patrick.net

PATRIOT ACT has a shitty name but the provisions in it aren't that big a deal.

What exactly do you object about it?

How about that it's called the Patriot Act(reference to fighters in The Revolution), when it has more in common with the policies of the British Empire at the time.

How about that it gives away half the Bill of Rights in the name of fighting "terror"(a state of mind, not a person or country that can actually EVER be defeated).

How about that it promotes endless expansion and intrusion of Federal government into the sovereign States of this union, and the private lives of citizens who just want to be left alone.

... Or did you mean besides stuff like that?

I'll note you failed to actually list a single part of the bill you think is bad.

All your above is just unfounded and vague assertions, ie bullshit.

Facts man, bring the facts. What exactly is wrong with its measures? From what I've seen they're entirely common-sensical.

Troy says

What exactly do you object about it?

Or maybe he also might have a few qualms with stuff like warrant-less surveillance, approval of military action in the US, seizure of assets without due process... maybe the fact that it utterly relinquishes any semblance of due process, violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments... shifts power away from the courts, removes oversight over intelligence agencies...

It was voted down today though, thanks to more Republican fumbling. We'll see how that goes...

kentm says

warrant-less surveillance

I was not aware that this was part of the act. Do you have an actual cite for this?

approval of military action in the US, seizure of assets without due process

likewise.

fact that it utterly relinquishes any semblance of due process

how?

violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments

how?

shifts power away from the courts, removes oversight over intelligence agencies…

how?

I see a lot of heat about PATRIOT, but very little light.

Sorry, this stuff is pretty common knowledge to most people aware of the Act, so we're assuming you're either being intentionally dense, or think all of the above is A OK! If you want chapter and verse from the bill you're welcome to read through it for yourself, since again, it is common knowledge to most people who know anything beyond the name. Here's an article from a "trusted" media source to get you started.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/08/AR2011020806345.html?hpid=topnews

An article from a judicial analyst:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1324

How it affects financial markets:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1323

You could also try reading about Guantanamo and the "dangerous" people still being held there, most going on 8 years or more without so much as a trial(whoops, amendment violation) .

So, no actual cites yet like Section A in the law because of XYZ.

Reading the Napolitano piece, I get this:

"the Patriot Act not only permits the execution of self-written search warrants on a host of new subjects, it rejects the no-criminal-prosecution protections of its predecessors by requiring evidence obtained contrary to the Fourth Amendment to be turned over to prosecutors and mandating that such evidence is constitutionally competent in criminal prosecutions."

What's the big deal? Have their been any abuses of this? What would an abuse look like? There is new congressional review of the NSLs and they only cover transactions, not the content of the transactions.

Reading the 2nd nutjob's piece I see he is wrong here:

"Congress rewrote the law to pretend that money travels by itself and that money commits the crime."

since civil forfeiture has been around for a long time. The stuff he lists about PATRIOT looks to be the usual libertarian paranoia crap that is like 80% of the internet, depending on where the moon is in the sky.

This seems to be a very useful tool for investigators to have to be able to ferret out intelligence on any groups of people operating within the country.

could also try reading about Guantanamo and the “dangerous” people still being held there

I disagreee with Gitmo but it's tough backing that mistake out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9j6Wfdq3o x 1000

It's like controlling a Rabbit infestation by setting traps baited with meat.

Troy says

Reading the 2nd nutjob’s piece I see he is wrong here:
“Congress rewrote the law to pretend that money travels by itself and that money commits the crime.”
since civil forfeiture has been around for a long time. The stuff he lists about PATRIOT looks to be the usual libertarian paranoia crap that is like 80% of the internet, depending on where the moon is in the sky.

I disagreee with Gitmo but it’s tough backing that mistake out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9j6Wfdq3o x 1000

The quote is in reference to criminal forfeiture. Civil forfeiture does not involve prosecution of the person only their property. And while it may have been around for a while, the specific provisions listed under Section 371 of the Patriot Act(and Title III in general) have not.

As for your reference to some political propaganda for the existence of Gitmo...
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=825
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1014

If you are comfortable with your government spying on you, that is certainly up to you, but most of us are not, dating back to the founding of this country when we wrote it into the Constitution.

Nobody in the US gives a shit about detaining people the CIA and military wanted to in the 2001-2004 period. Gitmo has nothing to do with PATRIOT anyway.

If you are comfortable with your government spying on you,

Again this is just libertarian thought-crap. I am perfectly happy having my government spy on terrorists and other shitheads, and we have no shortage of them in this country before we even start counting whatever whack-a-loon "islamic" terrorists have come over since 2001 or whenever.

As for the asset forfeiture angle, reading further I don't see the problem. With PATRIOT, Congress changed the law to criminalize the actual act of taking more than $10,000 out of the country w/o declaration, as opposed to the previous illegality of just failing to declare more than $10,000.

