Justice Dept. Details Patriot Act Usage



There are lists of some of the cases the Patriot Act has been used for including illegal weapons sales, child pornography, school bomb plots, computer hackers, violent fugitives, and most importantly, terrorists. The Justice Dept. was accused of only choosing the good info about the Patriot Act in the document and left out the concerns over civil liberties. Except this info found:



House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. fired back at critics saying that they are guilty of the same thing, using selective information to undermine the law.

Questions for Debate:

1) Has this news made you think twice about your views on the Patriot Act in any way?
2) Do you think that the Justice Department is holding back information on the use of the Patriot Act?
3) Will this help legislation for the renewal of the Patriot Act?

1) Has this news made you think twice about your views on the Patriot Act in any way?

First of all, I have a bias. I don't believe anything that Ashcroft says anymore. He's too much of a partisan hack to be useful as the head of the Justice Department. That said, no, the citing of 36 examples of where SOME of the additional abilities in the Patriot Act were used to prosecute cases is not enough compared to the OTHER abilities that are more odious that are not discussed. Like the "sneak-and-peak" search warrants.

2) Do you think that the Justice Department is holding back information on the use of the Patriot Act?

Oh, yes. Of course, they are. This is a political whitewash trying to bolster support for the Patriot Act and Act II.

3) Will this help legislation for the renewal of the Patriot Act?

Hopefully not. Hopefully our Senators and Representatives will demand the Justice Department be more forthcoming on ALL the ways the Patriot Act has been used. Only then can we have a realistic and informed discussion.

1) Has this news made you think twice about your views on the Patriot Act in any way?

Whether or not the Patriot Act has been successful in prosecuting terrorists isn't the point, it was created for expediency at the expense of civil liberties. So in that sense, yes I suppose it works.

What this report doesn't state is how many of the people prosecuted were American citizens that had their civil liberties violated by the patriot act? How many people were wrongfully questioned/imprisoned because of the patriot act? But most importantly, how many of these people would have been convicted anyway without the Patriot Act?

No bit of news on how the Patriot Act allows the justice department will ever convince me it is the right thing to do. In principle I feel that we should not violate people's civil rights for any reason in the interest of national security or expediency.

The fact that this story is from Fox News almost immediately disqualifies it in my opinion as well.

2) Do you think that the Justice Department is holding back information on the use of the Patriot Act?
Of course they are, why would they release information that would make the Patriot Act look bad?

3) Will this help legislation for the renewal of the Patriot Act?
Whether the Patriot Act gets renewed is highly dependent on who is in office in January of next year. If it is Bush then it will get renewed. If Kerry is in office then it won't. I really think it is that simple.


No Mr. Ashcroft you are incorrect, the Patriot Act is the nightmare of every American that holds the Constitution dear. It is the nightmare of our founding fathers. The Patriot Act is victory for the terrorists, because they have made us shred our Constitution just a little and sacrifice our freedoms because of their actions.

Firstly, that makes no sense. The document was made available to everyone by the Justice Dept. and i merely took the article from foxnews. I still do not understand this gripe with foxnews. Is it that it is the only media outlet that tells stories from a slightly different angle? Does that mean every other media outlet is reporting news the right way? It doesnt make sense to me. As General patton said, "if everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."

Look everyone is talking about the government taking away their civil liberties. Now maybe my google skills aren't up to par, but i have yet to find one story showing that a US Citizen (who was not in afghanistan fighting our troops) was denied their due process. I just do not see it anywhere. I will continue to look but i am hoping my opponents will be more successful than I.

All the Patriot Act does is make basic, domestic law enforcement practices apply to international and domestic terrorism. Wire taps search warrants, seizing medical and library records...nothing new. The courts are able to seize your medical and library records at request in a criminal case.

Furthermore, i do not know what world some people are living in. Does anyone honestly believe that prior to 9/11...even back as far as the Hoover days of the FBI that most of the practices were never used? Hell wake up! Even if there was constitutional question to these practices they were done anyway... but nobody was the wiser.

All the evidence shown up to this point have directed me towards one conclusion... so far the Patriot Act has put many, so far 179 bad people behind bars. Child pronographers, computer hackers working to disrupt our economy, potential school bombings, fugitives, illegal weapons sales that would have been used to kill many, and most importantly, terrorists.

All these anti-Patriot Act people are basing their arguments on one thing...an interpretation. Is it a misinterpretation? No way to tell...but up to this point that is what it is.

Actually, you don't see it because you aren't an Arab-American or a Muslim. If you were, you'd know that over 8000 Arab-Americans and Muslims have been questioned for no other reason than they were Arab-American or Muslim (source was ACLU web site, a great source for all things wrong with Patriot Act I and II). This is the American Way?



Just because you haven't seen it happen and can't find a news report about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. That's the whole point of a "secret" search: you don't know it happened. Since when do we give up our civil liberties without a good fight?

As for the Fox comment from CJ: I got my copy of the article by doing a search against AP, so it was a general news story and Fox's info matched, so nothing nefarious there.

Question...if its a "secret"...how can anyone, particularly the ACLU prove it or anything else happened?

I mean obviously the ACLU would have some proof to back up their claims. I mean nobody on these boards takes what anyone else says as fact without substantial evidence. I have not seen the ACLU provide anything that would prove the Patriot Act has violated rights...again all they have is an INTERPRETATION.

Very good! Now you are starting to understand the concern many of us have. If we cannot see what the government is doing, how can we make sure what they are doing is entirely legal or even right? How can we change it if we don't know what is going on?

