The Patriot Act...

[Travis Kroells 0]

Yeah, so I figured I'd wait for a while and see if anyone wanted to discuss this, so I guess I'll bring it up.

 

What are your opinions on the recent congressional acts revolving the Patriot Act, and the revelation that Bush authorized the NSA to tap Americans phones with out a court order after 9/11?

 

Now, obviously since this is a political thread, there will be many different views, but please try to keep it appropriate to the thread, and to others, and please stay on topic, I hate it when my threads get locked up. B)

[Travis Kroells 0]

Well, Im all for security and such, but it seems like a lot of the Patriot Act also violates a lot of civil and constitutional liberties.

 

I may be just me, but I have a serious problem with an administration that comprimises the very basis of our country for it's defense.

[Dumbass 0]

Well it doesn't look like the Patriot Act will be renewed. At least not after the latest anouncements by Bush. As unpopular as the act was with many to begin with I think Bush admitting he approved the surveilance will be icing on the cake. The House and those Senators who are up for reelection will want to distance themselves from this.

 

The problem, as I see it, was not with the Patriot Act to begin with but the truths we hold to be self-evident to begin with, that life (meaning security), liberty (meaning freedom) and the pursuit of happiness (I'm not really sure what is meant by this but the only thing I can think of is economic utility, since in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence it said property) belong to all Americans. The problem is how we wish to prioritize these three things when you have to choose one over the others.

[Travis Kroells 0]

I supose under Van Roy's deffinition, I would consider Liberty to be most important. Like I said before, I think that we are compromising this countries basic values, something that we claim to be so grateful for: The right to trial, safety from unlawful searches, and other things?

 

What are we if we compromise these things in the name of security?

 

I dont know what Ganval's comment about Hippies losing a war this important is, or how they lost one before...

 

But I think that people would know where I stand before I said these things. I know that this is a place where not everything can be said blantantly, and in some ways thats a good thing. I think I got my point across, and I'd like to again urge that we try to keep this discussion civil, if only to prove that we can have a meaningful topic about something important to this country, without turning this into a mudslinging fight between people with different views.

 

Thanks.

[Dumbass 0]

Yeah, plus hippies don't really fight wars anyway.

[Travis Kroells 0]

Thats the great thing about us, we cant really get blamed for anything, since we never get around to doing it in the first place B)

[Elgor 0]

You hippies ::shakes head::Nam was just the beginning for you was it not?Well I say that tapping phones is good as long as it doesn't move beyond that. And yes this was meant as a transitional post from well the people not following the topic to the topic. Man that sounds wierd

Edited December 20, 2005 by Elgor

[eagle 0]

The point may become mute,as of the end of the yearthe patriot act is due

to expire...and from all indications as the time is drawing near it will not be

extended..and will pass into oblivion. B)

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

While the Patriot Act may have had it's issues, it had many positives. The fact that, once again, agencies will have a harder time "legally" coordinating with one another when conducting investigations is just one example. Again, while not perfect, I think it was the best that could be found.

 

As for the NSA, I'm sorry but I'll bet you nine out of ten they've been doing wire taps like that for decades. The volume of material the CIA and NSA do that we know nothing about is likely too large to fully grasp. So I don't know...

[Elgor 0]

You know I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA or CIA is wacthing this.

[knlwtchr 0]

I dont have a problem with being survailed (is that a word?). We already are in most major cities at intersections, ATMs, groceries, malls, gas stations, schools, etc, etc. I dont worry about my phone being tapped because I dont know anything of national importance. If they want to listen to me chat with my friend about her sickly father or my grandmother about her bunyons, well thats up to them. Im pretty sure they can find better things to do and bigger gooses to cook.

[Travis Kroells 0]

lol, well Andrea may not have a problem with it, and I respect her, and and am even a little envious. I sure wish I could go through life not worrying about such things.

 

Unfortunetly, if there is one thing that I value most, is my privacy. Not because I do weird things to animals, or plot bombings, but for the very fact that it is my right. I cant imagine what the soliders over seas think when they see this. I know very well I couldn't fight for a country that intern spys on its own people, for reasons such as this. Obviously, we cant have total privacy, but if Bush knew well enough not to go to the courts, he knew what he was doing is wrong.

 

I think the thing that bothers me the most is that he has the audacity to claim it's the right thing, and say he'll continue to do that. Just for that the Patriot Act desearves to die.

 

Fred also raised a good point, the bill did some good, such as an abilty to help communications through various government agencies. And I'll agree thats a good thing. But I also believe that we can set that up in much, much better ways.

