Arguments against the patriot act?
93003
Richard H - I hate to tell you this, but Americans do not have a "right to privacy". We certainly have an EXPECTATION of privacy, and hundreds of years of legal standards have reinforced that expectation, but no right to it. If you can find the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, I sure would love to know where.\n\nIt most definitely DOES NOT violate the First Amendment. If it did, there are hundreds of liberal courts in this nation that would have struck it down long ago. Americans are still free to say what they want - even if it is against the government. Look at Al Gore recently when he said ON SAUDI ARABIAN SOIL in a speech sponsored by the BIN LADEN FAMILY that the US committed "terrible abuses against Muslims" after 9/11. Americans can SAY whatever they want - most Americans tend to forget that there are consequences to false or harmful statements. Remember shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater??\n\nThe Patriot Act merely lets intelligence agencies share intelligence to try to put two and two together - which was one of the biggest recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I would love for you to point out documented cases of abuse due to the Patriot Act. You won't find any. The ACLU didn't find any, and if they can't with their resources, I doubt you will, either.\n\nplanksheer - It is NOT open season of First Amendment rights (see above reply to Richard H's uninformed post). The only people who have been denied those rights are detainees classified as terrorists and foreign combatants against the US military. They are not prisoners of war, and they have no rights under the Geneva Convention. Geneva Convention right are only conferred upon uniformed soldiers of an organized Army. The President has the legal right to hold them.\n\nGranted, courts have already ruled that the government must begin looking at their cases to hold them further, and the President is complying with that. If he had such disregard for the law and Constitution, President Bush would have waved the big middle finger when ordered to begin reviewing cases.\n\nAnd then we have Jose Padilla. An American who was going to explode a dirty bomb on American soil. He should NEVER see the light of day again. He is a traitor and should be treated as such. He deserves whatever he gets.\n\nPeople should do a little research before they are so quick to condemn something. Especially when their arguments are based in inaccuracies and misinformation. Think for yourselves, people. Don't just regurgitate crap that Michael Moore and his ilk put out.
949
Many aspects of the Patriot Act are uncontested; in fact, Nadine Strossen of the ACLU has stated that she agrees with over 90% of the provisions of the Patriot Act.  It's only a few provisions that are hotly contested\n\nIt largely tries to unify communication among several departments and provide easier access for law enforcement officers.  Online information was difficult to obtain before 9/11; access to judges was slower and required more paperwork; and more hoops were required before action could be taken.\n\nThe Patriot Act doesn't remove the safeguards, but streamlines and simplifies them.  For the most part, the same sorts of safeguards are in place, just with different requirements that are less burdensome on government.\n\nMany provisions are loudly decried in public, but few people ever discuss specific provisions of the Patriot Act they disapprove of.  Most of it seems to be mass hysteria without any specific citation of violations.  When the biggest complaint is that someone may look at your library record, it doesn't seem to be THAT violative of privacy.\n\nI've included links to the Department of Justice's defense of the Act, as well as the ACLU's criticism.  I hope that balances the views.
238349
Ordinary, law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about with the Patriot Act... for example, if you don't make phone calls to Afghanistan to discuss ways to kill Americans from a US phone, you have nothing to worry about!  Who are the people complaining about this... are they criminals?  I don't understand the fear of those who say this is an attack on civil liberties... the opposite is true.  The ACLU defends terrorists in Guantanamo in the interest of civil liberties... so they can attack us again -and if they get their way, maybe we will all live under Sharia law in the US... with no civil liberties... don't people get it?  Freedom isn't free... it has to be guarded.  The Patriot Act GUARDS the freedom of regular, law-abiding citizens... if that scares some, I question what they are doing that they would worry that the government would actually stumble upon something dealing with them while tracking terrorist movements and conversations!!!!  I for one am not concerned as I am more interested in my children's future than that of the terrorists or criminals.\n\nLet me just ask one question of those who hate the Act... Have you in the last five years since it was passed, had your personal liberties directly threatened or negated by this Act?  Or is it just a fad to disagree?
791324
It ought to be, abolishing the patriot act is a priority which is why Bush is pressing the outgoing congress to pass a tougher wire tap version now!\n\nBen Franklin said if one is willing to sacrifice someliberties for security soon you will have neither
861938
One man's fight for his/her rights is terrorism for another. That does not justify attacks like 9/11 but if you pick up any history book, the majority of wars of independence have been won by retaliating against prevailing, strong authorities by covert tactics, at least initially. This includes American independence as well. If you were to consider the British view point at that time, the founding fathers could not have been considered very favorably! Unfortunately, modern day armaments are so destructive that the innocent always suffer, more than at any time in the history of man. While this makes their actions criminal, it does not remove the validity of their demands.