Do you really trust your government that much that you're willing to risk allowing it to have totalitarian abilities? Do you actually want to go back to that fun era where the FBI and CIA were spying on everyone and keeping personal dossiers on people just because they didn't like the political decisions the Administration was making? That's where we're heading and it was based on a hastily-thrown-together Act that many Representatives and Senators regret voting for.

IMHO you are still basing your argument on an interpretation and not cold hard evidence. I mean isn't the very lack of news reports of Patriot Act injustices towards Americcan citizens (or atleast the ones i cannot find) sort of ring a bell that maybe the supposed powers that your interpretation brings about are not being abused?

Bottom Line: So far there are 179 criminals behind bars and the country is better because of it. Until evidence is provided that actual civil liberties were infringed upon to the extent that the constitution was purposefully violated i cannot see how anyone can blindly believe that the government is plotting a totalitarian policy.

It absolutely does not matter that it has put bad people behind bars. Even criminals should be afforded civil liberties and the case of the prosecution should be strong enough without having to take the short cuts afforded by the Patriot Act.

You could parade any series of criminal offenses imaginable here, it is wrong to take away civil liberties from people just because it makes prosecuting criminals more expedient.

This is one of the core things our country was founded upon and the Bush administration has decided they want to dismantle it.

Civil liberties have been taken away...ok...prove it. Simple as that. Show me evidence that there civil liberties are being taken away. How can you believe what you are saying if you have not found anything to back it up? As i said before, anti-Patriot Act advocates are basing their argument purely on an interpretation...nothing more.

The ACLU has made numerous claims and allegations saying that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and that it violates a person civil liberties. Yet they have not shown one single instance where this was the case.

I can make baseless claims also, but nobody in their right mind would just blindly take my word for it.

Can you please offer something more than just an interpretation. If you can come up with something credible, i am willing to admit it. But the fact remains that the totalitarian powers you assume the government has, has not yet been abused.

Civil Liberties are taken away the second the government is given authority to search and seize without due process of the law. Allowing them to do this without due process is taking my civil liberty away. Doing it in secret only exacerbates the issue because on top of the government being allowed infringe on my right to due process they are doing it in secret and there is no accountability.
1) Has this news made you think twice about your views on the Patriot Act in any way?
2) Do you think that the Justice Department is holding back information on the use of the Patriot Act?
3) Will this help legislation for the renewal of the Patriot Act?
My view of the Patriot Act has not changed. I don't really care if the Justice Department is holding back or not. They have no right to infringe on the civil liberties of the people without due process. I hope this will not help the legislation being renewed; whether its intentions are good or not. It is matter of the government having more power then it should. Any rep in my state that votes for the renewal will not only loose my vote but I will actively seek to have them removed from office.

Again, if its done in "secret" how could anyone possibly know about it? Simple question. If its been done, there should be proof. I havent seen it. Is everyone seeing what they are doing? Basing their argument on one interpretation of the Patriot Act. Its baseless. Just opinion, no fact.

So because something is in secret it must be OK? For something to infringe on my civil liberties I must prove that they are doing it? I will repeat, the fact that the government is ALLOWED to infringe on my civil liberties is the issue. One of the things we hold dear is the forethought our founding father's put into the creation of this country. Due process is one of them and the Patriot Act allows the government to ignore the rights of the individual, it allows them to SEARCH and SEIZE without cause. Even if they don't do it I am not comfortable with them having that power. There is no accountability in their actions and that is frightening. We should hold our freedom and rights dear. The Patriot Act flies in the face of everything this country was founded on.

Lets try to rummage through all this rhetoric.

yes, you must prove that they are infringing on your civil liberties. Becuase if they are not, then i do not understand what you are complaining about. What is the government doing to YOU? You are talking about what they aren't doing to you! Sense? Did you know that juries can subpeona your personal information? I do not see you fighting that. Fact remains you have not shown anyone that due process has been denied.

The real question is why aren't you comfortable with them looking through your library records? They aren't going to arrest you for checking out Fahrenheit 451. They are looking for suspicious TERRORIST activity. Keyword..."terrorist." Some people think very highly of themselves to believe that the FBI has the time to go through every US citizen's personal records. They are looking for terrorist activity. Bomb-making sites and info, Al-Queda web sites, terrorist contacts. If you do not fall under this category, what the hell are we worrying about?

They are not ALLOWED to infringe on your civil liberties. They are ALLOWED to search for suspicious content. Terrorism...terrorism...terrorism... Lets get this straight please. Civil liberties HAVE NOT BEEN INFRINGED UPON and until evidence that it has there is no argument. You have your interpretation of the Patriot Act, I have mine...but I also have proof of 179 criminals who would have killed dozens of people put behind bars due to the success of the Patriot Act. I also have a safer country. I have my safety and my rights...couldn't be happier.

On the contrary lederuvdapac there are facts out there if you do look for them not just from news articles.

Material support provision



USA Patriot ACT passed



Why the Patriot Act's expansion of records searches is unconstitutional



Ashcroft’s Patriot Act Report to Congress Omits Key Information, ACLU Says



Some Patriot Act facts



One of the biggest problems happening with Congress is with oversight they have been unable to have the oversight of the DOJ that they are supposed to have according to our constitution. Which means the abuses or lack there of are uncertain and so give the DOJ the right to claim that there are no abuses being done. As my many links have shown the Patriot Act is being used for more than just fighting terrorism which it is not supposed to be used for, as well as many of the laws that are in the Patriot Act were already on the books to begin with but now the DOJ has the expendient and does not have the checks and balances that we are all afforded.

