• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional

Yes, people not doing wrong doing have been caught into a web of issues due to the Patriot Act. What people seem to mistakingly think however is that magically somehow PRIOR to Patriot the government NEVER was able to use loopholes or be corrupt or just make a bad judgement and do similar type of things to people.

Whether or not it'll affect you because you are or are not doing wrong should not determine if one feels something is unconstitutional. Whether or not it matches up with the constitution should determine that. The potential for misuse should be looked at, regardless if you're law abiding or not, but the assumption of definitie wide spread misuse and the assumption that somehow there was magically no misuse before hand and would be none or significantly less simply by removing it is problematic.

It is entirely possible ot have issues with the PATRIOT Act and be an entirely law abiding citizen. Hell, I support keeping PATRIOT, am a law abiding citizen, and still have zero issues with certain parts being removed or taken out because I feel they're damaging to constitutional freedoms.

Ah, but see, that's just it, Zyphlin. Information gained through chatter must be of a specific kind in order for law enforcement to act without a judges permission or (due process). Law enforcement can't say as an example knock on joe the drug dealers house because they overheard a cell conversation with john the addict. The Patriot Act took great pains to make that clear within the context of the law. The Patriot Act as it matters to national security is the ONLY time that due process can be waived and ONLY if the waiver is warranted because of imminent danger to American citizens. And, to add, even after the danger is addressed, there is still a hearing after the fact where law enforcement must justify its actions. So, due process is indeed afforded great scrutiny, but in the case of national security, it is simply done after the fact, and I might add that evidence gained prior to an actual court ordered warrant is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law.


Tim-
 
Ah, but see, that's just it, Zyphlin. Information gained through chatter must be of a specific kind in order for law enforcement to act without a judges permission or (due process). Law enforcement can't say as an example knock on joe the drug dealers house because they overheard a cell conversation with john the addict. The Patriot Act took great pains to make that clear within the context of the law. The Patriot Act as it matters to national security is the ONLY time that due process can be waived and ONLY if the waiver is warranted because of imminent danger to American citizens. And, to add, even after the danger is addressed, there is still a hearing after the fact where law enforcement must justify its actions. So, due process is indeed afforded great scrutiny, but in the case of national security, it is simply done after the fact, and I might add that evidence gained prior to an actual court ordered warrant is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law.


Tim-

I disagree. Rights cannot be waived, under the Constitution.

And Ben Franklin was right.
 
I disagree. Rights cannot be waived, under the Constitution.

And Ben Franklin was right.

With all due respect to Franklin, no, I'm sorry he was wrong in this context; besides, Franklin wasn't talking about any of the dangers we face today. Franklin was specifically referring to other types of freedom and security IIRC..


Tim-
 
Little if any of our survelliance laws have been passed in individual segment laws. Why is it that you're not equally out there decrying the FISA Act and for overturning the entire 1968 Omnibus act? Not to mention that we're at an incredibly partisan time compared to the early 2000's and attempting to pass any of this stuff would likely be difficult not because its necessarily bad law but because it has become such a politicized propoganda fueled mess.

You think I'm not for limiting government and revoking usurped powers just because this thread was specifically about the Patriot Act and thus I kept my answers directly related to the Patriot Act? You'd be wrong if so. Hell I still decry the State of Emergency FDR put us under in 1933 which has not once been invalidated.
 
It's a start, but it won't be good until the whole of the patriot act is overturned.

Then, history can repeat itself, because we will no longer have the neccessary tools to fight a constantly evolving enemy.
 
Then, history can repeat itself, because we will no longer have the neccessary tools to fight a constantly evolving enemy.

OMG NOOOOOOOOOO. Without the Patriot Act we're DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED. Doomed I tellz you!

Thanks Chicken Little, but I think we'll be ok without aggressive, large, big brother government. Thanks "conservative".
 
OMG NOOOOOOOOOO. Without the Patriot Act we're DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED. Doomed I tellz you!

Thanks Chicken Little, but I think we'll be ok without aggressive, large, big brother government. Thanks "conservative".

The Patriot Act increases the size of government? Really??
 
The Patriot Act increases the size of government? Really??

It didn't? It's power increased. Or are you saying the government isn't large? It's a dangerous law at best.
 
Last edited:
It didn't? It's power increased. Or are you saying the government isn't large? It's a dangerous law at best.

Not nearly as danger as Obamacare, or sitting back on our laurels, doing nothing in the face of a dangerous enemy. I mean, all the law does is allow law enforcement to listen in on foreign phone calls, without a warrant.
 
It doesn't really mean anything until it reaches the SC and that is assuming the SC actually agrees with a lower court ruling.

That's true, but I do like the direction. This should have been done long ago.
 
The Patriot Act was adopted to help untie law-enforcement's hands and keep us safe. The CIA has always had all the powers in that act and probably more. There is no way we should throw out the entire Patriot Act. That's what we have a Supreme Court for -- to put checks and balances on our laws, rules and regulations. Tweak it. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

It goes too far. Reasonable things, like the agencies talking to each other is fine. And frankly that is all that we actually need to have prevented 9/11. Over reactions aimed at keeping us safe are still overreactions, and can be misused in the future, thus not keeping all of us safe.
 
