- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,675
- Reaction score
- 35,460
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'll help you get started a bit to highlight that "sections" of the Patriot Act are not some magical myth that don't actually exist.
Here's section 802, detailing the new definition for Domestic Terrorist
As to "warrantless wiretapping", I believe yo'ure confusing "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" that was passed and initially allowed Bush to have the NSA doing warrantless wiretaps. Reportedly in 2007 the warrantless action was ended and sent back to the FISA courts. Later, in 2008, FISA itself was amended to loosen restrictions in terms of that kind of survelliance. So that's an issue that isn't PATRIOT's problem.
Now, perhaps you're mixing up some of the other provisions of Patriot itself with warrantless wiretapping. Perhaps the "roving wiretaps" that had people upset. I'll help you with that too, here's section 206
That's the one that allows them to essentially get a warrant on a person, rather than a specific phone, for wiretapping purposes. It still requires a warrant to place the initial taps on phones, but the issue people (rightfully) have is that some of those phones are ones routinely used by others outside of the person that caused the warrant to be issued.
There, I've given you some head starts here in trying to find the sections backing up your assertions. You can take it from here and find yourself some actual evidence to back up your claims now that I've shown you that, yes, the Patriot Act does include actual sections people can reference.
Here's section 802, detailing the new definition for Domestic Terrorist
As to "warrantless wiretapping", I believe yo'ure confusing "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" that was passed and initially allowed Bush to have the NSA doing warrantless wiretaps. Reportedly in 2007 the warrantless action was ended and sent back to the FISA courts. Later, in 2008, FISA itself was amended to loosen restrictions in terms of that kind of survelliance. So that's an issue that isn't PATRIOT's problem.
Now, perhaps you're mixing up some of the other provisions of Patriot itself with warrantless wiretapping. Perhaps the "roving wiretaps" that had people upset. I'll help you with that too, here's section 206
That's the one that allows them to essentially get a warrant on a person, rather than a specific phone, for wiretapping purposes. It still requires a warrant to place the initial taps on phones, but the issue people (rightfully) have is that some of those phones are ones routinely used by others outside of the person that caused the warrant to be issued.
There, I've given you some head starts here in trying to find the sections backing up your assertions. You can take it from here and find yourself some actual evidence to back up your claims now that I've shown you that, yes, the Patriot Act does include actual sections people can reference.