[Dumbass 0]

As for the NSA, I'm sorry but I'll bet you nine out of ten they've been doing wire taps like that for decades. The volume of material the CIA and NSA do that we know nothing about is likely too large to fully grasp. So I don't know...

Well the CIA BETTER not be tapping my phone. They are not supposed to be operating domestically. That's in their charter, and even the Patriot Act doesn't change that. FBI or NSA or San Jose Police Department sure, but not the CIA.

[LoAmi 0]

I'm with Travis and Dumbass on this one. The Constitution usually errs on the side of the accused. 5/10 Bill of Rights amendments are about the rights of the accused, and a right to privacy in one's own home is embedded in the 4th and 9th amendments. We also have a separation of powers and system of checks and balances that is supposed to prevent a single branch of government from taking too much power. Bush's authorization of warrantless domestic spying sounds like an unnecessary subversion of the Constitution, and a dangerous one at that. Who's to say they're spying on criminals and not political dissidents? It's already come out that the FBI is again collecting information on administration-opposing political activist groups. There is a huge difference between a government agency monitoring public activity and private activity. We have no expectation of privacy in public. If a publically placed camera can see it, so could a police officer had he been there. And, certainly, if Google can see it, so can the government. Private conversations and private domains are a different matter entirely.

 

As for the Patriot Act, it did have some good provisions in it. As far as I know, previous law did not allow a wiretapping warrant to follow a suspect. So, a cellphone could have been immune to wiretapping. Criminals and terrorists shouldn't be able to run from the law by using more modern technology. And, it had some bad provisions in it. The idea of searches that aren't known about and that can't even be talked about or challenged in court is anathema to American democracy.

[knlwtchr 0]

Well the CIA BETTER not be tapping my phone. They are not supposed to be operating domestically. That's in their charter, and even the Patriot Act doesn't change that. FBI or NSA or San Jose Police Department sure, but not the CIA.

Thats not the CIA, thats me. =0]

[Travis Kroells 0]

Wireless devices use radio waves and with sufficient technology, anyone can tap into them. The enemies of society are already using these devices to their great advantage.

 

Corporate and Governmental espionage go hand in hand; if you want a successful empire, you need spies.

 

I'm sure Lincoln and Kennedy would have appreciated more domestic spying. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

I dont think one post has ever offended me more...I dont even know where to begin...

 

::trys to keep this as civil as possible::

 

I dont know where the "Enemies of Society" is going, well I might, but if I elaborate, I'll say things I cant, and get in trouble.

 

Last time I checked, America wasn't an empire. Even though I'm pretty sure Bush would like it to be one...::sighs::

 

And that last line just bothers me to the point that I cant say anything.

 

Yeah... :P

[eagle 0]

I am forced to agree with both travis and dumbass on this,some of us that

have and are shedding blood for this country and that precious piece of

parchment that gurantees freedom from the "empire",in all the forms and

practices that kind of government historically pursue and the rights they do

abuse ,i love this great nation and have served to protect the freedoms and

the rights guranteed by that one of a kind proposal ,the constitution,and if

by either the public or our elected represenatives allow it to be picked and

chiseled away at until it no longer represents this nation and the people it

does represent,we as a people,and a nation cannot permit to happen and

expect to retain any sembelence of a free and democratic land,not a police state..

[Elgor 0]

So true eagle so true. And Ganval if you want to be a part of the Earth Empire you are a couple of hundred years and a universe off

[Elgor 0]

Look if you would just change some words on the last post it would be okay how about changing empire to nation, and we don't know what JFK and Lincoln wanted so please don't speak for them, and yes you are right the constitution is not a sucide pact and it never has been!

[LoAmi 0]

Domestic spying is not illegal. It never has been. The FBI and police departments have informants in terrorist organizations, gangs, militias, etc. The CIA is not allowed to spy within the US.

 

The question boils down to how much the government can find out about activity taking place in private. In public, there is no expectation privacy. That's why I have no problem with publically placed video surveillance (A police officer hiding behind a dumpster could have legally seen the activity too). Inside private homes, businesses and airwaves, there is an expectation of privacy, though. There are certain times when it is recognized that the government has to enter private areas or wiretap private conversations on phone lines. In those cases, the government should have to prove that they have some probable cause to perform the search. That is usually what the process of getting a warrant is about. The Constitution is not a suicide pact at all. It does not promote a powerless government. The brilliance of the Constitution is that the multiple branches of government have a way of controlling each others' power and making sure that none takes too much power for itself. In the case of warrants, a judge must approve (or at least look at, in the case of FISA) the surveillance.