The Patriot Act is violates our civil liberties and rights enumerated in the Constitution. For something to be wrong doesn't require the proof of wrongdoing or abuse. You do not give the power of authority that can be abused.

I could make a law that says that you can kill somebody, anyone you choose. Immediately someone will point out that murder is a crime, thus the law should not be passed. By your argument, you can say, "Well they haven't killed anybody yet, so they haven't commited murder. What's the problem?"

The government has the authority to subvert civil liberties given to us in the Constitution. The government should not have that authority, no matter if they plan on using these powers or not, they should not be given the authority in the first place.

Proof need not be provided. They were given authority they shouldn't have had in the first place, and that's the point.

I've heard the argument, "Well if you have nothing to hide, then why should you worry?"

With that logic we should just be put under martial law with full cavity searches. I have nothing to hide, so I'll gladly spread my cheeks and lift my sack.

lederuvdapac, I do not at all understand your request for 'proof' that civil liberties have been violated. It seems blatantly clear to me...

Allow me to explain: We agree that the Patriot Act allows for the violation of civil liberties, such as search and seizure. Your argument seems to be that there is no proof that, dispite the fact that the PURPOSE of the law is to allow law inforcement to violate civil liberties, there is no evidence that they have done so.

1) EVEN IF that were true, it makes not the slightest difference. The fact is that the government passed a law allowing them to violate your civil liberties. How much and how often they used the law is irrelevant. If the government passed a law saying the police were allowed to hold people indefinitely without charge, you cannot defend the clear illegality of this law just by saying 'but the police dont use it much'. (EDIT Oops, looks like Inner City Blues beat me to the punch on this point.)

2) The fact that the Government states they have arrested X number of people because of the patriot act seems evidence enough that clearly the expanded powers of the police is what allowed these arrests to be made.

3) I am VERY curious about the inclusion of 'child pornographers' on that list. Don't get me wrong, child pornography is a blight and needs to be stopped, but I thought the Patriot act was meant to protect the citizens of the US from terrorists. Were the Child Pornographers members of Al Qaeda? Or was the government using the patriot act to pry into the lives of ordinary US citizens completely unconnected to the war on terror?

The Patriot Act is designed to close loop holes in the way that investigations were conducted in the past.

In the past, in order for a law enforcement agency (FBI, local police, etc.) to get a warrant, they must present reasonable evidence that a crime has taken place.

Here's the problem: most terrorists do not commit crimes until they actually commit the terrorism. How can you prove to a judge that a crime was committed, when the crime has not yet been committed?

It's a tough situation. Add onto that the fact that we don't really know for sure who the sleeper cells are in this country. Finding out takes some sort of investigative work. Previously, a crime had to be committed before law enforcement could do anything. Are we willing to wait until terrorists strike or at least "blow their cover" in order to act to protect citizens?

Consider that "Conspiracy to commit Terrorism" is a crime. But in order to prove to a court that such a crime has indeed been committed, you would need to show where, when and how. But if we had this information to begin with, we wouldn't bother with a wiretap or a search, we would arrest the suspects.

Terrorism cannot be fought with conventional law enforcement techniques of waiting for a crime to occur and then arresting the suspects. By that time, the damage has been done. Terrorism requires aggressive investigation.

Let's say that a group of young Muslim-looking men were seen repeatedly photographing the Sears Tower (just as an example). These same guys showed up each day, taking pictures, asking questions and talking in Arabic. Should we be suspicious of these guys? They haven't broken any laws, but they are acting suspiciously. Should we investigate? Under what pretense?

As Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg said in 1963, “while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact.” Terrorists are still entitled to Constitutional protections. The case against them must be made legally, just as in any other case. Unless the Patriot is ruled un-Constitutional, its provisions are merely one piece in helping law enforcement (mainly the FBI) in determining who to investigate.

There is still no law against reading certain books, or visiting certain websites. Doing these things will not get you arrested. However, they provide law enforcement with a pattern of behavior that helps to identify who to go after. Without SOME legal basis, we have no way to protect against potential terrorists.

Now, when the Patriot Act is used for purposes other than terrorism, that is out of bounds. But recall, that during WW2, we actually rounded up Japanese Americans (citizens or not) and kept them in internment camps. The effects of this did not linger after the threat was resolved. Neither should we expect the Patriot Act to linger after the danger has passed. Now is not the time to block law enforcement from protecting us from a threat that the government describes as a "when" not an "if".

At first, I wanted to stand up and salute your posting. You forgot to put all those icons, though.

So, then I remembered that Japanese Americans who were rounded up were STILL *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off a few years ago and wanted restitution for being illegally detained.



Going from the "designed" to the "implemented" phase, something got lost in the translation if it's ok for the feds to use the law to look at medical records for women having abortions, as another AD thread discussed.



So tell me how this statement jives with your buddy GW holding Jose Padilla -- a US Citizen -- in a military brig in South Carolina for THREE YEARS without being charged and having legal representation withheld for a long period of time?

Of course people distrust this Administration. They want to be judge AND jury and want Congress to be an accessory before-the-fact when taking away our rights. Forget it!

In the end Amlord, if this is a sacrifice you are willing to make for the apparent protection of your nation, then far be it from me to question it, I'm not even American. It does surprise me that a nation that so prides itself on defence of rights and liberties is now so willing to abrogate those liberties in the name of fighting 'terrorism' as you say. It does surprise me, as I mentioned in my last post, that clearly the Patriot act is not being used against only terrorists, but just against domestic crime, like child pornography. That right there tends to weaken your argument that these clauses will somehow be abolished when the terrorist threat ends.

But though I am not an American, I am a historian, so let me give you a history lesson for a moment.

