# Patriot Act **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 29, 2003, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995 "2003-04-29T20:42:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/21 "2003-05-01T16:15:13Z")
Not only is it Debate 101, but there is a good REASON it’s debate 101. If I’m right, and the Act does not allow access to library records “without giving a reason” - as you said it did - then what can I point to. Is there likely to be a section Congress inserted that says, “By the way, this Act says nothing about library records, just so you know.” In other words, if the Act doesn’t say it, what can I point to? But if the Act DOES say it, then all you have to do is say where it does. That’s pretty simple. > [@](#): > > That the FBI and/or other law enforcement agencies/officers can come into a library and demand to see the check out records of patrons, without stating why they want the records and I also believe they don’t need a warrant. Those are your words. If the Act doesn’t say that, I can’t point to where it doesn’t say something, can I? You can easily point to where it DOES say that, though. If it does. So - go ahead. ---
**Author:** ![lander2k2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@lander2k2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lander2k2)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/22 "2003-05-01T19:10:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\* Is that your idea of a specific? > > It is sadly lacking in … well… specifics. That is an excellent example of a GENERAL objection to the Act, I grant. > > But it is in no way specific. \*\* Oh, right. You want me to say something like, in Section 101. (a) (2), I disagree that any federal department or agency should be reimbursed for any costs incurred in detaining individuals in foreign countries that have been accused of terrorism and are in violation of the laws of the US because that allows these agencies to ratchet up untold sums that tax payers have to pay (with a guarantee that they will be paid) so that some CIA goons can run around apprehending suspects that have violated US laws (even though they’re in another sovereign nation and not the US). You know what, I have better things to do with my life than decipher lawyer babble and then debate each specific point. Here’s as specific as I’m going to get in entertaining this argument: My objection is that government agencies fail in protecting the nation and then government legislators pass legislation to further empower and loosen the leash on those agencies and at the same time encroach on citizens rights to have government agencies out of their face. > [@](#): > > \*\*The Act does make changes. But everything I’ve read in this thread that is criticized as evil about the Act is NOT a change. The legislation effects several changes - but no one has mentioned them yet. > > Surely you must have a concrete, specific reason to oppose this law, more than reacting to things others have told you? Surely you must have read the law to which you are so violently objecting? \*\* Here’s the act: [http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism\_militias/20011025\_hr3162\_usa\_patriot\_bill.html](http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html) Check that mung out. It is a joke unto itself that legislators come up with such gobbldegook and make it the law of the land. You think Joe Average is going to even read that junk? Legislators have become so enamored with themselves and their laws that they’ve forgotten that people have to read, understand and follow them. Then again, what can you expect when so many of the legislators are ex-lawyers? So, yes I am going to rely on trusted commentators and analysts to decipher and translate that junk and let me know what’s going on. And, no, I’m not going to sift my way through it so as to argue each infinitesimal point with you. My question to you: Are you asserting that the Patriot Act does NOT widen the powers of government departments and agencies? > [@](#): > > \*\*If I identify at least three logical fallacies, do I win a new bicycle? \*\* You bet. A shiny new one of your choice. > [@](#): > > \*\*Argumentum ad hominen: you call me gullible, and suggest I am living in a dream land. \*\* Sorry. I didn’t call you gullible. I said, “I can only assume that you are heavily gullible or have a personal interest in the government exerting more power over its citizens.” I said that I can only assume that you are heavily gullible or ……… On the other hand I _did_ suggest that you are living in a dream land and made it very clear why that seems to me to be the case. The logic goes like this: you defend the Patriot Act therefore you must think it is righteous—you must either think that it doesn’t give more power to the government over its citizens (which seems ridiculous to assert and so was disregarded) or you think that the government can be trusted with greater powers over its citizens—this would indicate that you buy the drivel pouring out of the press and are therefore, in my estimation, are not in touch with reality. Since you didn’t contend any logical basis and only misquoted and cried foul, I think you fail on this one, sir. > [@](#): > > \*\*Strawman: You suggest I think the US government can do no wrong. \*\* See above train of logic. Since, again, you didn’t even take up the logic so as to identify any flaw, but rather just announced my conclusion, you fail on this one too. > [@](#): > > \*\*Argumentum ad ignorantiam: the law must do something new, even if I can’t identify what it is. \*\* While I concede to ignorance of the finest nuances of SEC. 212. in its amendments to Sec.2703 ©, subsection ©(1)(i), I think the logic that if new legislation is passed then it must have been _new_ legislation, is not flawed. Since you haven’t punched any holes in that idea, then you fail again. Is your entire argument based upon the defense that if someone can’t dig up a specific section of lawyer mumbo jumbo then they can’t have an philosophical opinion? > [@](#): > > \*\*Let me know when I get my bike. \*\* Too bad. 0/3 doesn’t win you the bike. Thanks for playing though. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/23 "2003-05-01T20:06:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lander2k2 \* > So, yes I am going to rely on trusted commentators and analysts to decipher and translate that junk and let me know what’s going on. And, no, I’m not going to sift my way through it so as to argue each infinitesimal point with you. This quote, I believe, represents a fair distillation of your argument. You can’t understand, or don’t wish to try, to read the actual text of the law. You think it’s “gobbledegook”. You ignore the fact that this is how ALLL THE LAWS READ, and you use your ignorance as a shield; you rely on trusted commentators and analysts for their review and opinion. But having done that, you have selected commentators from organizations with a known bias, and your parroting of their analysis reflects that bias. Let’s take one area in which the Act does erode civil rights: notification to a person after a search warrant has been executed. Now, I can say, safely, that the Act does this. Why? Becaue if challenged, I can point to Section 213 of the Act, which amends 18 USC 3103 _et seq_ to provide that if the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result, the government may delay notification for a reasonable period of time (but not forever). Now here’s a solid fact: prior to this law being passed, if the government got a warrant and searched your property, they had to immediately tell you they had done so. Now, they still have to immediately tell you – UNLESS they can convince a judge that reasonable cause exists not to tell you. Even then, they have to tell you at some point. No question about it: this law erodes the rights of citizens. Before, they had a right to know immediately; now, they don’t necessarily. I’m OK with that change. It doesn’t bother me. If you wish to convince me I should be against the Patriot Act, then you need to point out a SPECIFIC area that should bother me. It’s fine that you trust your commentators - I don’t. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/24 "2003-05-01T21:14:42Z")
I don’t have time to read this whole thread, but I imagine the quote about trading freedom for safety has been thrown out there already. I won’t vote for a President who supports this nightmare of a law, no. And if they pass PATRIOT 2 and/or repeal the sunset provisions, that increases greatly the likelihood that I end up moving to Canada or Europe some day. Sorry, but I just don’t feel safe with the government expanding its powers over the citizenry to this crazy degree, especially given that I’m an active leftist. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/25 "2003-05-02T00:45:54Z")
Great. Another, “I don’t have time to actually inform myself about this law, but I’m against it.” What irks me is there are some questionable provisions in the damn thing; provisions that deserve serious debate. Unlikely to occur here, though, as the field is replete with people congratulating themselves on remaining ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/26 "2003-05-02T00:49:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Great. Another, “I don’t have time to actually inform myself about this law, but I’m against it.” Kiss off, pal, I’ve read tons about this law. I said I didn’t have time, when I was sitting at work, to read the entire thread. That doesn’t mean I haven’t been reading articles about it since it passed, because I most certainly have. ---
**Author:** ![MrTuffPaws](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@MrTuffPaws](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrTuffPaws)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/27 "2003-05-02T01:00:53Z")
Bricker: Well, not being a constitutional lawyer, my layman-ness might come out. Your question “The Fourth Amendment doesn’t protect you against all search - just that which is unreasonable. What authority do you offer for the proposition that the Patriot Act authorizes unreasonable searches? Specifically, please.” It is a matter to degree. Some may feel that the following (quoted from [http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism\_militias/20011031\_eff\_usa\_patriot\_analysis.html](http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html) ) might violate your 4th Amendment rights. Nationwide roving wiretaps. FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation. **In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even have to report where they served the order or what information they received.** The EFF believes that the opportunities for abuse of these broad new powers are immense. For pen/trap orders, ISPs or others who are not named in the do have authority under the law to request certification from the Attorney General’s office that the order applies to them, but they do not have the authority to request such confirmation from a court. ISPs hand over more user information. The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. \*\*First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all “non-content” information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. sec. 212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses; means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. secs. 210, 211. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Waddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/bb73d2/32.png) [@Waddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waddle)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/28 "2003-05-02T01:07:36Z")
Bicker, are you so informed? The effects of this law have been seen. The link that I posted shows it. This thread is about weather or not you would support the prez that accepts the PATRIOT act. This thread is not about weather or not we know what it says. I can’t read that crap, I haven’t gone to law school. But I friends who have, and they tell me that government agencies have unchecked powers. I started this thread to see if people actually agree with the patriot act. NOT TO SEE IF THEY ARE INFORMED. Please quit trolling on my thread. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/29 "2003-05-02T01:26:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MrTuffPaws \* > \*\*Nationwide roving wiretaps. FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. \*\* That’s not my understanding. IIRC, the whole point of roving wiretaps is that it allows a warrant to apply to a suspect rather than a particular telephone number. Pre-Patriot Act, you had to get a warrant for each particular telephone, cell phone, etc that you wanted to monitor. If the suspect switched phones, you had to go get a new warrant for the new phone. Obviously, in a day and age where one can buy prepaid cell phones for cash, this is not a workable solution – it’s just too easy for a suspect to use a phone once, discard it, and get another phone. The Act allows a warrant to apply to a named suspect without reference to a particular telephone number – the warrant is valid for any cell phone, etc that the suspect is using. And that to me sounds like a sensible solution. It discards an antiquated rule made obsolete by the pace of technology without eviscerating the constitutional requirement for probable cause. I’m admittedly working from memory here, so I’m perfectly willing to be corrected if I’m wrong. But if my memory serves me correctly, I think this provision of the Patriot Act is entirely legitimate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/30 "2003-05-02T01:30:24Z")