Back in 1998 the court ruled 5-4 that seizing somebody's money ($300,000-odd thousand in that case) just because he failed to declare it was a violation of the 8th amendment on excessive fines.

But by criminalizing the act of taking the money out, it makes the law more understandable and the penalties more clearer. Don't try to sneak money out of the country if you want to keep it. I see nothing wrong with this.

Now, I do have a problem with civil forfeiture in general, but PATRIOT AFAIK doesn't have anything to do with this.

Troy says

Again this is just libertarian thought-crap. I am perfectly happy having my government spy on terrorists and other shitheads, and we have no shortage of them in this country before we even start counting whatever whack-a-loon “islamic” terrorists have come over since 2001 or whenever.

What about if the people doing the spying screw up? The whole point of the entire bill of rights is to have someone backstop the authorities for that very reason. Case in point, the alleged Spanish train bomber. If the Spanish hadn't pitched a very public fit that the FBI screwed up the poor guy would still be in jail. They still haven't returned his property or to even disclose what they have on file about him. How about the totally innocent Canadian guy who was just transfering flights at Kennedy. The marshals grabbed him and sent him to Syria to be tortured based on a screw up on some list. Did the US apologize or even admit to error? Not a chance. If the Canadians hadn't bitched he would probably be in Gitmo today.

You seem to assume the law enforcement, the judicuary, the military,the crime labs, the alphabet soup intelligence organizations, etc. are not capable of hiring anyone who is lazy, incompetent, willing to take shortcuts to boost their numbers, or is just plain old psychotic. I would think that after all the evidence time and time again to the contrary you would be very, very worried about things like national security letters where you cannot disclose that you even received it and have NO recourse even if there are errors. That makes the FBI judge and jury with zero oversight. This doesn't worry you? What would worry you?

Troy,

About the money issue, regardless of which law affects or does not affect the illegal nature of the act or a fine for committing the act, do you think it is fine that the government has this stipulation at all? To me Patriot shined a light on what was often already pretty egregious state-citizen interaction inequalities. I'll get to the point - I don't see why the government has the right to know if I take 10,001 dollars on vacation. 10 grand isn't much these days anyway so this feels like the TSA's version of the AMT.

Troy says

Nobody in the US gives a shit about detaining people the CIA and military wanted to in the 2001-2004 period. Gitmo has nothing to do with PATRIOT anyway.

If you are comfortable with your government spying on you,
Again this is just libertarian thought-crap. I am perfectly happy having my government spy on terrorists and other shitheads, and we have no shortage of them in this country before we even start counting whatever whack-a-loon “islamic” terrorists have come over since 2001 or whenever.

Here's the problem with your reasoning, and what you obviously don't understand about the Patriot act. As others have alluded to, there are no checks and balances in this law(refer to the Bill of Rights it eviscerates). If you read the Washington Post article I linked to it states the provisions voted down allow for spying on people even if there is no proof they have any connection with terrorist activities, let alone being a terrorist.

No connection between Patriot and Gitmo? The Patriot Act set the groundwork for everything Gitmo is:

Holding people with no evidence or trial
Torture
Holding children

Did you read the article? If you did you probably felt like you wanted to puke once or twice.

The worst part is you seem to think there's nothing wrong with a law that was passed for, as you see it, the sole purpose of turning the Federal Government attention inward to it's citizens after over 3,000 of them had just been murdered. Instead of looking to generations of foreign policy that specialized in overthrowing governments, bombing civilians, and setting up occupying bases on foreign soil, the first response of our government was to try and annul every right ever written into law that made us free. The Patriot Act is an attack on Patriots, wake up!

patriot act is anything but patriotic. I actually wrote to Senator Boxer about it. Got some automated template response back.

Will probably write another one. It irks me that this crap is still around. ACLU sued the big brother over it already.

NuttBoxer says

Sorry, this stuff is pretty common knowledge to most people aware of the Act, so we’re assuming you’re either being intentionally dense, or think all of the above is A OK! If you want chapter and verse from the bill you’re welcome to read through it for yourself, since again, it is common knowledge to most people who know anything beyond the name. Here’s an article from a “trusted” media source to get you started.

You are correct in that "this stuff is common knowledge to most people aware of the Act." But that is simply an appeal to "common knowledge" that is unfortunately mainly wrong. Where did you get your "common knowledge" about this law, since it is obvious that it is not from actually having read it?

I've read it and the only thing that Troy is wrong about is describing objection as "libertarian" since by doing so he gives "liberals" (who are typically against the law due to BDS) a complete pass on their intellectual laziness.

So please, what specific aspects of it do you object to? The question is valid. Certainly, if you have read it, you can come up with just one actual citation from the law that you object to?