1) The Checka, the Gehiemstadtspoleizei (Gestapo), and other police/terror agencies were not started as terror agencies. They were started as police forces or military police forces who were given expanded powers to deal with a 'crisis' real or invented. These powers were never removed, and in fact moe and more crises were found.

2) Nobody in those states knew what these police forces would ever become, they were as confient as you that THIS abrogation of our rights is a unique case, and means nothing in the grand scheme. Plenty of regular people defended their creation and expanded powers because of the needs of the 'crisis'.

3) Bush has created an extra national camp where prisoners suspected of complicity in terror related organisations can be held without legal or consular representation, indefinately.

He created the Department of Homeland Security, thus making the US the ONLY liberal democratic nation in the world with an internal security agency (Though lots of dictatorships have them)

He has held arab americans without trial for month at a time, justifying it in the need of 'national security', in clear violation of their rights

He has passed the Patriot act, which allows police forces to violate civil right of US citizens when necessary, because of the 'crisis'.

He has invaded two nations, one directly realted to 9/11, one completely unrelated to 9/11, and is now involved in longterm anti-partisan activity therem, despite continued reports of excesses and abuses of locals by US troops.

He has done all this in the three and a half years since the 9/11 attack.

Let me be VERY CLEAR about this, as a historian: NONE of Mao, Castro or Stalin were able to accomplish this much in so little time. Now am I saying Bush is in any way similar to these three dictators, two of which are mass murderers? No, of course not.

But I am saying that he has managed to move closer to a police state then any of these three were able to do in a similar amount of time. Only Hitler was able to move faster, as by the 3.5 year mark he had removed more rights from the people and established more of a terror state.

Now to the outside, to a non-American, you had better believe this scares the hell out of people. You may understand now why people reacted to hysterically to the recent announcement that Bush was considering 'postponing the elections' in the case of another attack.

Rights continue to be removed, even though there has not been an attack or incident of any kind on US soil in almost 4 years.


In conclusion, please understand I am not comparing Bush to a mass murdering dictator, but the speed at which Bush has changed the face of the United States is incredible, and the direction is undenyable. It is almost certain that Bush has no intention of subverting democracy again, and will not proceed too much further, but to the eyes of the world outside the US, none can understand why he has been allowed to go so far. Many are astonished that the fiercely proud citizens of the 'land of the free and home of the brave' who value their rights above all else, would be SO WILLING to roll over at the behest of this man.

That's just my opinion of course, and in the end as I said its not my country, but I think you will find a lot of people share my confusion on this issue.

One problem I see with the PA is that it takes our fear of terrorism and exploits it to streamline prosecution of non-terrorist criminals. Not that we don't want to prosecute non-terrorist criminals, but that was not the stated point of the PA. In other words, legislation passed (wihout even being read) that dramatically changed the way we go after non-terrorist criminals. The proper amount of debate that characterizes a democracy was short-circuited:

Supporting Article

Another problem is overly zealous use of the PA. Here's some evidence:

Evidence Article

Aligned with overzealous use by authorities, the abuse by fellow citizens can occur as reflected in the second arrest from the following article:

Twice Arrested

Some of us will remember the case of the Spanish fingerprint leading to the imprisonment of Brandon Mayfield. That didn't hold up, but it shows how our law enforcement agencies can be very wrong, even self-deceiving:

Mayfield's Court Release

Just an isolated SNAFU, some might think. Think again:

Artist or Terrorist? Wife faking death, really WMD?

Held Without Charge (tough beans dude)

The evidence that what we hold most dear in America is being killed by an administration suffering from denial and guilt (maybe) is out there if you care to look. That the initial poster could not find this stuff on google search simply shows a less than enthusiastic desire to do a successful search. Didn't take me long to find the links for this post.

That's because I knew they were out there ahead of time.

There are judicial issues other than simply the Patriot Act.

Recall that Oliver North essentially walked away from the Iran Contra affair because the government refused to present evidence against him that could jeopardize national security. The same dilemma faces those who prosecute terrorists.

In prosecuting terrorists in open court, evidence would need to be presented that is a potential national security risk. This is the type of evidence which the government is reluctant to present, which could possibly result in an acquittal (as in the Oliver North case).

To get around this, the US has ruled that such defendants may be held as enemy combatants, as is the case with Jose Padilla.


Of course someone is going to remain angry. The point is that the US did not continue the practice after the threat had subsided.

The Patriot Act is an investigative tool. It is not a new law to be broken. It does not make reading certain books a crime. It does not make visiting landmarks or websites a crime. It's simply a tool to help the FBI determine who they should be investigating.

EDIT to add:

I agree. These provisions should be terrorist only, not run-of-the-mill crimes in which the normal investigative procedure does not result in (potentially) a huge loss of life.

From the NY Times, the story of Purna Raj Bajracharya



There is something wrong when a man is put into solitary confinement for three months just because he was making a videotape for his family. The FBI agent involved claims that Bajracharya was cleared of the charges within days. Why did it take three months to release him? Why was he placed in solitary confinement?

We have no idea how many people like Purna Raj Bajracharya are being held indefinitely. The government isn't being held accountable for it's actions because everything is being done in secret.

A crime does not necessarily have to be committed in order to get something like a wiretap in my understanding. The burden of proof would be much higher for a search warrant.

However, the FBI was able to get wiretap orders by using surveilance which requires very minimal probable cause to enact. They could then watch the suspected terrorists and as they gathered more evidence get wiretap orders, etc.

