another patriot act renewal thread

[taliv]

For those of us who think of the Patriot Act as actual legislation rather than a symbol of the Bush Administration, this is rather puzzling stuff. The dirty little secret about the Patriot Act is that only about 3% of the Act is controversial, and only about a third of that 3% is going to expire on December 31st. Further, much of the reauthorization actually puts new limits on a number of the controversial non-sunsetting provisions, and some of the sunsetting provisions increased privacy protections. As a result, it's not immediately obvious to me whether we'll have greater civil liberties on January 1, 2006 if the Patriot Act is reauthorized or if it is allowed to expire. (To be fair, though, I'd have to run through the effect of every expiring section and all of the reauthorization language to check this - maybe I would feel differently if I did.)

Of course, four years after the Patriot Act was passed, a meeting of everyone who thinks of the Patriot Act as actual legislation could be held in my kitchen. For most people, the Patriot Act is a symbol of the Bush Administration and the War on Terror. From that perspective, the current debate makes a lot of sense: for opponents, fighting the Patriot Act reauthorization continues the valiant struggle against the evil forces of Big Brother and the out-of-control Bush Administration; for supporters, supporting the Act helps beat Al Qaeda, makes the homeland safe from attack, and helps win the global struggle against terrorism. If neither of these visions bears a particular resemblance to reality, well, hey, no one ever said democracy was perfect. As Boon famously advised Otter, "Forget it, he's rolling."

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_12_11-2005_12_17.shtml#1134753995


in my opinion, the simple fact that I can't tell you what's in the patriot act underscores his point.

face it. the evil media set us up the bomb. all our base are belong to them. nobody really has any idea what the patriot act does or doesn't do, or what the renewal does or doesn't do. it's too many pages for an average citizen to read. nobody is voting from an informed opinion. everyone just assumes.

 

[Can'thavenuthingood]

The Fourth Amendment and surveilance law will always be a difficult dance. It seemed to me the USA PATRIOT Act was not properly presented to the citizenry, always clouded or veiled in a trust me/us attitude. Nothing was ever addressed in laymans terms for us not in the business of governing to understand. Except for a hint of the old "the commies are coming" excitement, there was not much for defining the actions to be taken for prevention.

Since it's inception I have attempted to understand this legislation, having many classroom discussions. It became readily apparent that no one knew what the attempts at disscussion were about. Only generalities as there was nothing published at the time. Also the new Department of Homeland Security legislation was taking shape and further clouding the picture. I could not get my head wrapped around what was actually taking place up there in the ivory towers. Neither could my classmates as well as the Law professor.

I found a few sites http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=715221#PaperDownload recently that go into some backround with electronic surveilance and have a vague understanding of what they want to do and that is where it gets a bit spooky.

PATRIOT ties together a number of past surveilance legislative acts, PEN, FISA etc. Also the FBI and the NSA have no clear charter from Congress as to what they are to do. They are pretty much on their own trusting to the man in charge, all political appointees. This may have changed but I haven't seen it yet.

To come into my home and look around on a fishing expedition is wrong and I don't want them to do that to my neighbors either. It's just too proactive in a reactive society. They may or may not be watching me type this now. I have nothing to hide, but why should I have to prove I have nothing to hide?

And the Warrants, why is it necessary for a bureaucrat to issue a warrant? It ought to stay with a Judge from the Judiciary branch not an administrative type.

To take DNA samples from all those arrested and or convicted of any crime is wrong. What happens on winning an appeal? Is the DNA expunged from the database?

I'm still reading and trying to understand this stuff. I pay good tax money for legislation and they can't make it so I can understand it? It deserves to be deep sixed as do most of those self serving socialist blowhards in Congress.

Still reading.

Vick

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Does anyone remember what the acronym P.A.T.R.I.O.T. stand for?

 

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Any law that requires more than five pages (maybe one page) and cannot be understood without the assistance of three attorneys and a panel of judges cannot be good for anyone except those whom we should not be trusting.

How many senators and reps do you think actually read that pile of paper before enacting it? My guess would be about 10%. The others assigned a staffer to read it, and the staffer may or may not have read the whole thing, may or may not have understood it, and gave the boss a recommendation.

Scary stuff.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Maybe we should direct the famous War on Terrorism against the terrorists rather than the people who pick up the tab for it.

Is that too radical a thought?

 

[PCGS65]

Any law that requires more than five pages (maybe one page) and cannot be understood without the assistance of three attorneys and a panel of judges cannot be good for anyone except those whom we should not be trusting.

How many senators and reps do you think actually read that pile of paper before enacting it? My guess would be about 10%. The others assigned a staffer to read it, and the staffer may or may not have read the whole thing, may or may not have understood it, and gave the boss a recommendation.
Scary stuff.

Hawkmoon the government doesn't want us to understand. They just want us to believe what they tell us and not question it. Like a herd of cattle heading toward the slaughter house.
I think the 10% is about 10% too high.
You make a good point.

 

[xd9fan]

yeah these guys dont read half the crap they pass......they are not lawmakers....they are lawvoters.

 

[Derby FALs]

No one read the USA PATRIOT Act prior to the vote. It was not made available to read.