Has the Patriot Act worked to convict anyone of terrorist acts?
436119
How the heck would we know?  Does this government freely share information?
887966
Well, if you search for "Bill of Rights", and read through them all, that may give you some ideas. The Founding Fathers not only wanted to eliminate the abuses of King George (housing soldiers without permission of the owners; search and seizure without due process etc), but also, in their wisdom, wanted to protect our rights in the future.\n\nThe Patriot Act, was, of course enacted after the events of 9-11. There are still many unanswered questions about the events of that day; it was an act of terror, that not even Russia could have pulled off -- who then "threw the switch"; who brought down America's security screen? and, for what purpose? Didn't the Nazis do something similar, in the events around the "Reichstag Fire"? Didn't they suspend the German Constitution, in the name of "Protection"? Wasn't it the case, that then elections were suspended, for about 12 years?? Shouldn't we as citizens, be asking some tough questions, about this administration, and the President's "signing statements"? Why didn't the President, follow legal procedure, when ordering wiretaps of American citizens?\n\nIf we accept a suspension of our rights, what then can we expect? Does the Patriot Act, really provide any more protection, than we had before? Is there, perhaps, an "enemy within"??\n\nA few years ago, there was a case of a sniper, in Maryland and in Virginia, who murdered a number of people. One man was quoted on the news, "If we have to have a police state, so that I can mow my lawn in peace, then let's bring on the police state".\n\nIs that any way to live?? If we could put a man on the Moon, don't you think we (and other nations working with us) could root out the source of terrorism, if someone really wanted it to be stopped??\n\nHope that helps, to give you some ideas.
421564
No, the Department of Homeland Security was formed by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which is seperate from the Patriot Act.
171082
In a way, yes. The NSA offers internships to high school students, so, in a way, they do help fight crime.
493760
Well, let's see, yes, yes, yes, and yes.\n\nThe whole point of going to Iraq was to look for "Weapons of Mass Destruction", which they still have not found and never will because they don't exist.\nLook at Abu Ghraib, they're obviously setting up more torture prisons like that just to make it seem as if the war is actually hunting down potential terrorists.\nThe Patriot Act is just plain stupid, like McCarthyism, it will never actually root out any real terrorists because they're too smart to be caught like that.
293070
Yes, according to Republic Broadcasting Network (radio) at www.rbnlive.com  and  www.reopen911.com.  They say Bush was aware of the plan and used it as an excuse for his war on terrorism including the Patriot Act to take away more of our freedom....and take one more step towards a one world government...
901523
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001' (Public Law 107-56), known as USA PATRIOT Act or simply the 'Patriot Act', is an American act which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The Act passed in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1, and in the House by a vote of 357 to 66. Although the bill enjoyed widespread Congressional and Presidential support it is a very controversial federal legislation.\n\nOriginally passed after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Act (full text) was formed in response to the terrorist attacks against the United States, and dramatically expanded the authority of American law enforcement for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. It has also been used to detect and prosecute other alleged potential crimes, such as providing false information on terrorism. Federal courts declared some sections unconstitutional because they interfere with civil liberties. It was renewed on March 2, 2006 with a vote of 89 to 11 in the Senate and on March 7 280 to 138 in the House. The renewal was signed into law by President Bush on March 9, 2006.\nSome of the more controversial provisions of USA PATRIOT act were largely inspired by the RICO act, which restricted due process for individuals involved in organized crime, racketeering, and drug trafficking. The USA PATRIOT act essentially extended the qualifications to those involved in terrorism.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Patriot_Act
168410
Yes.  Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person officially charged for crimes relating to 9/11, pleaded guilty after months of maintaining his innocence.\n\nHe has not been sentenced yet, but he faces the Death Penalty.  He maintains he didn't know they were going to use the planes to crash into buildings and thought they were going to hijack them and use the hostages to exchange for political prisoners.
371487
Since I started avoiding terroristic activities the Patriot Act has not effected my life at all.