Troy says

Nobody in the US gives a shit about detaining people the CIA and military wanted to in the 2001-2004 period. Gitmo has nothing to do with PATRIOT anyway.
If you are comfortable with your government spying on you,
Again this is just libertarian thought-crap. I am perfectly happy having my government spy on terrorists and other shitheads, and we have no shortage of them in this country before we even start counting whatever whack-a-loon “islamic” terrorists have come over since 2001 or whenever.
As for the asset forfeiture angle, reading further I don’t see the problem. With PATRIOT, Congress changed the law to criminalize the actual act of taking more than $10,000 out of the country w/o declaration, as opposed to the previous illegality of just failing to declare more than $10,000.
Back in 1998 the court ruled 5-4 that seizing somebody’s money ($300,000-odd thousand in that case) just because he failed to declare it was a violation of the 8th amendment on excessive fines.
But by criminalizing the act of taking the money out, it makes the law more understandable and the penalties more clearer. Don’t try to sneak money out of the country if you want to keep it. I see nothing wrong with this.
Now, I do have a problem with civil forfeiture in general, but PATRIOT AFAIK doesn’t have anything to do with this.

Troy the thing is that because we give government rights to spy on one group, they will stretch it to spy on others. It's a natural course they take overtime and has been in every single nation. And in fact they have used this as excuse to spy on protesters already.

Today they spy on what they consider terrorists, tomorrow they spy on those who they find politically inconvenient. Also economy hasn't been really bad, so times are all right and there isn't much desire in some officials to do too much spying. But when times get bad, things get out of control very fast.

Remember this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Federation_of_Miners
Who would have thought that a governor was going to order the guard to open fire on the miners?

Which is why I am opposed to the patriot act. Because it gives government officials in power a lot of leeway to abuse it by skipping the system of checks and balances (aka the court system).

Nomograph says

NuttBoxer says

The Patriot Act is an attack on Patriots, wake up!

Sorry pal. Patriots don’t live off government welfare. It’s hard to take welfare cases seriously.

Really? Because when a lovely woman is sitting in front of me with her three little welfare children, complaining and swearing because she needs her grandmother's check to make ends meet in her S8 household but refuses to take granny home - well, I have nothing but love and respect for her. Especially if the sweet little children are wiping their snot on my walls and disturbing other people.

Paralithodes says

So please, what specific aspects of it do you object to? The question is valid. Certainly, if you have read it, you can come up with just one actual citation from the law that you object to?

I can think of several. Let's start with national security letters. Why should the FBI have that kind of power to go after the records of any organization or individual with no oversight, no checks and balances, and absolutely no recourse for the suspect? The IG at the DOJ released a report on NSL's last year that concluded there were "systemic, widespread abuses of power" and "serious breaches of department regulations and multiple potential violations of the law" by the FBI in issuing NSL's. Pretty strong language from a sister government agency to say the least.

How about sneak and peek? Ask the alleged Spanish train bomber in Portland about that. He would still be in jail if the Spanish government hadn't insisted he was innocent.

Government agents are permitted to arrest and detain individuals "suspected" of terrorist activities and to hold them INDEFINITELY, WITHOUT CHARGE, and WITHOUT an ATTORNEY. What if the government agents screwed up?

Federal agents are authorized to use hidden devices to trace the telephone calls or emails of people who are not even suspected of a crime. The FBI is also permitted to use its Magic Lantern technology to monitor everything you do on your computer -- recording not just the websites you visit but EVERY SINGLE KEYSTROKE as well. Ever here of a legal concept called presumption of guilt?

I am tired of hearing about "if I'm not doing anything wrong then what's the problem". The problem is people screw up all the time. If you happen to be the victim of a screw up then under many of the provisions of the patriot act it's just tough titty. That is not how the constitution and the bill of rights views the rights of Americans or for that matter non citizens.

bob2356 says

I can think of several. Let’s start with national security letters. Why should the FBI have that kind of power to go after the records of any organization or individual with no oversight, no checks and balances, and absolutely no recourse for the suspect? The IG at the DOJ released a report on NSL’s last year that concluded there were “systemic, widespread abuses of power” and “serious breaches of department regulations and multiple potential violations of the law” by the FBI in issuing NSL’s. Pretty strong language from a sister government agency to say the least.

Sure, I can understand a natural objection to the exanded use of NSLs and it seems that concern is the slippery slope that could be associated with them - also understandable. But then you assert that there are no checks and balances, no limits, etc., and back that up with evidence that completely contradicts your assertion! If the IG found that the FBI abused its power and breached both regulations and the law itself, then clearly some of the limits that you claim don't exist actually do. So again, what exactly does the Patriot Act allow here that you object to?

So again, how about a specific clause that we can discuss in detail, vs. all these vague examples pulled from news commentary and editorials?

I notice that most of the rest of your response doesn't really differentiate between people who are US citizens or not.

