Does weakening the Constitution really protect us from terrorism? Do we not have a right to some semblance of privacy in our lives?

I think it is all well and good that the Bush administration says it won't overuse the authority, but in reality, what politician has ever opted not to use his power for his own personal gain? I think it terribly frightening that anyone could just randomly be picked by "Big Brother" to be victimized by a "terror probe". No probable cause necessary, just the word of a government agent or official, with no accountability to anyone. I can understand heightened security in this time of war, but I think the powers granted by the Patriot Act are too far-reaching, and entirely too invasive. It VERY CLEARLY violates our constitutional rights protecting us from search without probable cause, and should be immediately struck down.

I found this report written by my friends at the ACLU. Yes, I'm aware that many people are not fond of the ACLU, but who else is there to protect our rights? If you can research and find dissenting opinion, it is more than welcome in this thread, of course. I'm interested in hearing any thoughts or opinions on this.

I t hink that the true test of the Patriot Act will happen if and when it is contested in court. That is where law is tested against the Constitution. There are over 200 years of precedent of such contests. So, far (but perhaps it is too early) I can't think of any news reports in which the Patriot Act being taken to court. And if such a suit has been filed, it is too early yet for decision.

As for the search and seizure issue - I do believe that there is still a requirement that there be a judge involved in granting such a search. Am I wrong?

There are many instances in the past where during a time of war (such as the suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War - as I recall dimly - history class was a long time ago) and the country survived. The balance was restored after the emergency was over. The Constitution is not a death pact - it is not only a means for people to live/interact and govern together, but also a means of preservation of the safety of the people. That is always a balancing act. A balancing act that you are free to take to court - and then appeal if you are not satisfied with the result.

As for the ACLU being my friend and protecting me - no thanks. I claim the right to be able to protect myself. I don't need the ACLU to decide if I need protection, how to protect me and when to do it. I see the ACLU as the flipside to Big Brother.

Er, guys, this is not "a time of war". This is a time of a few acts of terror - those commited by persons unknown against the US and those committed by the US against Afghanistan. The rest is hysterical rhetoric attempting to cause war. There is no justification whatsoever for the USA-PATRIOT Act. None.

The fact that Lincoln acted illegally and established an autocracy bordering on dictatorship in no way gives Dubya - or anyone else - license to do the same. "Gee - for one morning we experienced what most of the rest of the world goes through on a daily basis, so let's establish a fascist state for the next decade" is not an argument I find very convincing - and I'm hoping that most Americans will eventually reject it - if they still have the power to do so. There will be no "restoration of balance" after this "emergency" is over because this "emergency" is never meant to end. The Bush junta has already made it clear that this is to be a perpetual war; the intent is to establish a permanent autocracy in this country. Of course these people will "overuse their authority" - that's why they sought such authority.

As for "the Constitution is not a death pact": remind me to add that to the thread on Buzz Words and Hackneyed Received Opinions Which Are Virtually Meaningless and Have a Currency Which Passeth All Understanding or whatever it's called.

It's a fair point, though: the Constitution isn't a death pact; the current administration's attempts to destroy it is.

While it is my belief that the Patriot Act is being promoted by those with good intentions, that does not change the fact it is unconstitutional. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.I do not understand those on the left and the right who do not mind the Constitution being "interpreted" as long as it suits their goals. The left has undermined the Constitution for near 70 years, now it is the right's turn. The Constitution is what insures our freedom. Countries ruled by tyrants have similar constitutions, it is all in the "interpretations" if individual freedom actually exists.

The Patriot Act is no threat to anyone's freedoms. So the FBI gets to look at my e-mail...BIG DEAL...except for the Bikini babe of the day i get in my e-mail , there is nothing wrong that i get in my email

Goamerica.......

You definetly need to amend that to 'not a threat to YOUR freedoms'.
Just remember, YOU are not going to be the one who will decide what is wrong in your email!

Gee, I can't seem to find an article in today's headlines, where 3000 people all died in the same place, within a few hours..... Could you post one please? oh, and I'll need yesterdays and all last week's too...thanks

Most of your arugument is as rethorical as "they attacked us cause their jealous of us"

I see no autocracy here. No dictatorship.

Yes it's true the Patriot act gives the gov't more power to do things, but so what? It's about time that law enforcement got the upper hand, instead of the criminals.

Take email for instance. Email is widely known as the most popular Internet service. Do you have any clue how many Terabytes or Exabytes of email is sent every day? Almost everybody has email these days. Heck, even my 80 yr old grandmother does!!