Removing some of the obstacles to get wire taps and search warrants is not required to fight terrorists, it is merely expedient. What needs to be done is the FBI needs increased funding for things like this and they need to do a better job of sharing information with other agencies such as the CIA and other international police organizations. The Patriot Act doesn't address any of that -- it merely allows them to take shortcuts at the expense of our civil rights.


So how do you propose to handle that then Amlord? The DOJ is basically bragging that the Patriot Act has netted X criminals, many of them not terrorists. Do you still agree with it given that fact? We are now talking about American citizens that have rights and they are being treated like terrorists. What can be done about it? Do you think the DOJ is just going to stop going after criminals using the Patriot Act?

If the police wrongly suspected you of doing something -- lets say you took an interest in architecture photography and repeatedly photographed government buildings -- would you be just a little ticked off if you found out that the police could issue a wiretap for your phone with no probable cause? What if they just carted you off to question you and denied you the right to counsel?


I can't hardly believe I'm hearing you trying to use the internment of Japanese during WWII to justify the Patriot Act! This was quite possibly one of the dumbest stunts we have ever pulled in the history of our country. It was completely unwarranted and you are entirely incorrect that people don't still harbor ill will about that. For one, the people that got rounded up are still alive (most of them) -- do you think they have just forgotten? I wasn't even alive then and I am deeply embarrassed by the fact that our country could do something like that.


The Patriot Act represents an increase in the power of government, specifically law enforcement. When in the history of the world has anyone voluntarily "given up" power when they no longer needed it? Government by its very nature trends toward becoming larger, there is absolutely no historical or real world example that would lead someone to believe that once we "win" the war on terror (assuming that ever happens) Congress will just rip up the Patriot Act.

The more likely scenario is that we won't have stopped terrorism for decades into the future. By that time the Patriot Act (and likely increases of its power) will be so ingrained in society no one will even think about revoking it. To assume the opposite runs contrary to common sense and logic.

Edited to add:

Granting judges the ability to hold closed sessions for cases of terrorism charges is a much better solution than the Patriot Act.

This logic also doesn't make sense, prosecuting a terrorist is going to require this evidence to be presented somehow. The difference here is how it was collected. I'm not sure how this really relates to whether we should have the Patriot Act or not.

I HAVE NO IDEA AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

You might be contempt with ignorance, but I and others in here are not.

Rape a girl while she's knocked out on Ruffies. You get what you want, and nobody is any wiser.

The Government is making you swallow a handful of Ruffies disguised as the Patriot Act, and you are unknowingly bent over a log. I don't like that feeling. YOU?

Wow I found an actual Government site in defense of the PA:

Preserving Life and Liberty

In Defense of the Patriot Act



That is a ridiculous statement and I just want you to know that. You are complaining about what the government isn't doing to you. The FBI doesn't care about the library records of ordinary US citizens nor do they have the time to go through every American. One example i saw of this method being useful was with the Zodiac killer, who was thought to be inspired by some poet. If te FBI had this power, they could have seen who checked out the poet's works and stop the criminal. THESE POWERS ARE NOT NEW. Grand juries can subpeona this info at request. This just speeds up the process. Investigators might seek select records from hardware stores or chemical plants, for example, to find out who bought materials to make a bomb, or bank records to see who’s sending money to terrorists.

The thing with the quick search without a warrant is put in place because terrorism is not confined to one district and usually involves the entire country. This way the FBI does not have to go through jurisdiction after jurisdiction trying to get authorization to nail the terrorist.



BOTTOM LINE: ALL of the powers listed in the Patriot Act are not some attack on civil liberties simply because they are nothing new. Every practice has been used one way or another. What the Patriot Act does is increase the speed and efficiency in which the FBI can carry out these practices. When terrorists threat our nation there is NO time to lose over clerical problems.

Why do you say that? You are claiming that since I am unaware of any infringement on my liberties by our government than the infringments do not exist. That is an asinine assumption.

So in essence, what you are saying is:

If a woman is raped and is unaware of it, than she wasn't raped.

The government can infringe on my civil liberties (I am not saying that they HAVE, but that they CAN) without my knowledge.

Just as I cannot prove that my civil liberties have been violated, YOU cannot prove that they haven't been.

Your trust in the Government is detrimental.

But what i can prove is that you have not been thrown in jail for terrorist activity. Obviously IF the government did indeed take your library records or businees statements they did not see the need to suspect you of terrorism. I still do not understand what the problem is here. If you aren't sending cash to the Al Queda network, if you are not buying bomb making equipment, if you are not selling illegal weapons, and you do not have plans to blow up a building, then why are you complaining? You are complaining that the government is going to allegedly look through your personal information and find NOTHING that would lead them to believe you are a terrorist.

Your distrust of the government is equally detrimental.

This is bordering on the absurd.

So nothing done to you is illegal as long as you do not know about it?

ANY civil libery and right can be violated justifiably, because as we all know, it won't matter to law abiding citizens, and only the 'bad' people will be caught?

Do you even hear what you are saying?



It's ok for the government to break any law they want, violate any number of the bill of rights, as long as you do not know about it? And you justify it by saying the bill of rights is apparently only there to protect the bad people, as the good people will have nothing to worry about?

What about if I make a comment saying how I wish somebody would blow up the US president? If someone illegally wiretaps or monitors that, am I then subject to confinment without representation or trial, search and seizure, and other things you say only 'bad' people need to worry about?

You should move to Soviet Russia 40 years ago, its a society you would seem to prefer: there as long as you were a good citizen, did not question or disobey or break ranks, you would probably never even know the KGB existed. Only 'bad' people were picked up by their police powers.

We have already seen proof that the US is using the Patriot act to deal with domestic, non-terrorist related crime, so thats one step of the way.

