Patriot Act - Renewal ( Again)

[TamThompson]

This is the classic argument over which is more important: safety or freedom.

My choice is freedom.

Sheep are safe. I am no sheep. I would rather die on my feet in a terrorist attack than live on my knees in a heavy-handed police state.

Patriot Acts 1 & 2 are the biggest mis-nomers I've ever seen--they are the tools of a police state in the making.

Nothing personal, FedDC--you sound like a good guy and I'm sure you're one of the good cops who don't misuse PA tools. But not all cops are good, as I'm sure you know. In general, I am not in favor of giving the government and/or LE any more powers than they already have.

 

[FedDC]

Tam- Is there a specific part of the PA you have issues with? The rhetoric you posted is agreeable, nobody wants to live life as a sheep, but at the same time I fail to see how the PA causes that. It is certainly not going to create a "Police State"...

 

[labgrade]

I'll reiterate:

"So, FedDC,

what is now illegal that wasn't before?

Care to 'splain what the PA does that wasn't covered before?"

 

[FedDC]

No problem, The PA was not about making things more or less illegal. It is a law to facilitate the enforcement of current laws. It was and continues to be (although less so with the PA) difficult to track and arrest terrorists. They know the law and they know how to get around it in ways that I will not discuss on an open forum. The law works like a bureaucracy and it takes time. That time lag and the inability to share information has been somewhat corrected by the PA.

For those that may not understand what I am talking about when I refer to communication, prior to the PA, it was ILLEGAL for the CIA to share most of the info it gleaned with the FBI or other LE organizations. It took a law like the PA to correct that problem.

 

[Penforhire]

FedDC, the following is not my personal analysis of the PA II but perhaps you can help publicly refute the claims. Note the original PA II text can be found at: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/patriot2-hi.pdf

Strips native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship if they provide support to unpopular organizations labeled as terrorist by our government, even if they support only the lawful activities of such organizations, allowing them to be indefinitely imprisoned in their own country as undocumented aliens. (Section 501)

Completely abolishes fair hearings for lawful permanent residents convicted of even minor criminal offenses through a retroactive “expedited removal†procedure, and preventing any court from questioning the government’s unlawful actions by explicitly exempting these cases from habeas corpus review. Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus -- a protection guaranteed by the Constitution -- since the Civil War. (Section 504)

Provides for summary deportations without evidence of crime, criminal intent or terrorism, even of lawful permanent residents, whom the Attorney General says are a threat to national security. (Section 503)

Shelters federal agents engaged in illegal surveillance without a court order from criminal prosecution if they are following orders of high Executive Branch officials. (Section 106)

These are a few scary points!

 

[sch40]

Penforhire, I was wondering about those parts, too. FedDC, thanks for your patient and intellegent answers. I hope this thread stays as civil.

--sch40

 

[Art Eatman]

Exercising subtlety in a mild warning, I'll only say that I expect this thread to remain civil.

Or else!

, Art

 

[FedDC]

Penforhire-

Those are all good points. I am not entirely familiar with the PA 2 because it has not been passed yet, so we obviously are not using it. I can say that I know for a fact that Congress can not pass any law that is unconstitutional, or it will be ruled as such when we try to use it thereby nullifying the law.

The points you posted are valid, but I did notice a bit of a slant in their editorialized writing style. The verbiage indicates a source that is not in favor of the law which is their right, but I hesitate to judge its constitutionality based solely on the oppositions point of view.


Here is what I do know for sure:

We do have a very serious problem with Terrorist Orgs operating here in the US. They raise mountains of cash and do a good bit of training under the guise of their religion and this problem must be addressed. Right now today, major terrorist orgs are here in the US and they would love nothing more than to have a repeat of 9/11 or something bigger if they can come up with the men, equipment, and opportunity. While I realize that we all have a right to assemble and speak our minds, it does bother me for Hamas to meet and plot to kill me and my family...even more so when they have that meeting in Virginia...

As far as the INS (or Customs/Border Protection or ICE or whatever they are now) issues, this is a tough call. We have a HUGE problem with our immigration system. Just look around at the numbers of illegal immigrants and then try to figure out how hard it would be for one of the "Undocumented" immigrants to be a terrorist with no record or his birth, entry, not so much as a fingerprint on file. These folks are almost invisible, changing names and locations randomly and leaving behind the Gov wondering where they went. It would be all too easy for a terrorist to take advantage of this hole in our defenses.

One of these days we are going to need to sit down and take a hard look at our overall policy on immigration from Visa issuance to becoming a citizen. There are a lot of truly dedicated hard working men and women that are trying to address these problems and ensure our safety. I suspect that in the PA 2 there will be provisions to this regard.

 

[dadman]

I see that my original PA/Bush renawal topic got locked.
FedDC, thanks for your input to this subject.
My concerns with PA1 and a PA2 are the invasions of privacy, Acts used as stepping stones for further intrusions, Acts being used in the future by an anti-freedom administration, renewals of Act(s) and them not going away, etc.
Why don't 'they' just work on any info exchange barriers between FBI and CIA, and do taps/survelliance the good 'ole fashion way with warants?

 

[Penforhire]

FedDC, very observant. That's why I preface that analysis with "not mine." It still pays to visit the enemy camp (ACLU in this case) and see what they're stewing over.

I agree 100% with your last three paragraphs. In large measure I blame immigration issues on lax enforcement of existing laws. I do not see the need for special new laws to modify behavior that is already illegal. I have this same problem with "hate crime" laws. Vandalism and assault are legitimate crimes all by themselves.

You're also right that most people will not read the entire PA. Pretty dry stuff. So most rely on analysis and counter-analysis. The source of the statement is less important to me than whether the statement is valid. Do you or anyone else here know of a site or link to counter-analysis that examines the ACLU complaints and dismantles them? I myself want those complaints to be untrue. But I read a couple of the referenced sections and I can't see the rebuttals.

Art, why wouldn't this thread stay civil? THR people have a much better average civility than any other board I know of. Not only that but I suspect our average slant here is far toward anti-terrorism, as it should be.

 

[FedDC]

dadman


I hear you about the privacy issues. We have to give up the majority of our privacy when we get our badge, so I know the feeling. As to the warrant issue, traditional warrants for surveilance such as wiretaps are very very restrictive and take lots of time to get. They expire every few weeks and have to be renewed. The biggest problem is that wiretaps are almost impossible to get on other phones that the suspects may be using such as friends and wives because in the traditional sense, they are as innocent as any other non involved person. The realities of terrorism dictate that we be able to follow the terrorists wherever they go and whatever means of communication they use. They know the law and take advantage of the holes like the ones I just described.

As far as info exchange, it was illegal for the CIA and FBI to communicate certain threat info prior to the PA, so they could not just communicate or they would be going to jail. There are still a few burdens to communication, but they are far fewer with the PA.