Shek

Out of curiosity, what specificially do you object to in the Patriot Act?

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Ray

Maybe he does not like section 215 which violates the privacy and First Amendment rights of all Americans to say what they want, associate with the groups they choose, and freely practice their religion.

But then it is troubled times for the US.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Shek

Sir,
Can you tie these claims to the actual text of section 215? When I read section 215, I find the following language:

This appears to be exactly the opposite of your claim.

There are many complaints surrounding the USA Patriot Act, but I find that they are not based in reality. However, I standby to be corrected.

mtnbiker

the best part is that most of the Patriot Act is just rehashing things that had been law for years.

There isn't much new in there. Yet people continue to freak out about it.

Ray

Section 215 FAQ (10/24/2002)

What is Section 215?

* Section 215 allows the FBI to order any person or entity to turn over "any tangible things," so long as the FBI "specif[ies]" that the order is "for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
* Section 215 vastly expands the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents.
o The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity.
o The FBI need not have any suspicion that the subject of the investigation is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.
o The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights.
+ For example, the FBI could spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because they don't like the web sites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy.
o Those served with Section 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing the fact to anyone else. Those who are the subjects of the surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been compromised.
+ If the government had been keeping track of what books a person had been reading, or what web sites she had been visiting, the person would never know.

Is Section 215 Constitutional?

* Normally, the government cannot effect a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause.
o The violation of the Fourth Amendment is made more egregious by the fact that Section 215 might be used to obtain information about the exercise of First Amendment rights. For example, the FBI could invoke Section 215 to require a library to produce records showing who had borrowed a particular book or to produce records showing who had visited a particular web site.
o Section 215 might also be used to obtain material that implicates privacy interests other than those protected by the First Amendment. For example, the FBI could use Section 215 to obtain medical records.
* The provision violates the First Amendment by prohibiting those served with Section 215 orders from disclosing that fact to others, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
* The provision violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to investigate U.S. persons, including American citizens, based in part on their exercise of First Amendment activity, and by authorizing the FBI to investigate non-U.S. persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment activity.
* The provision violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by failing to require that those who are the subject of Section 215 orders be told that their privacy has been compromised.

Doesn't the government need these powers?

* The government already has the authority to prosecute anyone whom it has probable cause to believe has committed or is planning to commit a crime. It also has the authority to engage in surveillance of anyone whom it has probable cause to believe is a foreign power or spy - whether or not the person is suspected of any crime.
* Section 215 takes away a great deal of our liberty and privacy but isn't likely to get us any security in return.
o There's a real possibility that setting the FBI loose on the American public will have a profound chilling effect on public discourse. If people think that their conversations and their e-mails are their reading habits are being monitored, people will inevitably feel less comfortable saying what they think, especially if what they think is not what the government wants them to think.

Is the FBI abusing its powers?

* Attorney General Ashcroft has gone to great lengths to keep secret even the most basic information about the FBI's spying. For example, in answering questions posed by the House Judiciary Committee, he classified information that should not have been classified, including information that would have shown how often the FBI is spying on people based on their exercise of First Amendment rights.
* The little information that we do have suggests that the FBI is abusing its powers.
o For example, a survey conducted by the University of Illinois suggested that, by December 2001, the FBI had already approached 85 out of some 1500 libraries.
* The ACLU obtained some information about the FBI's use of Section 215 through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. More information about our FOIA request and related litigation can be found at /privacy/spying/15424prs20021024.html.

********************

I post without comment since my knowledge of the practical issues of the Patriot Act is based on the internet and not experience.

And anyway, Shek, Happy Birthday!

Shek

Sir,

Here's a post that is more specific than mine written by a poster with significant experience in the area:

Moral Authority?

Also, read the actual text of section 215 - it doesn't state that the FBI can order the hand over of information; instead, it states that

So, please do not be deceived by the erroneous website that you cite.

In general, the USA Patriot Act didn't break any new ground that I'm aware of - it just reapplied laws that were already in effect. For example, the ability to look at library records (through a court order) existed for child sexual offenses investigations if I'm not mistaken - this tool was expanded for use in national security (i.e. terrorism) cases. Notice that this ability still requires going before a judge (typically FISA) in order to obtain the warrant. This adheres completely with the 4th amendment. The act is now five years old - surely it would have been overturned in the courts if it didn't pass Constitutional muster.

Lastly, thanks for the birtday wishes. Tomorrow is a federal holiday in honor of my birthday (okay, not really, it is for Veteran's Day, but it does sound impressive, eh? )

Ray

I thought 11 Nov is the Veterans Day.

My brother was born on 11 Nov which is the Armistice Day and in US, I believe it is called the Veteran's Day.

Maybe, I could be wrong.

As far as Patriot Act is concerned, it really doesn't matter to me. All that matter is when we will get the Patriot Missiles!

Shek

Sir,
You are correct that 11 Nov is Veteran's Day. However, since that is Saturday, tomorrow is a federal holiday so that federal employees get a work day (although all the ceremonies will still be on Saturday).

zraver

The law of unintended condequences. The patriot act was not needed, will never be repealed and will be used to abuse American citizens. No safeguard yet enacted in the modern era has stopped the US goverment from doign exactly as it wanted to do, this acts only makes it easier for them to get away with abuse.

Since when can an American citizen be deneid of his rights by a magistrate? magistrate judges are not judical, they are administrative.

Shek

Magistrate judges issue warrants as part of their standard duties. This is not denying a person's Constitutional right - it is exercising it by requiring that a warrant be issued. I am not sure how you can come to the exact opposite conclusion. In other words, the USA Patriot Act confirms this right that you claim it destroys.

If you doubt that a magistrate is authorized to order search warrants, then you can read the following citation from the FindLaw website. You can click on the link to access the cited footnotes from actual case law.

kmchugh

I've come to this a bit late, so forgive me. However, I can tell you without hesitation that there is nothing in the PATRIOT Act that violates the constitution. Moreover, there really isn't any new law in the PATRIOT Act, cries from those who believe that it violates all kinds and types of our rights. Also, cries that it unleashes the goverment spies on US citizens are incorrect. My first suggestion is that this poster, or any other who believes the same, look up Title XVIII of the US Code. The provisions of the PATRIOT Act so many find distasteful are located there, and have been since at least 1983, when I first became a US Army Counterintelligence Agent.

There were, however, some very important reasons to enact the PATRIOT Act. As I already pointed out, it took many provisions of US law, all of which were long since tested and accepted principles of jurisprudence, and "put them in one house," which is never a bad idea. It also specified which courts had jurisdiction over cases involving domestic and international terrorism. This prevents courts without experience in such investigations from derailing or delaying said investigations while they "research the issue."

However, if zraver would like to offer specifics regarding his/her objection to the PATRIOT ACT, I'd be happy to debate the issue. So far, all you have really done is say the PATRIOT Act is bad. Nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion. And we all know what opinions, especially those that are unsubstantiated, can be compared to.

Kevin McHugh

Edited to add: If you are going to make claims about the PATRIOT Act violating the Constitution, I'll expect you to be able to reference the portion of the Act that does so. I won't accept simple claims based on what you may have read on other web sites. It's amazing the number of people who have completely missed what the PATRIOT Act says and does. In other words, go to the original document and reference specifically the offending section.

__________________
If you didn't pay any taxes, it's not a rebate. It's welfare.

Julie

I read it. There is a provision for "Protecting the Northern Border." No mention of the Southern Border.....LOL.