I'm making this thread. I'm hoping you guys can point me to some reliable links on the matter, and can explain the gist of it to me. I am NOT asking for opinions on the Patriot Act. (Not that I don't welcome them--by all means, discuss. Just do me a favor and don't turn it into an anti-Bush Administration rant.)

In short, I'm hoping you can educate me a little. I tried Google, but got half a million blogs and web sites of opinions, most of them anti-Bush administration. Newspapers are biased, so I can't entirely trust them, but I'm hoping there's a complete copy of it somewhere online. If anyone can point me to it, that'd be great. Frankly, I don't have much free time to spare looking for it.

I'll check this thread when I can. Thanks for your time.

---

dude I think you should retrieve a copy of the Patriot Act.It shouldn't be hard to get.

Isnt that the with us or against us policy? Maybe i am wrong...someone enlighten me? Oo

I do know that Patriot in the Act is just a facade to make it look good though..i know that much.

The Patriot Act was a bunch of policies that involved stepping up surveillance and counter-intelligence programs in an effort to prevent future terrorist attacks. It also included heavy monitoring of "suspected" individuals, as well as the suspension of the Writ of Habeus Corpus.

I could be wrong, but the Patriot Act was never passed due to the unconstitutionality of it all.

It WAS passed the first time around right after 9/11 thanks to the strong push by the Bush Administration and has thus expired it's current run, and so far has not been renewed by Congress, but that can change.

Here's a link:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

Take care all.

The Patriot Act was the biggest constitutional abomination since the Sedition Act of 1920.

The biggest unconstitutional part of it was it gave federal law enforcers(cops, FBI agents, etc) the ability to arrest anyone they even suspected of being a terrorist, without the necessity of a warrant, which flies in the face of the 4th Amendment and the 14th Amendment.

I could rant on more, but that's the biggest part.

Thank you, Captain, for the link. I'll read through it when I get a chance--for now, I'm skimming it to get the basic ideas. Thanks everyone for explaining it.

Quote:

---

Isnt that the with us or against us policy? Maybe i am wrong...someone enlighten me?

---

Absolutely, however if you think about it, most of the constitutional rights no longer matter (it seems) I've had most of my rights trampled on, and with the patriot act it allows you to have no privacy and basically gives the gov. to watch you every second of everyday. :hyper: :shoot:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ravenzero2000

Absolutely, however if you think about it, most of the constitutional rights no longer matter (it seems) I've had most of my rights trampled on, and with the patriot act it allows you to have no privacy and basically gives the gov. to watch you every second of everyday. :hyper: :shoot:

---

I think you're grossly exaggerating things. How have your rights been trampled on, specifically?

The Right to Privacy is a myth, like the seperation of church and state. The only "privacy" you are granted is that by the 4th amendment - the protection against unreasonable search and seizure(basically, being arrested/searched without a warrant). There are also some federal regulations and laws towards how police can get evidence which deals with the "expectation of privacy," but that's about it.

Also, consitutional rights do matter, just that some people are losing sight of that fact. The Bush administration, for example, lost sight of the fact that the entire purpose of our government is first and foremost to protect the innocent - not to punish the guilty.
In a national poll that was handed around my campus, an astonishing number(it was somewhere between 20-40% for each - I can't remember the exact numbers) of high school students thought that free speech was being protected too much, and thought that newspaper articles should be federally regulated. That kind of thing scares me.

Quote:

---

I could be wrong, but the Patriot Act was never passed due to the unconstitutionality of it all.

---

You are wrong. Unfortunately.

Raistlin... Are you serious about that? That IS scary. This country seems to be heading into it's darkest days...

GO CANADA! I mean, I can't believe this government could ever pass anything like the patriot act.

In other unrelated news I can't believe all the stuff that is happening with the military. This is just alienating Europe more.

Do you mean what happened with the Italian journalist?

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

You are wrong. Unfortunately.

Raistlin... Are you serious about that? That IS scary. This country seems to be heading into it's darkest days...

---

Yeah I agree because the fact that the Patriot Act did pass.Raistlin reminds me of someone who denies the Holocaust ever happening.Anyway I doubt the people in congress and Senate didn't read this Act before passing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

Do you mean what happened with the Italian journalist?

Take care all.

---

Yes I do as a matter of fact. I think both sides are at fault but it is the situation in general that doesn't help matters. It really does not matter who is right and who is wrong for this to have an effect. A lot of Europe already does not like the United States so this is just another reason. It also gives the Italian government a reason to pull out of Iraq, which the Italian people want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

You are wrong. Unfortunately.

Raistlin... Are you serious about that? That IS scary. This country seems to be heading into it's darkest days...

---

I just think its always dark, and that its just more apparent to the public now with the war and all.

Thanks Captain for the link, its truly...disturbing.. ._.;;

The Patriot Act is the Sept. 11 product to give the government, an unbeilevable amount of power(*unbeilevable in US terms*). Now i agree that some parts of it are needed, but those pieces should be ripped from the metaphorical flesh of the document and be passed through Congress individually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

The Right to Privacy is a myth, like the seperation of church and state. The only "privacy" you are granted is that by the 4th amendment - the protection against unreasonable search and seizure(basically, being arrested/searched without a warrant). There are also some federal regulations and laws towards how police can get evidence which deals with the "expectation of privacy," but that's about it.

