USA PATRIOT Act: Anti-Terrorist Tool or Threat to Civil Liberties?

[Darth Cluich]

Yeah, we've got a lot of issues on the table for this year's presidential election -- the war in Iraq, the economy, same-sex marriages -- but this is the big issue for me. I've never been one whose voting decisions came down to a single issue, but this could be it. I'm providing a link to the full text of the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing the Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001," the so-called USA PATRIOT Act: click here for pdf file (http://frwebgate.access.gpo .gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=10 7_cong_bills&docid=f:h3162enr.txt .pdf). Even though it's pretty long (131 pages), I encourage everyone to read it, as it's very disturbing. And, as if the PATRIOT Act weren't bad enough, there's a PATRIOT Act II (official title: "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003") on the table. This, too, is rather long but is also worth reading. A draft of PATRIOT II (also in pdf) can be found here (http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/030109patriot2.pdf). The provisions outlined in PATRIOT II are even more frightening. We must not renew the original PATRIOT Act (it has to be renewed periodically), and we must not allow PATRIOT II to become law!

[LycanSpectre]

I only had to read the table of contents before I was thinking this was a very bad idea. Bad Congress! No vote!

[Darth Cluich]

No shite, huh? Seriously, though, Lycan, read on. Very few people realize how scary PATRIOT and its proposed follow-on are.

[LycanSpectre]

No shite, huh? Seriously, though, Lycan, read on. Very few people realize how scary PATRIOT and its proposed follow-on are.

I am, dont worry. :mad:

EDIT: I love it. They consider changing the punctuation in a document amending it. :rolleyes: (sec 203, subsec 1, para A)

[LV426]

This entire Patriot Act has been a mess frrom the beginning. It literallly allows the government to take away the civil liberties of anyone it wants to.

April 14th, 1865 a young woman who ran a boarding house was seized in the midde of the night and thrown in jail. She was dragged from her house in her night clothes, and with no explanation was thrown into a jail cell and kept there for 2 months. There was no trial for this woman, she had no legal counsel, and all of her belongings were stripped from her and her property confiscated by the government.

Her crime? She rented a room to John Wilkes Booth, the man that assassinated President Lincoln. The Patriot Act was used to justify the government's actions and when she was finally released she was a poor destitute woman with nothing left to her name and no way to recover her property. She was labeled an accomplice to Booth, and even though she was cleared of that charge eventually, the people never looked at her the same.

This is what the government wants, the freedom to do whatever they want to anyone who lives in America. They say it is for safety but honestly, would you want someone like Bush to have total control over your life?

This country was founded on freedom, but now all the government wants is to take it away, one law, one amendment, and one Act at a time.

Sorry but I won't go quietly.

[Darth Cluich]

Actually, the PATRIOT Act had nothing to do with the 1865 case. It didn't even exist. The government got away with that, because the Union's federal government had suspended habeas corpus in 1861, using the War Between the States as an excuse. It wasn't reinstated until 1866, even though the war ended the year before.

Back to the PATRIOT Act, though. It doesn't matter who gets control -- Bush, Kerry, Snoopy, Jenna Jameson, or anyone else. No government should have that much power.

[LV426]

Actually, the PATRIOT Act had nothing to do with the 1865 case. It didn't even exist. The government got away with that, because the Union's federal government had suspended habeas corpus in 1861, using the War Between the States as an excuse. It wasn't reinstated until 1866, even though the war ended the year before.

Back to the PATRIOT Act, though. It doesn't matter who gets control -- Bush, Kerry, Snoopy, Jenna Jameson, or anyone else. No government should have that much power.


Yes dear thank you, I didn't say that the Patriot Act was used for that, I used it as an example of the government's abuse and the infringement upon civil liberties. The Patriot Act is just a way to justify treatment such as occurred in 1865. There were a few other individuals who were treated in the same manner because of their connection with John Wilkes Booth I just didn't have their info handy. My point is that to have an actual legal manner to commit these infringements upon the rights of the people is ridiculous and one that should not be allowed under any circumstances.
And I only used Bush because I REALLY hate him and think he should be euthanized.

[Darth Cluich]

The PATRIOT Act isn't really a justification for such treatment of the public by the government. War is the "justification" (if you can call it that); the PATRIOT Act is a codification into law of the power to act on that justification. Throughout US history, war has frequently been an excuse to trample civil liberties, and the government, more often than not, gets away with it. The example you cite, LH, is a good one, as is the internment of 120,000 US citizens of Japanese descent during World War II, an action that the US Supreme Court actually upheld as constitutional (!) in Korematsu vs. United States (1944). The PATRIOT Act is merely a continuation of a pattern.

Claims of extraordinary powers during wartime have not always gone unchecked, though. In April 1952, Truman ordered the seizure of the nation's steel mills in order to forestall a strike which, he claimed, would have seriously harmed the nation during the Korean conflict. In Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. vs. Sawyer (1952), however, the Supreme Court said, "No way, Harry. You haven't got the authority to do that." (I'm paraphrasing, of course.) And, well, yeah, those guys in the robes were absolutely correct!

But we need the courts, Congress, and -- most importantly -- the entire nation to stand against these power grabs in the name of national security. Just as in Youngstown, the government hasn't the authority under the Constitution to hamper civil liberties, because "there's a war on, y'know." It's unfortunate, however, that Youngstown appears to be an aberration in a scary pattern of behavior by the federal government. Detentions at Gitmo, for instance, smack of Korematsu.

[LV426]

I'm going to delete your posts if you don't stop using teensy tiny italics in your threads.

[Darth Cluich]

Chill, LH. It's not a problem on my puter, but chriz already told me that it's difficult to read on some people's. I'm now using this font.

[LV426]

Chill, LH. It's not a problem on my puter, but chriz already told me that it's difficult to read on some people's. I'm now using this font.
It's like trying to read dancing sugar ants on a screen. If you revert back I shall beat you with sharp pointy things and poke you with my silver olive fork.

[Darth Cluich]

Careful...I might like that. ;)

Now...BACK TO THE PATRIOT ACT!

[kat]

Careful...I might like that. ;)

Now...BACK TO THE PATRIOT ACT!
Translation: "BUMP!"

[blueeyes]

For those who want the official FAQ : http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mie/ctu/FAQ_Patriot.htm

[Darth Cluich]

Thanks, blue. I actually have a link to the full text of the PATRIOT Act in the initial post in this thread, as well as a link to the text of PATRIOT II, in case anyone's interested.