 

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, 1978) allows the government to obtain warrants from a secret court up to 24 hrs. after the search, in cases where foreign agents are involved. The Patriot act extended the deadline to 72 hrs. There has been nothing convincing me that the government could not fight terrorism within the limits of FISA and the extended powers given it by the Patriot Act, nor has there been any evidence that Congress authorized or intended to authorize warrantless spying on Americans.

 

The citizenry loses its freedom of political dissent against an executive with unlimited searching and detention power. Without political dissent, democracy is quickly replaced by totalitarian dictatorship.

 

As for the Patriot Act itself, Congress had the right idea, but I think it should have been extended for at least 3-4 months, instead of 1. One month (especially January!) is barely enough time to get full information about how the government has used its Patriot Act powers and to debate the civil liberties implications.

[Grom 0]

Privacy, as is being debated here, has never been determined to be a fundamental right, not by the Constitution, not by the Supreme Court or Congress (Griswold v. Connecticut established that there were certain zones of privacy that the government had to demonstrate more than a rational basis for infringement). The same is true, for example, for education. The government does have the power to infringe on privacy as long as it has a rational basis in doing so. National security would be one. A citizen has the right to seek relief from the courts if he thinks that the government has not demonstrated a rational reason for infringing on his privacy.

[Travis Kroells 0]

A citizen has the right to seek relief from the courts if he thinks that the government has not demonstrated a rational reason for infringing on his privacy.

Yes, but how does a citizen protest, if he has no idea he's being spied on? That the entire purpose of it, to make sure he/she doesn't know, so they catch him/her doing whatever they think they're doing.

 

I think the point is that we could being spied on at any point, for what the government seems to believe just causes (Bush sure does), and unless they mess up, we're none the wiser.

[Dumbass 0]

Privacy, as is being debated here, has never been determined to be a fundamental right, not by the Constitution, not by the Supreme Court or Congress (Griswold v. Connecticut established that there were certain zones of privacy that the government had to demonstrate more than a rational basis for infringement).  The same is true, for example, for education.

I'll go you one better. The 10th Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights) says that any power not specifically granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution is a domain of the States. Education is one of those areas the Constitution makes no mention of.

 

So why a Department of Education? Why federally-guaranteed student loans? Why national standards? Why aren't the States doing more for themselves?

Edited January 2, 2006 by Dumbass

[Grom 0]

As someone already mentioned, this is not anything new. The FBI, State Police...heck even your local authorities have the right to infringe upon your privacy if they deem probable cause. In the NSA case, we're talking about phone calls being made overseas to countries that pose a threat to national security. Not only is this sensible, but it is also necessary if we truly value security. I think it could be argued that the U.S. government would be neglecting its constitutional responsibilities if it did not monitor calls made to certain countries from within the U.S. Finally, some of the media has been making out President Bush's actions as unique. This is not true. This practice has been engaged in at least since the early 1990s, but probably since the Carter administration.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml

[LoAmi 0]

The FBI, State Police...heck even your local authorities have the right to infringe upon your privacy if they deem probable cause.  In the NSA case, we're talking about phone calls being made overseas to countries that pose a threat to national security.  Not only is this sensible, but it is also necessary if we truly value security. 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml

If the Newsmax article is true, then that just makes the scandal even bigger, and suggests that an even wider investigation should be opened. It's just as illegal if Clinton did it is if Bush did it. Nobody has yet successfully convinced me that the burden of getting a warrant from a secret court, even up to 72 hours after the fact, is too much for this (or any) administration.

 

GromVik's characterization "heck even your local authorities have the right to infringe upon your privacy if they deem probable cause" (emph added) is somewhat inaccurate. In normal criminal investigations, probable cause does not just have to be asserted by authorities, it has to be proven to a judge.

 

In terms of rights to privacy: the issue here is much more narrow that the right to marital privacy asserted in Griswold, or the right to privacy between doctor and patient in Roe, etc. A right to privacy against searches - and the method for the government to break it - is specifically included in the Bill of Rights (Fourth Amendment). There is a load of case law about the scope and limits of the Fourth Amendment. Assertion of a domestic "national security" exemption to the Fourth Amendment was plugged by legislation, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (1978). So, even if the spying is not unconstitutional, it is probably illegal by statute.

 

We have to be especially careful about assertions that the powers are being taken for "national security" reasons. It doesn't take very much of a stretch to paint a political opponent as a threat to national security. It's already happened in this country's history. Once we throw away the 4th Amendment, the First Amendment isn't far behind.