Whats wrong with the PATRIOT act?

[The_Calculus_of_Logic]

I am very ignorant of this issue, please explain to me why there is so much resistance to it and what is so evil about it. Before people start screaming about the Government being able to check what books i read at the library and me being a passive pussy for not fighting that, i would just like to say one thing.

The US is under threat of terrorism. People want to destroy our country, do tens of trillions of dollars worth of damage to the economy, destroy the country, terrorize the population, and kill millions of us. How does the US government respond to this (domestically)? Do we set up torture chambers, death squads, or mass graves like many non-western countries would under the same threat? Nope, we read what books you check out at the library and obtain wire taps without going through a judge first.

In a way, i wonder if the PATRIOT act will be a signal to the world that you can fight people who want to destroy your government relatively humanely. Without torture chambers or death squads.

[Mr_Salads]

DEBATES.

[The_Calculus_of_Logic]

“What’s your favorite …?” For frank exchanges of views on less-than-cosmic topics. This is also the place for polling.

My main motivation for posting this was the fact that instead of using death squads and torture chambers to fight political enemies like many countries, the US is reading library books and denying citizenship to people.

[Pythagras]

Change occurs by miniscule amounts in this country. People say “well we can just go a little bit…” and then before you know it thats the norm the nation has become accustomed to. Before you know it a few years later for the sake of security or something, somebody says “well maybe a little further, its just a little bit.” Its a dangerous slippery slope.

On a purely constitutional basis, why should we trust the FBI (or any federal agency) to have increased unrestritcted powers. It seems completly naive to suppose that a federal agency would act completly ignorant of its own interests. People have careers, they want to make careers. People have political enemies, they want to get rid of them. Its the nature of our democracy and why we have such a complex system of federalism, seperation of powers, and checks and balances. American economics and culture thrives off the selfishness of human-beings to engage in activities which promote their lives often at the expense of others. If no checks exist on overly powerful militaries and bureacracies (many of whom have the power to create policy) how can we trust our government to protect the rights that we are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? To what degree are we assured that those with power cannot betray their trust to the people to protect their rights (and lives) ?

[Laurasia]

There are many many resources on this subject online if you run a search. Mainly, the big deal is that The Patriot Act infringes on civil liberties, more importantly it is unconstitutional. It isn’t only about the government being able to check what books you read, it’s about the government being able to detain people and take away without giving them formal charges (this applies to citizins and non-citizens alike). That goes strictly against the Bill of Rights. If you fight terrorism by taking away freedom, what’s the point? As if that weren’t enough, they are drafting a Patriot Act II…

[Laurasia]

Hey, Guantanamo Bay is nothing to brag about if you are talking about how great we are to our enemies here (without death squads and torture chambers). Not that I’m saying they deserve star treatment or anything…

[Coldfire]

Off to Great Debates.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

Ah, the Patriot Act. Never have so many vented so loudly over something they knew so little about.

Here is the text of the Patriot Act.

Here is the US Code.

When someone has a specific objection to something actually contained in the act, let me know. Otherwise, this thread will just be another stupid ventfest in which everyone presupposes the Act is an Orwellian nightmare without having bothered to read its text.

[Johnny_L.A]

The US is under threat of terrorism. People want to destroy our country, do tens of trillions of dollars worth of damage to the economy, destroy the country, terrorize the population, and kill millions of us.

That reminded me of this:

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

url=“http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm”]-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[Johnny_L.A]

Fixing the link in the previous post.

When someone has a specific objection to something actually contained in the act, let me know.

Libraries. Why should the government be concerned about what books a person checks out from a library? Should a person be suspected of terrorism simply because he checks out a certain book?

[december]

*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. *
** Should a person be suspected of terrorism simply because he checks out a certain book? **

Depends on the book. If the book is HOW TO BUILD BOMBS IN YOUR BASEMENT, then perhaps the answer would be “yes.”

[Johnny_L.A]

What if you are just have an acedemic interest? You have no intention of building a bomb in your basement, but you’re curious about the process? Suppose you want to know how to build a nuclear device, not to actually make one but for general knowledge? Should you have “READS BOMB-MAKING LITERATURE” on your permanent dossier?

It is known that many terrorists come from Islamic countries. Interpreting broadly, the government may decide that anyone who checks out the Koran might be a terrorist.