What? What trick is this? Actually offering specifics? Thank you. Let’s review these. I’m not sure anything you’ve mentioned below is terrible, but I agree some may object. Regardless, you deserve thanks for actually complaining about something the Act actually says. > [@](#): > > Nationwide roving wiretaps. FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order. Yes. The government sought this power because the original wiretap rules date from pre-cellphone days, and do not contemplate the ease in which a person can get additional phone numbers. The law is changed to make a person, not a phone number, the primary target of surveillance. I have no problem with this. Forcing investigators to get a new warrant or court order for each phone number they discover a person is using, in an age of pre-paid, disposible cell phones, seems foolish. It is better to convince a court that Joe Blow needs to be tapped, and giving the government leeway to snag all his phones. > [@](#): > > The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation. This is simply untrue. I cannot find any provision of the Act that permits this. > [@](#): > > For pen/trap orders, ISPs or others who are not named in the do have authority under the law to request certification from the Attorney General’s office that the order applies to them, but they do not have the authority to request such confirmation from a court. This isn’t a change. Traditional pen register tap ordesr don’t permit the phone company to go back to court to confirm the order, either. > [@](#): > > ISPs hand over more user information. The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. \*\*First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all “non-content” information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. sec. 212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses; means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. secs. 210, 211. \*\* Yes. But credit cards and bank account numbers have always themselves been available by subpoena, as have phone records. The only change in the Act is adding ISPs to the list. Are you saying you had no objection to your phone and credit card records being available, as they have been since 1968, but you object to your ISP records being available? What is the substantive difference? OK - each point you raise, except as noted above, is actually part of the Act, and none fills me with doom. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/31 "2003-05-02T01:35:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waddle \* > **I started this thread to see if people actually agree with the patriot act. NOT TO SEE IF THEY ARE INFORMED.** How can you intelligently decide if you agree with the Act if you are not informed about its provisions? ---
**Author:** ![Waddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/bb73d2/32.png) [@Waddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waddle)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/32 "2003-05-02T12:05:54Z")
The question was: [http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15770](http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15770) After reading this tell me, will you elect a president who supports PATRIOT act? I can not agree with anything that allows for the events in that article. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/33 "2003-05-02T12:29:33Z")
Waddle: The Patriot Act does not allow for the events in that article. The law enforcement officers that claimed it did - if that actually happened - were wrong. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/34 "2003-05-02T12:40:20Z")
FTR, here is the [text of the USA PATRIOT Act](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html). **Waddle** , as **Bricker** notes, I can’t see anything in the Act that would permit the events in the article. I’m perfectly willing to be corrected, though. The closest thing to it that I can find is Section 412 of the Act, reproduced below: > [@](#): > > **SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW.** > > (a) IN GENERAL- The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 236 the following: > > > [@](#): > > > > `MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW > > > > `SEC. 236A. (a) DETENTION OF TERRORIST ALIENS- `(1) CUSTODY- The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who is certified under paragraph (3). > > `(2) RELEASE- Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien until the alien is removed from the United States. Except as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3). If the alien is finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to this subsection shall terminate. `(3) CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General may certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien– > > `(A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or `(B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States. > > `(4) NONDELEGATION- The Attorney General may delegate the authority provided under paragraph (3) only to the Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General may not delegate such authority. `(5) COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS- The Attorney General shall place an alien detained under paragraph (1) in removal proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a criminal offense, not later than 7 days after the commencement of such detention. If the requirement of the preceding sentence is not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the alien. > > `(6) LIMITATION ON INDEFINITE DETENTION- An alien detained solely under paragraph (1) who has not been removed under section 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person. `(7) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General shall review the certification made under paragraph (3) every 6 months. If the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General’s discretion, that the certification should be revoked, the alien may be released on such conditions as the Attorney General deems appropriate, unless