Do you really think the gov't has the time or resources to scour the entire Internet, everyones email, and look for terrorist activity? No.

They will use that power AFTER they believe someone has dealings in terrorism, to invade THEIR privacy for the sake of national sercurity, and the safety of law abiding Americans, whose only crime is going to work and feeding their family. Small price to pay for peace of mind. I love the constitution. But if your here illegally with intentions to harm us, it shouldn't apply to you.

This law will be abolished, or rewrote, the first time someone uses it to file a lawsuit for civil rights violations.

Did anyone notice how, in the DoHS act, it created a secretary for the protection of civil rights? Can't remember the exact title, but that is what the job entails. Making sure these new laws don't invade civil rights.

As for the ACLU? I'm with Basheva, I'll protect myself thank you very much.

--cheers

The difference between what you're saying here and reality is... In reality, you don't have to be a terrorist to have this spying occur. All an agent or official must do is say that monitoring you may assist in capturing terrorists, and your privacy is gone. Under the Patriot Act, with absolutely no proof or just cause, the government is able to invade anyone's privacy they wish. Monitor your internet, tap your phone, spy through your windows, even ask your local library for a list of the sorts of books you read. All of this to check for "subversive" behavior. I've always considered the term 'subversive behavior' to be quite subjective, the definition changing constantly dependant on whom you ask. Has it occurred to anyone here that this could easily turn into another "witch hunt"? With the far reaching powers granted in the act, isn't it possible the government will overstep that for which it was intended? I don't trust anyone to have that kind of autonomous control, do you?

I don't suggest that a law giving enforcement officials more power to do their jobs is unnecessary. What I'm suggesting is that the Patriot Act completely opposes the 4th amendment to the constitution, is illegal, and should be struck down immediately. There is no no law or justification that suggests even in time of war or public danger, there is cause to suspend a person's constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure.

As far as the comments about the ACLU, does any individual on this board have the millions of dollars that it costs to fight against unconstitutional laws, and mistreatment of citizens? Somehow, for most of the people here, I'm doubting it. I don't always like who they defend, either, but I still appreciate the fact that they keep the government from overstepping their authority in a large number of cases. Bear in mind that what you know about the ACLU is probably only derived from what you've seen in the media. There's much more that they've done than the sensational cases covered on the news.

You may be right - and if so someone will surely (if they haven't already) filed suit to test it in court. And then we shall all see what happens.

As for the ACLU - that would make an interesting discussion. Why don't you start a thread on it?

......................

As for the library issue, I can speak a little more directly to that. I volunteer in my neighborhood library. Two of the Pentagon hijackers lived two blocks from my house. (Yes, really.) It occurred to us that they might very well have used our library for e-mails, etc. We don't know - but it is possible.

The librarian told us that if an employee of the library had certain knowledge that someone was using a library computer for nefarious purposes she was prohibited by library policy from contacting authorities. If authorities found out by some other means and came in to question her, she was still prohibited from giving information to the authorities regarding the nefarious activities of library patrons. Even if her knowledge was certain.

That's crazy.

I would love to see this librarian's rules on this.

All I can say is that I think twice about appearing suspicious to authorities.

That, my friends, is loss of freedom. Imagine how much more this loss is for those of ME ancestry and who happen to be bona fide US citizens.

I bought a Koran online in 2001. Maybe I'm in the Big Bro database already.

In 2002 I attended a controversial speech given by a Palestinian scholar at a local liberal arts college. Jewish folk showed up to protest. I was taking lots of pictures; others were taking lots of pictures; A-10 tank killers flew overhead. It was surreal in a way, un-American, those A-10s circling overhead, paranoia in the air . . . worse than the Vietnam era on US campuses with the National Guard watching, waiting--and firing. These guns were a whole lot BIGGER

I just got off the phone with the director of the entire city library system - she answers her own phone (surprise, surprise).

Here is the policy at present (post Patriot Act):

If the authorities come into the library asking to see any kind of records regarding book and/or computer usage by a patron the authorities would need a subpoena executed by a judge. The subpoena would be submitted to the city attorney and would or would not be acted upon (depending on the substantiation of the subpoena). In other words, a government agent just can't walk in and ask for information regarding a patron.

If a library employee by some means learns that the library computer (or book collection) is being used for nefarious purposes the employee can report this to his/her superior who would then bump it up the chain of command, eventually to the city attorney. At that point a determination would be made as to the validity of the information and the next action to be taken.

