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.