I learned in high school that authorities are not allowed to go on “fishing expeditions”. They must have a warrant to conduct a search and the warrant must state what they are looking for. They need to present reasonable cause to a judge in order to get a warrant. From what I’ve heard on NPR, authorities have asked libraries to provide lists of people who have checked out certain books. This sounds like a “fishing expedition” to me.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. *
**Libraries. Why should the government be concerned about what books a person checks out from a library? Should a person be suspected of terrorism simply because he checks out a certain book? **

The Act does not specify libraries. The relevant section is Section 215 of the Act, codified at 50 USC 1861. It reads in relevant part:

Sec 501
(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall–
(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(b) Each application under this section–

(1) shall be made to–
(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

©(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

[…]

Note a couple of things about the Act. First, the request for “tangible things” cannot be predicated solely on protected first amendment activities. Second, you have to get a judge to approve the order.

The Act does not specify libraries – it allows the seizure of books, records, etc. Surely you can see the value in that. For example, taking a look at a suspected terrorist’s phone records or bank statements might be helpful in an investigation. True, libraries also fall under the umbrella of this provision, but the first amendment carveout prevents much of the abuse you’re suggesting will occur.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. *
What if you are just have an acedemic interest? You have no intention of building a bomb in your basement, but you’re curious about the process? Suppose you want to know how to build a nuclear device, not to actually make one but for general knowledge? Should you have “READS BOMB-MAKING LITERATURE” on your permanent dossier?

If your activities are purely academic, you are protected by the first amendment carveout. (Ignore december, as he clearly hasn’t reviewed the act either) **

I learned in high school that authorities are not allowed to go on “fishing expeditions”. They must have a warrant to conduct a search and the warrant must state what they are looking for. **

And here the authorities must get approval from a judge before they take any materials at all. The judiciary check is still in place.

[december]

*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
**When someone has a specific objection to something actually contained in the act, let me know. Otherwise, this thread will just be another stupid ventfest in which everyone presupposes the Act is an Orwellian nightmare without having bothered to read its text. **

The main purpose of the Patriot Act is to extend a law that would otherwise sunset. That actually sounds reasonable, since the war on terror is far from over, as long as none of the provisions are made permanent. Reading and analyzing the Act is a bear. Here are some specifics from The Center For Public Integrity, based on a draft of the Act.

Section 201, “Prohibition of Disclosure of Terrorism Investigation Detainee Information”:… the proposed legislation would enhance the department’s ability to deny releasing material on suspected terrorists in government custody through FOIA.

Section 202, “Distribution of ‘Worst Case Scenario’ Information”: This would introduce new FOIA restrictions with regard to the Environmental Protection Agency…By reducing public access to “read-only” methods for only those persons “who live and work in the geographical area likely to be affected by a worst-case scenario,” this subtitle would obfuscate an established level of transparency between private industry and the public.

Section 301-306, “Terrorist Identification Database”: These sections would authorize creation of a DNA database on “suspected terrorists,” expansively defined to include association with suspected terrorist groups, and noncitizens suspected of certain crimes or of having supported any group designated as terrorist.

Section 312, “Appropriate Remedies with Respect to Law Enforcement Surveillance Activities”: This section would terminate all state law enforcement consent decrees before Sept. 11, 2001, not related to racial profiling or other civil rights violations, that limit such agencies from gathering information about individuals and organizations… It would also place substantial restrictions on future court injunctions.

Section 405, “Presumption for Pretrial Detention in Cases Involving Terrorism”: While many people charged with drug offenses punishable by prison terms of 10 years or more are held before their trial without bail, this provision would create a comparable statute for those suspected of terrorist activity.

Section 501, “Expatriation of Terrorists”: This provision, the drafters say, would establish that an American citizen could be expatriated “if, with the intent to relinquish his nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated as a ‘terrorist organization’.” But whereas a citizen formerly had to state his intent to relinquish his citizenship, the new law affirms that his intent can be “inferred from conduct.” Thus, engaging in the lawful activities of a group designated as a “terrorist organization” by the Attorney General could be presumptive grounds for expatriation.

The USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 26, 2001, gave law enforcement officials broader authority to conduct electronic surveillance and wiretaps, and gives the president the authority, when the nation is under attack, to confiscate any property within U.S. jurisdiction of anyone believed to be engaging in such attacks. The measure also tightened oversight of financial activities to prevent money laundering and diminish bank secrecy in an effort to disrupt terrorist finances.

It also changed provisions of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was passed in 1978 during the Cold War. FISA established a different standard of government oversight and judicial review for “foreign intelligence” surveillance than that applied to traditional domestic law enforcement surveillance.

The USA Patriot Act allowed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to share information gathered in terrorism investigations under the “foreign intelligence” standard with local law enforcement agencies…

Here are some specifics from Matt Welch also based on a draft version.

Americans could have their citizenship revoked, if found to have contributed “material support” to organizations deemed by the government, even retroactively, to be “terrorist.”

Legal permanent residents (like, say, my French wife), could be deported instantaneously, without a criminal charge or even evidence, if the Attorney General considers them a threat to national security.

The government would be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at “detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities.” Samples could be collected without a court order; one need only be suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement officer.

Authorities could wiretap anybody for 15 days, and snoop on anyone’s Internet usage (including chat and email), all without obtaining a warrant.

The government would be specifically instructed not to release any information about detainees held on suspicion of terrorist activities, until they are actually charged with a crime.

Businesses that rat on their customers to the Feds – even if the information violates privacy agreements, or is, in fact, dead wrong – would be granted immunity.

Police officers carrying out illegal searches would also be granted legal immunity if they were just carrying out orders.

Federal “consent decrees” limiting local law enforcement agencies’ abilities to spy on citizens in their jurisdiction would be rolled back.

American citizens could be subject to secret surveillance by their own government on behalf of foreign countries, including dictatorships.

The death penalty would be expanded to cover 15 new offenses.

And many of PATRIOT I’s “sunset provisions” – stipulating that the expanded new enforcement powers would be rescinded in 2005 – would be erased from the books, cementing Ashcroft’s rushed legislation in the law books.

I would be interested in your thoughts regarding these provisions, Dewey Cheatem Undhow. As I said, I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with most of them, if they were clearly temporary.

[Bricker]

Johnny L.A.:

Peter Pervman kidnaps a 13 year old girl and holds her as a sex slave for a year, keeping her captive in a small hidden room he built in his basement. Ultimately he tires of the captive, kills her, and disposes of the body some distance away. He is arrested some time later based on his chat room descriptions of the crime, and physical evidence from his home seized pursuant to a search warrant. At trial, he admits knowing the girl and having her as a visitor in his home, but denies (among other things) even building the hidden room. He claims he knew nothing about it, and wouldn’t even know how to build a room.

A check of the library records reveals that shortly after he moved into the house, Pete checked out several “how-to” books about carpentry and building interior rooms. A search of his home reveals credit card receipts from a local hardware store for supplies that could be used to build the room.

Should the library records be used against Pete at his trial?

• Rick

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

december: The provisions you note are not part of the Patriot Act. They are part of Patriot II, a proposal that was leaked from the AG’s office a few months ago. Patriot II hasn’t so much as been introduced in Congress, much less been made into law.

Suffice it to say that much of the characterization of Patriot II is also overheated. We discussed Patriot II extensively in this thread. Feel free to take a gander. I’m not going to hijack this thread with discussion of a completely different (though similarly-titled) proposal.

[MSU_1978]

DCU and other lawyers, as well as those who support the Patriot Act, what do you think of the ACLU’s
objections to the PA? I’m no lawyer, but the PA makes me more afraid of the government than it does of terrorists.

[KellyM]

*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
**And here the authorities must get approval from a judge before they take any materials at all. The judiciary check is still in place. **

Yeah, the FISA Court, which is all but a rubberstamp and completely immune from review because they act in secret.

Some judiciary check. :rolleyes:

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by MSU 1978 *
**DCU and other lawyers, as well as those who support the Patriot Act, what do you think of the ACLU’s
objections to the PA? I’m no lawyer, but the PA makes me more afraid of the government than it does of terrorists. **

I think there are some valid criticisms buried amid the hysterics and hyperbole. If you’ve got a specific issue you’d like to discuss, name it. I’m not going to do a comprehensive review of each of the Act’s sections and the ACLU’s criticisms thereof – that would be an absurdly huge project.