As to storage of what information or systems the patron has used at the library: as soon as a computer connection is broken (the patron logs out) or a borrowed book is routed in, all previous information about what materials the patron used or how the materials were used (in the case of a computer) is lost. It is possible that the information could be retrieved but it would take a computer specialist (presumeably supplied by law inforcement) as well as a subpoena - going up the entire chain of command - to do that.

This has not as yet been tested, at least in this library system.

The information I gave above in a previous post, was given to me by a branch librarian, and appears to either have been amended or was not entirely correct, or I misunderstood it.

Great idea! The ACLU and You, Friend or Foe?

That is absolutely true, but under the provisions of the Patriot Act, any judge is now obliged to issue that subpoena, based solely upon a simple accusation, with no probable cause as outlined in the 4th amendment. That is the problem. It expands the powers of search and seizure virtually without limit, requiring only the word of one person, (perhaps one that doesn't like you very much for some reason), to get the warrant needed to spy on you.

One more thung I'd like to add... Just because your rights MIGHT or even PROBABLY won't be trampled upon by this act, doesn't mean you should be any less outraged, because they COULD be trampled upon by it at any time for any reason someone sees fit.

Thank you Basheva. We need more people to do their homework like that

Perhaps all this paranoia about the patriot act is far fetched. Perhaps not. How about a wait and see approach?


Stefan Fargus:
The gov't won't waste their time investigating someone who they DON'T think deserves it. They woudln't investigate you or me on 9-10-2001 if they didn't want to, and they won't on 01-17-2003 if they don't want to either.

If they wanted to investigate you or me on 9-10-2001 they certainly could. AND they could investigate us today if they wanted to as well.

Little has changed. Only the speed and ease of which they can, has.

Oh yeah, and a judge won't issue a warrent without probably cause. So please post a link (and line number if the page is real long) where the patriot act says that probable cause is not needed for seach/seizure, and a place where it says all this can happen by the word of only one man.

--cheers

History has already shown us how the power will be and can be abused. Sitting back and waiting for it to happen is stupid.

I'm just thinking about the war on drugs and all the people who have been violated or killed due to raids on the wrong house/apartment. That's probably our greatest risk. However, it is a fact that the police have been watching politically active, and some not so active, people around here. The files have recently been opened. They were secret for a long time, long before 9/11.

It's not paranoia if they really are out to getcha.

Now let me ask this: What is more risky to our freedoms: registered guns or secret databases on politically active (and not so active) citizens?

Remember that we are stuck with the Patriot Act for another four years. A lot can happen in four years.

Well, I have to disagree - the Patriot Act could be overturned in court at any time. Just bring suit and test it.

So far Cities are taking it upon themselves to fight it.


CNN

You seem to have an unrealistic impression of our court system - were you out of the country during the 2000 election?

Not only that but why should we have to? The President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution when he is sworn in. He doesn't take an oath to single handedly protect us from evil-do'ers. That is not his job. Keeping us safe from terrorists is all well and good but not when it's at the expense of our liberties.

What good is fighting the enemy only to become just like them? For instance, taking after Iraq by policing our citizens and creating fear of reprisals for excercising our constitutional rights.

If I want to learn about the dangers of terrorism or what they are fighting about I could search the internet and maybe some sites that contain their rhetoric. Should I have to worry about the government getting the wrong idea?

What if I want to check out a book on Communism or Socialism or any other ism. Should that be part of my file and something the government can possibly hold against me if they ever felt like it? Why do they need to know what magazines I subscribe to or the medications I'm taking? This is the kind of stuff that will be routinely gathered on all of us under the Total Information Awareness Act. The chances of needing protection from your own government will be higher than your chances of dying in a terrorist attack.

Actually I was in the country during the last presidential election and enjoyed every minute of it

Yes, I have faith in the courts, maybe not every time, but over time.

There are, of course, many court decisions with which I do not agree, but on the whole over time it balances out. The president hasn't singlehandedly done anything - he can propose - but he can't dispose. He needs congress (both houses and at the time the Patriot Act passed I believe Congress was split between the parties) as well as the courts to uphold whatever he proposes.

The Alien and Sedition acts of 1798 were considered to be necessary at the time of passage, but not very long afterward were rescinded and/or allowed to expire. They were probably the first test of this sort of legislation - and we passed the test.