such release is otherwise prohibited by law. The alien may request each 6 months in writing that the Attorney General reconsider the certification and may submit documents or other evidence in support of that request. > > > > `(b) HABEAS CORPUS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW- `(1) IN GENERAL- Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision. > > `(2) APPLICATION- `(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2241(a) of title 28, United States Code, habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) may be initiated only by an application filed with– > > `(i) the Supreme Court; `(ii) any justice of the Supreme Court; > > `(iii) any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; or `(iv) any district court otherwise having jurisdiction to entertain it. > > `(B) APPLICATION TRANSFER- Section 2241(b) of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus described in subparagraph (A). `(3) APPEALS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2253 of title 28, in habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) before a circuit or district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings to any other circuit court of appeals. > > `(4) RULE OF DECISION- The law applied by the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall be regarded as the rule of decision in habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1). > > > > `© STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION- The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any other provision of this Act.’. > > (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of contents of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 236 the following: > > `Sec. 236A. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorist; habeas corpus; judicial review.’. > > © REPORTS- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, with respect to the reporting period, on– > (1) the number of aliens certified under section 236A(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection (a); > (2) the grounds for such certifications; > (3) the nationalities of the aliens so certified; > (4) the length of the detention for each alien so certified; and > (5) the number of aliens so certified who– > (A) were granted any form of relief from removal; > (B) were removed; > © the Attorney General has determined are no longer aliens who may be so certified; or > (D) were released from detention. Obviously, that’s not quite the same as what the article describes – it deals with detention, not arrest procedure – but it’s the nearest match I can find. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/35 "2003-05-02T13:07:26Z")
Or, to put it another way, if I rounded up a gang of thugs and broke into your apartment, and beat you, and you shouted, “Why? Why are you doing this?” and I sneered and responded, “The Federal Civil Rights Act gives me all the power I need to do this!” … would you then be against the Federal Civil Rights Act? ---
**Author:** ![Waddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/bb73d2/32.png) [@Waddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waddle)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/36 "2003-05-02T19:19:21Z")
Dewey, sorry, I haven’t gone to law school, I can’t read that (yes I did try). And my question for you is: can YOU read that? Bricker: No, but thats a gang of thugs. Not members of a GOVERNMENT agency. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/37 "2003-05-02T19:44:38Z")
Follow the link – the boards don’t preserve the indenting, which makes it tough to read (I tried to show where it was adding to an existing statute by doubling up on quote codes, but that’s of limited use). If you read the act at the link provided, it’s much easier (there’s a table of contents and everything). Reading a statute is not difficult – you just have to pay close attention to what you’re doing. Kind of like digging a ditch in a minefield. You haven’t answered **Bricker** ’s point. I don’t see anything in the Act itself which would allow the situation you describe. Just because the cops said they were acting pursuant to the Act doesn’t mean they were – you have to look at the actual text of the law to determine that. ---
**Author:** ![Waddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/bb73d2/32.png) [@Waddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waddle)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/38 "2003-05-02T21:30:06Z")
So you are saying that the cops would have been lying? Reading this statute is extremely difficult considering the majority of it consists of amendments, making it impossible to understand with out first knowing the original text. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/39 "2003-05-02T21:56:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waddle \* > \*\*So you are saying that the cops would have been lying? \*\* That or (more likely) they were simply mistaken. \*\* > [@](#): > > Reading this statute is extremely difficult considering the majority of it consists of amendments, making it impossible to understand with out first knowing the original text. \*\* Most of the amendments don’t monkey with the text of the original law too much, they just add in new sections or add new provisions at the bottom of existing sections – for example, the amendment I copied above does not change the original text; it just inserts a brand new section into existing law. But you can use the [Findlaw Online US Code](http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/) to find the specific sections of the code as amended (since the law has been enacted, the Findlaw copy of the code will include the USA PATRIOT amendments in full). No excuses, dude. If you’re going to discuss the content of a given law, you’ve got to roll up your sleeves and actually read the law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2003, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995/40 "2003-05-03T00:17:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Waddle \* > Bricker: No, but thats a gang of thugs. Not members of a GOVERNMENT agency. OK, so – if a group of cops broke into your house and beat the crap out of you, and called you a brainless twat while doing so… and if you asked what gave them the right to do this… and they replied it was their right under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 – would you then be against the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964? - Rick [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/patriot-act/171995.md?page=3)