It goes too far. Reasonable things, like the agencies talking to each other is fine. And frankly that is all that we actually need to have prevented 9/11. Over reactions aimed at keeping us safe are still overreactions, and can be misused in the future, thus not keeping all of us safe.

How does it, "go too far"? And please, be specific.
 
How does it, "go too far"? And please, be specific.

From surveillance to hlding with out charging the act went too far. It was not privacy that led to 9/11. Nor was it the lack of being able to hold someone that led to 9/11. So, such invasions into privacy were simply unnecessary.
 
From surveillance to hlding with out charging the act went too far. It was not privacy that led to 9/11. Nor was it the lack of being able to hold someone that led to 9/11. So, such invasions into privacy were simply unnecessary.

Those are talking points. I asked you to be specific.
 
Those are talking points. I asked you to be specific.

surveillance isn't specific? Humm, I thought it was.

Will this help:
PATRIOT ACT

The original Act had a sunset clause to ensure that Congress would need to take active steps to reauthorize it. Like many sweeping reform laws, the people of the United States needed time to test and implement its measures before deciding what provisions to keep and which to modify. One of the challenges to the original Act had been perceived civil liberties intrusions. The reauthorization resolution passed in 2006 contained some civil liberties protections.

Much criticism against the 2001 Act had been directed at the provisions for Sneak-and-Peek searches — a term coined by the FBI. Critics argued that Provision 213 authorizes "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of reasonable necessity and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided.

A second complaint against Sneak-and-Peek searches is that the owner of the property (or person identified in business/library records) does not have to be told about the search. There is a special clause that allows the Director of the FBI to request phone records for a person without ever notifying the person. For all other searches, the person must be notified, but not necessarily before the search.

Perhaps the most controversial section of the original Act was Section 215, dealing with a very narrow, implied right of federal investigators to access library and bookstore records. Section 215 allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant in camera (in secret) from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying. On its face, the section does not even refer to "libraries," but rather to business records and other tangible items in general. Civil libertarians and librarians in particular, argue that this provision violates patrons' human rights and it has now come to be called the "library provision." The Justice Department defends Section 215 by saying that because it requires an order to be issued by a FISA Court judge, it provides better protection for libraries.

Critics claim that some portions of the Act are unnecessary and allow U.S. law enforcement to infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy. Much controversy has arisen over section 215 (see above), which allows judges to grant government investigators ex parte orders to look into personal records (including financial, medical, phone, Internet, student or library records) on the basis of being "relevant for an on going investigation concerning international terrorism or 4 stine intelligence activities," rather than probable cause as outlined in the fourth amendment.

VoteMatch: The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
 
surveillance isn't specific? Humm, I thought it was.

Will this help:
PATRIOT ACT

The original Act had a sunset clause to ensure that Congress would need to take active steps to reauthorize it. Like many sweeping reform laws, the people of the United States needed time to test and implement its measures before deciding what provisions to keep and which to modify. One of the challenges to the original Act had been perceived civil liberties intrusions. The reauthorization resolution passed in 2006 contained some civil liberties protections.

Much criticism against the 2001 Act had been directed at the provisions for Sneak-and-Peek searches — a term coined by the FBI. Critics argued that Provision 213 authorizes "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of reasonable necessity and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided.

A second complaint against Sneak-and-Peek searches is that the owner of the property (or person identified in business/library records) does not have to be told about the search. There is a special clause that allows the Director of the FBI to request phone records for a person without ever notifying the person. For all other searches, the person must be notified, but not necessarily before the search.

Perhaps the most controversial section of the original Act was Section 215, dealing with a very narrow, implied right of federal investigators to access library and bookstore records. Section 215 allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant in camera (in secret) from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying. On its face, the section does not even refer to "libraries," but rather to business records and other tangible items in general. Civil libertarians and librarians in particular, argue that this provision violates patrons' human rights and it has now come to be called the "library provision." The Justice Department defends Section 215 by saying that because it requires an order to be issued by a FISA Court judge, it provides better protection for libraries.

Critics claim that some portions of the Act are unnecessary and allow U.S. law enforcement to infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy. Much controversy has arisen over section 215 (see above), which allows judges to grant government investigators ex parte orders to look into personal records (including financial, medical, phone, Internet, student or library records) on the basis of being "relevant for an on going investigation concerning international terrorism or 4 stine intelligence activities," rather than probable cause as outlined in the fourth amendment.

VoteMatch: The Patriot Act harms civil liberties

When I say, "specific", I mean show me the text of the bill that violates American civil liberties. Just saying so isn't the specificity I'm asking for; or you could just admit that it doesn't really violate civil liberties and that the whole issue is being blown out of proportion by the Librulz, because GW signed it.
 
I'm surprise they needed to go to court to figure that one out.
 
Back
Top Bottom