Alien and Sedition Acts

You have the Freedom of Information Act to request/demand to see what information the government has collected on you. It's quite easy (so I am told) to gain access to this information, you just need to file the request. Call your representative for more information.

Actually, the primary role of government is to protect it's citizens from evildoers. The president as commander-in-chief is responsible for acts of external aggression.

Full article here

Another interesting article describing why the Patriot Act is simply too far-reaching, here, at Alternet.org.



Apparantly you haven't heard... The Patriot Act repealed most of the FIA, and you'll no longer have access to most, if not all of the information you request. That's another major problem many people have with the Act is that it virtually eliminates citizens' ability to oversee the government. At the same time, everything you do, read, or participate in is subject to their scrutiny. "All men are created equal, but some more equal than others." Frightening, isn't it?

Interesting information.....it will be even more interesting to see if anyone contests this in court.

..................................



(I'll let you know once women are truly treated equally - but that's grist for another mill. LOL)

One of the problems is that the Act contains so many provisions, and is in fact so huge and far-reaching, that it could literally take 100 years to contest it all in the courts.

The last time I read the Constitution (or Article I, Section 8, Clause11, at least), the Congress was responsible for acts of external aggression. The president only acts as commander-in-chief once Congress has declared war. Or did the USA Patriot Act override this part of the Constitution as well??

And, uh, isn't it kinda difficult to test legislation in the courts if that legislation suspends due process in the first place? Or to contest one's illegal detention by the US government without access to legal counsel?

The law (as I recall) can be tested before an actual case is brought. Senator Mitch McConnel, I believe, is doing this with the newly passed Campaign Finance Law as plaintiff - not a defendant.

This can be done without an actual defendant. Therefore, a defendant not having an attorney is moot. Law can be tested before there is a prisoner sitting in a jail.

This is interesting and an example of what I mean a law can be tested:

Campaign Finance Law Hits First Legal Test




MORE...

The simple fact of the matter is that Congress rolled over like a puppy dog for the Executive after 9/11. We were all doing that--waving flags like the dickens to ward off the evil doers. Fear is the enemy of freedom.

The "war" with Iraq has already been authorized by Congress. While you are correct that the power to declare war is properly in Congress's jurisdiction the Vietnam Wa....er, Conflict shows that the executive branch improperly engaging in war precedes the Patriot Act.

When the next major terrorist success on US soil occurs I am betting the executive branch gets most of the blame.

If and when another major terrorist attack occurs on US soil, it will serve to prove the uselessness of the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the Total Information Awareness Act, to protect us. There's no such thing as being kept completely safe from terrorism, no matter how much you spend, or how many freedoms you sacrifice. I'm not saying we should stand by and do nothing about any of it, but I think that this fear-driven hysteria needs to stop before we find ourselves living within something akin to the former USSR, or any given Communist country you'd like to use as an example.

I just finished reading 1984 for the first time last night.
It sounds like the Bush Doctrine. There were so many times I wanted to highlight the pages that sound just like the U.S. mentality and the current policies. People are so easy to lead if you give them something to fear.


War is Peace - George Orwell
Knowlege is Power - John Poindexter

I think we are reaping what we have sowed over multiple administrations.

I am listening to the news reports about Fort Carson mobilizations.

War is Peace.

We must destroy this village to save it.

Axis of evil.

Nightmares tonight.

But then, of course, there was this::

Peace in our Time





MORE...


and another view:

Peace For Our Time




MORE...


speaking of nightmares......

Yep. Nothing else to say.

Split into new topic:

The Patriot Act vs. America's Debate

Mike

Here's the difference I see: This is a public forum. I post nothing here that I would not want the government to see. I assume government agents and other political researchers regularly check popular political boards, logging in as regular members.

Everyone should keep this possibility in mind

Actually, I want government agents and political analysts to read my stuff, and everyone else's for that matter. Freedom of speech doesn't mean much if it doesn't reach the eyes and ears of politicians, judges, and other policy makers. What we have here is a polite form of the old-time soap box at the town square.

Now if I am writing to a friend, relative, or business associate by email, that is a different situation. My intent is for the email to be read by only the person I am writing to. I know for a fact that, if you don't have encription/decription set up, your emails are fairly easy to intercept and be read by anyone with the inclination to do so. I also know that the emails can be doctored so that your original intent is gone. A different intent can be inserted. You can be easily framed.

The danger in this is enormous. As far as Mike and Jaime go--what, you didn't know they were with the FBI? JUST KIDDING OF COURSE