Oh, and this does not just 'speed up the process' to get wiretaps and subpeonas, those must be justified before a judge before granted, and as often as not they are not granted due to insufficient evidence. This is not 'speeding up the process', it is removing safeguards that are there for a reason, to limit the power of the state and government.


By the way, one of the things I find amusing about this whole thing is that I bet many people for the patriot act would be DEAD set against registration of all firearms in the US.

Nor can you prove how many people are or are not currently in jail for suspected terrorist activity.



Perhaps you should look at the thread:Terrorism Fears, and the skittish law enforcement officer or this website: Humiliated, Angry, Ashamed, Brown.

People are being harrassed for doing ordinary things.

For most individuals, this issue seems to come down to a basic rift over whether the person believes they can trust the Government to use its policing powers to fight terrorists and protect society, or the person believes Government will abuse the power and people will have their civil liberties restricted or abrogated.

Which is correct, or the more reasonable prediction of what will happen? I would submit for consideration that in all likelihood, the answer is "both."

With the best of intentions, Government will use the power to investigate and prosecute terrorists and other criminals, and have successes. And in the classic historical tradition of any Government securing expanded police powers, Goverment will also abuse it and innocent people will pay the price.

Unbelievable!!! Did either of you even read the stories that AuthorMusician posted links to? These are “everyday Americans” being affected by the PA’s Gestapo tactics:

--A scientist with a Stanford University degree, a permanent U.S. resident who had been in America more than 20 years

--Students from SF State, who receive a fax in Arabic, dutifully reported it as our president wants us to, and got investigated THEMSELVES?

--Randy Hamud, a lawyer representing some of the men illegally detained, has his phone tapped during conversations with his CLIENTS

--Barry Reingold, 61, a retired Pacific Bell employee, working out at his San Francisco gym and makes an offhand comment and gets reported

--Kamal Hakim, Yemenite and permanent resident since 1995

--Hasan Hasan, a professor of mathematics – you have to read this story – it’s absolutely unbelievable what they did to this guy.

As for the internment camp comment – wow. You think being thrown out of your job and your home, rounded up like cattle and thrown into detention camps, sometimes separating families didn’t “linger”????? People DIED in these camps! This is one of the most shameful chapters in American history, and for you to dismiss it so cavalierly as having no “effect” is mind-boggling.

For you to think that similar incidents happening as a result of the Patriot Act won’t have a similar lasting effect is delusional. The PA is the most insidious thing our government has done since the HUAC ran rampant.

I'm going to re-iterate that those of you who think that Patriot Act is a good thing should read this article.

This guy basically had his life ruined, clearly had his civil rights violated and for what -- because someone tipped the authorities off he was a terrorist? You know, before the patriot act he would have had the same rights as anyone else detained by the police -- miranda rights, right to council, etc. They might have still brought him in, but he would have been out by dinner time because the police would have had to actually tell him why they were charging him.

If it really is that easy what is to stop someone that is angry with you anonymously reporting you to the authorities? One day you walk into work and the cops are waiting there to arrest you, embarrassing you in front of your co-workers and there is nothing you can do?

I agree completely, AzureCitizen.

In the short term, these practices are needed to fight terrorism. In the long term, they are not, which is why they have sunset clauses.

Most of the articles cited so far (Cyan's, a few of AM's) have not been related to the Patriot Act. Is the government being overzealous about arresting people they think might have terrorist ties? Probably.

Should they be aggressive and err on the side of caution? I guess that is for each person to decide.

Where exactly would you start to look for terrorist suspects in the US? Should we investigate all Muslims? Too large of a group, not to mention the uproar about religious freedoms. Investigate legal aliens from certain countries? There are thousands upon thousands. Only check on tips? Well, someone has already protested about acting on a tip to the FBI. So where do we start if we don't investigate suspicious activity?

I don't want to hear any complaint the next time the FBI and CIA fail to "connect the dots".

You're statement really bites on absurdity. The government should have no right to look at my library records and business statements without a warrant. Just because they don't find or suspet nothing, does not mean it's okay or alright for them to do it. You need to have a reason to do something. Even if you have nothing to hide, they should have no right to take that information without a warrant. Left unchecked, they could keep tabs on everybody jsut because they want to look for a pattern of terrorism. Like I've said earlier, that's unconstitutional. Do you need to read the Bill of Rights again?



What don't you understand? Seriously.

A "quick search without a warrant" is a violation of the Constitution, thus putting it into law is unconstitutional. To determine whether a law is unconstitutional does not require the law to be abused, it is the ability for abuse of that law. And the law has already been abused because regular citizens have been prosecuted. You just came on here and touted the prosecution of people that had their civil liberties violated, that proves that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional because ordinary citizens were prosecuted.

You may say, well, they shouldn't use it against ordinary citizens, but where are the checks and balances? There are none. Our government was built so that you would have checks and balances ensuring that no one is abusing their authority. If you don't have to request a signing of a warrant, then law enforcement can do what they want unchecked. You can't prove they violated your civil liberties especially if you don't know about it. How can you if there are no checks and balances? If they didn't find anything suspicious or illegal, and moved on to something else, it's still a violation of my civil liberties and it violates the Constitution.

I'm sorry to say, but some of you are starting to sound like ideological hacks that support something just because it came from the political party you support.