154150
Absolutely. The USA PATRIOT Act violated the amendment. As did Bush's wiretapping.
272888
Our constitutional right to privacy was definitely negated in this situation. If the government suspects someone of having terroristic capabilities, I do not think it would be too hard for them to get a warrant to eavesdrop the legal way. Bush is just trying cover his butts, as well as other members of our government are doing likewise. There are many conspiracy theories floating around concerning Bush and a few other members of our government, I think it is time the people of this nation take our government back, too many "actors" in power with selfish intentions!
154424
I think there is a balance but Bush has overstepped that in favior of taking away our right to privacy in the name of the war on terror. Terrorism does exist however I think that if we give up rights then the terroist have won. We need to stick to the things in our constitution that made our country free and great.
1156421
Full quote:\n\n"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."\n\nFear is a very powerful weapon.  When the people of a community or nation are fearful of an outside force threatening their lives they will give up freedoms for the assurance of safety.  It's always easier to incite fear when the enemy is "not one of us."\n\nAs an example....\n\nSome say this is what George W. Bush did over four years ago after September 11, 2001.  The United States was in shock.  An enemy had entered our country, done great damage to property and killed thousands of people.  Nothing of this magnitude had happened like this since Pearl Harbor.\n\nIn an attempt to cut off any future terrorist attacks the President proposed and Congress passed new laws that made sweeping changes in privacy laws allowing oversight and intrusion hitherto not seen before in the U.S.\n\nGenerally a majority of the American public has supported these limitations.  The danger lies, as Madison pointed out, in making sure that these changes are kept in check.
1091870
Of course it’s a matter of opinion.  Just this week a law was passed, by the Supreme Court of the U.S.A., that search and enter, bust your door down anytime for any or no reason, without warrant is not only okay (always was). Although now any evidence found, in this what I will call illegal action, is admissible in a court of law. That’s just one example. \nI like the Patriot Act 2 answer- I too hope all know and read the PNAC (project for a new Amerikan century) I couldn't resist the "K".\n\nMy Answer is the Supreme Court of the U.S.A.\n(today)
797017
yes. all elected officials have a duty to uphold the constitution over anti-democratic laws. the Patriot Acts are profoundly un-American in part. Hopefully, the manipulation of fear to pass such crude restricitions passed with the election.
1024685
yes! yes! oh thank god someone out here has a brain! not only the patriot act though, adding an amendment is another problem, he's changing the constitution, the very thing this country was based on because he is a homophobe! freedom is being taken away from americans and i can't take it any longer! down with bush, up with freedom!
924630
You don't have the legal right to take the law into your own hands. That would itself be a crime! We have a Patriot Act in this country among other provisions for dealing with terrorism at the state and federal level. Just because the police don't "appear" to be acting, doesn't mean that they are not investigating the matter. Leave police work to the professionals and don't try to be a vigilante. It will only backfire and land you in jail.
890980
I'll use the wisdom of the founding fathers on this one\nBenjamin Franklin: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both\n\nhow amazing two thumbs down for a direct quote from Ben Franklin, I guess the people that gave those are part of the Hate America Crowd,amazing\n\nThe problem from things  Warrentless Wiretapping programs are that they are without scrutiny, all we need to is look back at history and remember how Nixon abused the power and privialge of office to understand these mechanisms cannot be fully trusted without judiciary and/or congressional oversight, who decides what an enemy combatant is, and where is the line going to be drawn, can I be declared an enemy combatant simply for excersing my free speech rights? Who determines this one man or many? ABUSE of power is the central concern of those opposed to these programs and there are consitutional remedies to make them more transaparent WITHOUT destroying there ability to function Raw power without oversight is always ripe for abuse and this is has a great deal of precedent, it was abuses of power afterall that lead to the birth of this nation and the concept of Democracy as we know it today
263699
Its hard to say because any leads would be highly classified by the government. Stopping a terrorist would be a great boost in support for the Bush administration, however releasing such information could pose a threat to national security. Although they did release info on the terrorist who was planning to attack LA, who was stopped by a Canadian border official. That didn't have anything to do with the Patriot act though, as the offical stopped the man on a hunch.
386923
The first amendment says freedom of speech.\nThe Patriot Act allows the government to spy on you and arrest you if you "say" you're planning terrorism.\n\nThat's one link.
456803
WHOEVER SAID IT, SURE WASN'T A REPUBLICAN!! THAT'S FOR SURE.  \n\nWHOEVER SAID IT WOULD ROLL OVER IN THEIR GRAVE IF HE KNEW WE HAD THE PATRIOT ACT NOW.