The DOJ has the power to report but lacks jurisdiction over the FBI, so there are no checks and balances.The only check is congress. Anyway what I'm talking about is day in day out is this reasonable types of checks and balances. That's what the entire bill of rights is about. Law enforcement must clear their actions with the courts. NSL's are not a slippery slope. The FBI has way overstepped on a systemic basis. I'm not against law enforcement or anti terrorism, I'm very much a supporter. But the reality is if that there are far too many people in any field that you care to name that will cheat if they know they won't have anyone double checking them at some point. That's my point, which you seem to be missing in total. Why do so many sections of the Patriot act sidestep any kind of oversight? Did the court system suddenly become tools of terrorists. Why are FBI agents so trustworthy and court officers can't be trusted. The only answer as has been proven already is people want to take shortcuts without getting caught. The result is innocent people are getting dragged into the system without any recourse.

I laid out a summary of 4 specific parts of the Patriot act I object to. They aren't vague examples from news commentaries. NSL's, sneak and peek, random monitoring, and indefinite detention are real parts of the act. If you want I will cut and paste the entire sections from the actual act, but it will be an really huge post. I think you can discuss in detail from the summaries. Or are you just being disingenuous?

bob2356 says

The DOJ has the power to report but lacks jurisdiction over the FBI, so there are no checks and balances.The only check is congress.

The FBI is an agency of the JOJ, so therefore it most certainly has "jurisdiction" over the FBI. Director Mueller reports to Attorney General Holder.bob2356 says

Anyway what I’m talking about is day in day out is this reasonable types of checks and balances. That’s what the entire bill of rights is about.

This is a side point, but it is the body (Articles) of the Constitution that define the government and the "checks and balances" among the different branches. The Bill of Rights is almost entirely about restricting the Federal Government from infringing upon the individual rights of the people and limiting its rights vs. those of the States. So if your point is that the Patriot Act is allowing the Federal government to infringe upon the peoples' constitutional rights, ergo the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, then that's a fair question to at least ask, but it certainly would require some more specific details to support.
bob2356 says

The FBI has way overstepped on a systemic basis. I’m not against law enforcement or anti terrorism, I’m very much a supporter. But the reality is if that there are far too many people in any field that you care to name that will cheat if they know they won’t have anyone double checking them at some point. That’s my point, which you seem to be missing in total. Why do so many sections of the Patriot act sidestep any kind of oversight? Did the court system suddenly become tools of terrorists. Why are FBI agents so trustworthy and court officers can’t be trusted. The only answer as has been proven already is people want to take shortcuts without getting caught.

While I don't dispute that this can occur, your conclusion regarding "the only answer" is far from being proven. You are trying to prove that the Patriot Act (at least this provision of it) was crafted in order to allow people to "take shortcuts without getting caught" and because those supporting it presume that the "court officers can't be trusted?" Because you muddy some valid concerns with such an absolute but faulty conclusion makes me believe that your knowledge of this is not from reading the law itself or objective reviews of it.

bob2356 says

The result is innocent people are getting dragged into the system without any recourse.

OK, a suspected terrorist from Spain.... Any other examples of systematic entrapment of innocent people, particularly US Citizens?

bob2356 says

If you want I will cut and paste the entire sections from the actual act, but it will be an really huge post.

It's not necessary to copy and paste the entire sections... You can simply cite the specific sections of the law, along with your specfic objections to them. It's easy for anyone to then look up those sections without needing to filibuster the thread.

bob2356 says

Or are you just being disingenuous?

Maybe, maybe not. I can deny that I am, just like I can deny that I kick my dog, but you will probably believe what you wish regardless ... If I am, it is probably no moreso than folks who are asked to cite specific sections of the act that they object to but repeatedly do not provide any citations. Just curious... Did you actually read the law?

crickets....

shrekgrinch says

NuttBoxer says

If you are comfortable with your government spying on you, that is certainly up to you, but most of us are not, dating back to the founding of this country when we wrote it into the Constitution.

Show me WHERE in the Constitution that the government can’t ’spy on you’. Please. I’d like to read the text.

(Maybe I missed that your response is intended to be ironic...)
IV --: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Of course, this is all up to interpretation, and progressively the SCOTUS is stacked further away from a liberty-focused intent, and more towards the state having all power over the individual to protect itself, usually under the guise of protecting the people from this bogeyman or that, most of which are the byproduct of government action in the first place.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
--H. L. Mencken

Not all are imaginary, but many are self-created. The more you intervene, the more your actions create more problems for which more intervention is always the government proposed solution.

Good general points, but now please point out the specific sections of the Patriot Act that they are relevant to....

Extended again...

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/u-s-congress-passes-four-year-extension-of-patriot-act

Sometimes I wish the torturers would undergo what they did to others...a sort of poetic justice.