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.
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.
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.
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?
**
You bet. A shiny new one of your choice.
**
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.
**
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.
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?
Too bad. 0/3 doesn’t win you the bike. Thanks for playing though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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. **
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is simply untrue. I cannot find any provision of the Act that permits this.
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.
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.
FTR, here is the text of the USA PATRIOT Act. 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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
That or (more likely) they were simply mistaken. **
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 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.
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?