---

Not quite, I'd say;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The 9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

---

Which basically says that the constitution doesn't have to spell out every right people have, for them to have it. Privacy is considered a right by most of the public, and so it is a right. I'm not a lawyer, but based on that amendment, I'd be inclined to say that a very convincing argument could be made that any law, or judge ruling, that violates privacy is unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

In a national poll that was handed around my campus, an astonishing number(it was somewhere between 20-40% for each - I can't remember the exact numbers) of high school students thought that free speech was being protected too much, and thought that newspaper articles should be federally regulated. That kind of thing scares me.

---

I wonder how these dumb high school kids would feel if they had someone follow them for a week and tell them what they can and can not say. Then see what they say about the matter. Idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

It also gives the Italian government a reason to pull out of Iraq, which the Italian people want.

---

I doubt Berlusconi would ever do that :p

Quote:

---

I wonder how these dumb high school kids would feel if they had someone follow them for a week and tell them what they can and can not say. Then see what they say about the matter. Idiots.

---

I'm inclined to agree with you on that one. :mad: However, in their defense, most High School students got into politics in the post 9-11 world of fear and uncertanty, which the Bushies played to the hilt. :rolleyes2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

I doubt Berlusconi would ever do that :p

---

You never know what will happen. The ally troops firing at your troops and killing them when they were on a rescue mission is a pretty big thing. I also don't like the way the pentagon handled it by not releasing any testimony from our troops when the Italian government released the testimony of what happened from the agent that survived. Paints a really bad picture.

I don't really know Italy's stance on the whole thing but it just doesn't sound good over all for the US.

EDIT: I just realized that I have not kept up with this story over the past few days so maybe things have changed drastically. From what I read when it happened this is the impression that I got.

Quote:

---

Which basically says that the constitution doesn't have to spell out every right people have, for them to have it. Privacy is considered a right by most of the public, and so it is a right. I'm not a lawyer, but based on that amendment, I'd be inclined to say that a very convincing argument could be made that any law, or judge ruling, that violates privacy is unconstitutional.

---

Ah, so in that case, the "right to" anything could just be made up and given to the people.
Yes, there is a general "right to privacy" - in criminal cases, as I have already explained. But the "right of privacy" as most people think of it is nonexistant, as shown by court precedent. It has been ruled constitutional for employers to force employees to wear tracking badges; and for employers to read their employees' emails, even non-job related ones; and for employers/parents to read diary entries/other private journal-writings of employees/kids; and many other cases that I could list. There is no social "right to privacy." The right to privacy only relates in criminal cases to the defendent's/witnesses' "expectation of privacy," which relates to the necessity of a warrant as shown in the 4th amendment - basically, only applies to police and other federal agents which require a warrant.

Just like the "seperation of church and state" - another myth. The so-called "seperation" is only somewhat similar to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which states that the government can pass no laws that "establishes or excludes" religion - not the same thing by any standards.

The patriot act is basically a rerun of the alien act which was in effect I believe in the early 19th century. This gave the government the right to deport any foreigner they felt was dangerous to the country. It also gives the government the power to not give habeas corpus ( a trial) and simply imprison those they find threatening (Lincoln suspended Habeas corpus during the civil war) All in all the Patriot act is about as Patriotic as Mein Kempf.

Quote:

---

Just like the "seperation of church and state" - another myth. The so-called "seperation" is only somewhat similar to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which states that the government can pass no laws that "establishes or excludes" religion - not the same thing by any standards.

---

While it may be true that the words "seperation of church and state" don't actually apear in the constitution, it's pretty clear what their intent was. THey did not want religion and government to mix, and 9/11 is a perfect example of why. And by the way, the constitution was designed to change and grow with the times. They knew it wasn't perfect when they wrote it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

While it may be true that the words "seperation of church and state" don't actually apear in the constitution, it's pretty clear what their intent was. THey did not want religion and government to mix, and 9/11 is a perfect example of why. And by the way, the constitution was designed to change and grow with the times. They knew it wasn't perfect when they wrote it.

---

The original founders absolutely did not mean the complete seperation of church and state. The founding fathers opened the First Congress meetings with a prayer - an action that was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court(opening a legislative session of government with a prayer).

The Constitution states that the government can pass no laws to either establish nor exclude religion. The sole intent was to limit the religious persecution that stemmed from England. It was not to completely exclude religion from public affairs.

I could rant on, again, but this is for another debate.

Raistlin speaks truth, on both the right to privacy and the seperation of church and state. In fact, the concept of seperation of church and state was originally intended to protect the church from the government, and not the other way around, as many people believe it was.

Actually, it was mostly the deists who were behind the seperation of church and state. They didn't want Christians telling them what to believe, and many of them, such as Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, were distrustful of the church.

Yeah, despite attempts to rewrite history, not all of the founding fathers were Christian. As mentioned, Thomas Jefferson and John Q. Adams weren't. Nor were Benjamin Frankly, Ethan Allen, James Madison, or George Washington. They were deists. They did not believe in the bible, or in churches. Thus, they didn't want the church to be butting into government, telling them what to believe.

Were most of the founding fathers Christian? Yeah. But not all of them, and some of the most influential weren't. Virtually every step of the constitution was paved with comprimise. The northern states wanted to abolish slavery, but the southern states wanted to keep it. So, some states had slavery, some didn't. Some of them wanted democracy. Others wanted a more stable government. So we got representative democracy. Prayer at the beginning of Congress was one of these comprimises. The Christians wanted to kick things off with a prayer, and the deists didn't care to stop them.

But to imply that all of the founding fathers were Christian would be false, just as it would be false to claim that America was founded as a Christian nation. Seperation of church and state was created to protect the infidel from the believer, as much as to protect the believer from the infidel.

Couldn't have put it better. :D