112745
It is a law that allows the Feds to spy on Americans without a reason. They say it is to fight terrorism...but who believes that without any proof. Check this out...
873683
I don't think a defense against terrorists, that is based on protection alone, would work, and the other option, that of only attacking the terrorists overseas, is not very effective either. a mixture of aggressive and protective measures is the optimal approach.
872660
The Patriot Act itself only intrudes on some areas of privacy. That's bad enough, but it doesn't, in and of itself, take away any constitutional rights.\n\nThe problem is that many in power (at least, as of Monday) felt that constitutional protections can and should be ignored, if they might possibly result in people being safer. However, that's unconstitutional, by definition. \n\nWe only have those rights we can defend. And only those freedoms we choose to defend. Once we have abandonded those rights and those freedoms, they are lost. Once, and for all of us.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nIn honor of Pastor Martin Niemöller:\n\nFirst they came for the 6th Amendment, but I hadn't been accused of a crime, so I didn't object to denial of counsel.\n\nThen they came for the 4th Amendment, but I wasn't talking to anyone overseas, so they wouldn't be monitoring me.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 4th Amendment, but I only called my mother, so there was nothing suspicious in my phone records.\n\nThen they came for the 1st Amendment, but I never associated with criminals, so I didn't worry about being convicted purely based on what other people might do.\n\nThen they came for the 14th Amendment, but I never really understood the rules for Due Process (and wasn't allowed an attorney), so I didn't object.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 1st Amendment, but I never told anyone about what the government was doing, so again I remained silent.\n\nThen they came for the 5th Amendment,  ......  and I no longer had the right to remain silent.
258851
No, the only thing we can do is deter terrorism.  We do this by being a "hard target"... which means making it difficult for terrorists to attack. Being a hard target entails passive and active measures... elevating our defensive posture (extra security at airports, etc) and implementing stringent criteria for foreign visitors/students coming into the US and better coordination between local, state, federal and international intelligence agencies. Perhaps this coordination between agencies is most crucial to successfully deterring terrorism. But, I doubt they will ever all be able to be on "the same sheet of music." As well, we need to maintain an open and active dialog with all nations... we need to better understand them and seek their cooperation in deterring terrorism.\n\nKeep in mind:\n\n- The US has its own "terrorists" organizations which wish to overthrow the government (Anarchists, some militias, etc)... just because someone is foreign does not automatically equate them to being a terrorist.\n\n- During the Revolutionary War...England labeled our soldiers as "terrorists" as well. "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."\n\n- Terrorism comes in many forms (religious, political, social, economic, military, some animal rights and environmental groups).\n\n- Terrorism has been around since the dawn of man. \n\nThe bottom line is we can’t be everywhere...but can make it difficult for a terrorist to attack...by being a "hard target."
425277
No. It has to wait until somebody with standing sues. Or until a case comes up that features prosecution by use of the spying acts. In which case, the defense would have to argue that the act under which defendant is prosecuted is unconstitutional.
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.
3176
I am not a Republican, but I play one on TV...:-) Seriously, I believe that they feel trading some freedom for more security is a wise policy.  I understand the need to feel safe, and I am generally in favor of measures that increase our security.  However, that does not extend to the Patriot Act, which I see as a slippery slope away from what America is supposed to be.
170557
The Patriot Act helps law enforcement officers find and arrest terrorists more easily. It also helps in more common crimes too.\n\nUnfortunately, its liberal use of bugging is considered a violation of privacy, since it makes bugging people easy for law enforcement. On the other hand, though, the government should have no need to bug you unless you need bugging. And besides, they don't have the manpower to bug everyone.\n\nThe government can spy on people anyway, or bug them, so it makes little difference. Now it's just easier, faster, and safer for cops. Privacy is nice, but I prefer to be alive and have a tiny bit less privacy.\n\nTo the person below me: it is not at all a false sense of security, because the Patriot Act's greatest impact is on law enforcement, not crime prevention. Putting NYPD officer at every large building and subway station is false security. But making it easier for FBI agents to collect evidence to convict criminals is not false at all.