Amlord your statement says it best:


You believe that it's okay to check someone out because they look suspicious. This borders on racial profiling and racism. Basically, "ordinary Americans" (white people) shouldn't worry about the Patriot Act because they aren't being looked at. But Muslim and Arabs, and just any brown skinned person, should just accept increased scrutiny and the abridging of their freedoms because some terrorists look like them. But these minority groups are protected under the Constitution. The moment you start changing their status and doing searches without warrants, is the moment you are violating the Constitution. It's the moment you truly are doing something un-American.



The moment you start thinking this is the moment you choose to ignore the Constitution. In hindsight, there were indicators and reasons to get warrants to investigate the 9/11 hijackers, it was just poor communication between agencies. They weren't caught because the government had no powers of surveillance, they just messed up. They don't require extra authority that takes away the rights of the citizen.

Amlord, there is a huge difference between being agressive with investigation of potential terrorists and completely throwing people's civil rights out the door because they are terrorist suspects.

Terrorism needs to be investigated within the bounds of our legal system, before the Patriot Act changed things. There are more than enough opportunities to take something that is a suspicion and through legal investigation techniques gain more and more evidence and build a case.

But most importantly any terrorism suspects deserve the full protection of our laws such as a right to hear the charges and evidence against them, miranda rights, right to council. If we allow these rights to be abrogated, then if the government makes a mistake (which these articles clearly prove they do), the life of an innocent American citizen is ruined. Our legal system exists to protect the freedom of everyone, especially the innocent. People would do well not to forget that.

The "connecting the dots" complaint is a flawed argument, the "dots" were there before 9/11 we didn't connect them because there was no inter-agency cooperation and terrorism wasn't a priority for the administration. It had absolutely nothing to do with gathering the information (which is what the Patriot Act is for) and everything to do with analyzing it.

How do you figure, Amlord? Do you think that Purna Raj Bajracharya would have been held in the manner that he was if it wasn't for the patriot act?

In our recent history we have gone in excess in the name of national defense at the expense of what we purported to have been protecting several times--our liberty.

Our cherished freedoms and liberties are most often cited as the reason to fight. They are often conjured up on Memorial day and Veterans day to remind us that many people have sacrificed their lives to protect our freedom. Slogans like freedom isn't free come to mind.

Soldiers in the field have played a vital role on one front of this activity. But this front has it perils of excess that can cause just as much damage to our country as enemies from without or within can.

Along with the soldiers we need to remember the other heroes of our freedoms and liberties who have used pen and persuasion, civil disobedience, and courage in the face of accepted injustices to push for freedom and protect our civil liberties.

The Patriot Act was granted in a moment of fear and threatens our civil liberties. Its necessity needs to be convincingly proven to the American public on a regular basis. If it is a temporary expedient to solving our present dilemma, our most talented people should be busy coming up with a better solution than sacrificing Fourth Amendment rights in what has been described as a contest going on through the foreseeable future. Strengthening the Patriot Act could mean making it protect civil liberties better and better subjecting it to our process of checks and balances.

In our history we have made several periods of mistakes. One was during World war I where we suspended too many civil liberties and prosecuted free speech too vigorously.

In 1798 we started with the Alien and Sedition Acts.
In 1917 and 1918 was passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts and used them to crush the political left in our country in light of the American Sciolist Party's opposition to the war effort.

The law was also used to prosecute other odd cases.



Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer and J. Edgar Hoover launched a campaign against radicals in 1919-1920 that rounded up and deported many people to Russia on the so-called Soviet Ark without using due process rights.

In the early 1950s Joseph McCarthy exploited American fears of communist infiltration for fame and political power.

The worst of these types of episodes in my mind was the internment of Japanese nationals living in the United states (many not citizens because citizenship had been legally denied to them) and Japanese American citizens. This has been referred to in this thread as follows



The effects of all of our liberties exist in this precedent. This should be an event that we look back upon and condemn, not raise up as an example of a successful temporary suppression of civil liberties.

Why did we do this? We did it to act proactively against possible agents by punishing people based on the ethnicity and/or national origin.

When faced with the fact that Japanese Americans on the mainland had not been caught engaging in any criminal activity (in Hawaii, where the Japanese population consisted of 1/3 of the labor force internment was applied on a limited basis and not in a wholesale fashion) the military commander in charge of the western United States at the time, General John L. DeWitt, came up with this classic gem of double speak to justify this injustice:


Executive Order 9066


This internment caused long term damage to the economic stanging of the Japanese in California, who had occupied land that would be of tremendous value today and dominated the fishing industry.






CONFISCATIONS FROM JAPANESE-AMERICANS DURING WORLD WAR II


Terminal Island

As to stopping terrorists before they commit crimes. Well that is a tricky and sticky dilemma. However we should be careful about what rights we grant and what guidelines we give to agents trying to stop terrorist attacks when they are dealing with American citizens and visitors on American soil.

I do not agree that being "Muslim-looking" is a good guideline to use to stop and detain people.
I do not agree that people speaking arabic is a good guideline either.
While I agree that many of the terrorists we are seeking are likely to be able to mingle in arab communities in the United States and appear in mosques here before they make a future attack, this does not make blanket policies acceptable.

Suspicious behavior such as extensively and repeatedly photographing Sears tower is suspicious behavior enough. Islamic religious garb or arab speaking should not be included in the collage of suspicious activity. Trained agents should have some latitude in determining suspicious activity based on intangible gut feelings, but it should be things like nervous behavior and a certain look in someone's eyes, not skin color, religious affiliation, or country of origin.

We also should not justify today's suppression of civil liberties based on yesterday's mistakes.

The successes of the Patriot Act do not appear at this time to be fantastic. Some of the so-called successes seem to be using the law applied on a broader scale than targeting terrorism. It is possible that the Patriot Act is a good law or that its intent is good enough to rework it and fine tune it to continue to protect America from the next attack while lessening the impingement on civil liberties. But this type of law is also a dangerous threat to the American way of life and it needs to receive serious and continual scrutiny by patriotic Americans. This type of law needs active public debate, not a carte blanche or blank check approval.



Good article

Before the FBI can do anything under the Patriot Act provisions, they must appear before a federal court. The situation i brought up about them searching your personal records was THEORETICAL. I was making a point under an INTERPRETATION of the PA by opponents. Thats all. I never said they could go through your personal records unchecked and the PA doesnt say that either. Furthermore, grand juries can subpeona this very same information on request. Obviously you are not fighting against this, i wonder why.



PA Myths







The Federal Court is the first set of checks and balances placed on the PA. There are numerous checks and balances such as Congress. Ashcroft must give a classified report to Congress every 6 months about the use of the PA. The report that started this topic was declassified in order to help Bush's re-election chances and the legislation of PA II.



People are acting that PA proponents love this...we don't. We must be real for a second here. Who is our enemy? Al Queda. What ethnicity is the MAJORITY of this terror network? Islamic men. You may call it racial profiling, but i call it fact. This is not to say that we should single out ONLY muslim people because that is wrong for obvious reasons. But we must recognize the threat and who it is coming from. We do not know who are terrorists and who are ordinary Americans trying just to live their lives. Thats why we have the PA. To try to decipher who are our friends and who are our enemies. If one can think of a better method, by all means...



If memory serves me correctly, the FBI wanted to search the ome computer of one of the hijackers in the months leading up to 9/11 but were unable to due to some jurisidictonal error or something like that (not sure). This is something we cannot have. We live in a new world with an new set of rules. Conventional tactics are useless as these multi-national networks have the resources and means to kill as many Americans as possible (though our efforts are depleting those resources).

Has there been a terrorist attack since 9/11? Who is to say the PA isn't the reason? I understand where all of you are coming from. You believe your rights are being taken away through your or someone else's interpretation of the PA. Some of you see your right to privacy as your most sacred right, i see my right to life as my most sacred right. If terrorists are threating my country, i want to take them down. I want to take them down so they cannot kill my family our your families or anyone's families.

The main difference between me and someone who opposes the PA is that you are afraid of the big bad government suddenly taking away all of your rights, while i am afraid of terrorists who want to take away my rights, and the rights of millions of others by killing us.

I don't agree that they are needed, but what is more important is that the Administration is attempting to get rid of the Sunset Clauses and make the PA permanent. That would be bad.



To what extent? Our justice system is supposed to be designed to protect the innocent at all costs. We would rather set a criminal free than detain an innocent man. That is the way it is supposed to work, and I agree with that.



The hills of Afghanistan?



This is suggesting that the CIA and FBI cannot connect the dots without the Patriot Act. I do not believe that. We won the Cold War without it, and I do not see any reason that these two agencies can be successful at their jobs without the Patriot Act. Suggesting otherwise is a cop out.

In all fairness, the hills of afghanistan will not help us find the terrorist cells already living and waiting in our own country.

And the also there is no comparison between the Cold War and the War on Terror. In the cold war we knew who our enemy was, we could see them. We cannot see our enemies now. They are shadows. We need new methods and new ways to combat this war.

I'll expand on later on...



What have all the people that were said to be related to al Qaeda in America look like?

Caucasian
Hispanic
Biracial (white and black mix)
Arab

What fact is there? That al Qaeda is made up of different races. To focus one group is stupid and that's how Americans will be killed. They'll focus on Arabs, and then miss the white guy that levels the city block. I may seem like I'm nitpicking, but Islamic men aren't just Arab. And most Islamic people are not terrorists, so to racially profile is just plain wrong. I know you think not just focusing on one group is right, but extra scrutiny based on religion or color is just plain wrong, especially since most of the people investigated will turn out to be innocent.

Don't try to flip this around and say come up with a better solution. The simple fact is that the Patriot Act needs to be abolished because the government can abuse its power. I think that Congress shouldn't have the authority of review, that should go to the judicial branch because they understand the law the most and are more likely to rule impartially, then based on political loyalty as in Congress.

You are missing the point. No one claims this information is hidden and cannot ever be viewed. People are stating it is being obtained without following legal procedures.

In order for a grand jury to issue a subpeona evidence must be presented and a jury and/or judge must make a decision.

The Patriot Act skips that step and just grabs the information without running it through the legal system.

The difference here is that the Patriot Act requires absolutely no justification for the request and it is therefore a violation of Constitutional rights. Surely, that must make sense.

Capturing the head of this "Terrorist Entity" would be a great start. This is a problem that needs to be Macro Managed. Attempting to capture every "Foot Soldier" is a never ending, fruitless process. They will simply keep coming and coming.



The most detrimental part of our Cold War enemy, was Russian spies with their feet on US soil. We DIDN'T know who they were. We COULDN'T see them. They WERE in the shadows. How can you NOT compare the two?

So because a group is predominantly, though far from exclusively, of one race, we get to single out people of that race for extra scrutiny and the violation of their civil liberties? That is heinous logic, and it serves to do little but alienate a significant proportion of the US population while essentially giving a first-round bye to all those terrorists who do not happen to 'look suspicious'.


Worse still, has anyone noticed how this 'racial profiling' thing bears the caviat of the Bush administration: "To be used only when politically expedient"?

Example:

Q: "The september 11th hijackers were all Arabs."
A: "Well then, that justifies racial profiling, pulling arabs off aircraft for more extensive security screening, violation of rights and liberties of arabs, il