ADK, its laughable that you tell someone they apparently haven't read it, and then go to one of the most biased sources of it as your lone source.
I suggest if you REALLY want to learn about PATRIOT do some actual research. Check some factual scholarly sources, read up on some experts, review the Bill itself and yes, think tanks too. Read stuff from protagonists for it, antagonists against it, and then most importantly those that seek to give an honest unbiased neutral review of it.
The ACLU IS a good source on it, but it is like looking at the NRA alone for information about Gun Control. You'd laugh someone out of the thread if all they ever quoted was pro-gun nuts statements about it. It is a spec on the greater scope of things.
Jfuh, I have not said all of PATRIOT is good and that ALL of it is just meant to update FISA and the OMNIBUS bill. Please, if I'm wrong, go pick it out of my original post. If you want, dig through the archives to find my thesis about it. I can assure you that you'll find there that I also do not make the accusation that everything in PATRIOT is good and that EVERYTHING is predicated on JUST updating FISA.
Indeed, I have said then, said in other threads, and said now that there are numerous provisions that need to go in PATRIOT. Be it by the Court, The Senate, or the sunsets already in place. The court case this thread is about is a great thing and is exactly what needs to be happening.
PATRIOT is a gigantic piece of legislation. It is huge, and it is broad sweeping. It is the type of thing that likely would have a hard time getting in simply due to the size of it in a normal climate, ESPECIALLY the currently climate. And I'm not even talking about all the amazingly questionable parts of it...I'm saying even the more benign things. Why? Because a piece of legislation this big is going to be glommed on in normal times by everyone to shove everything they can into it and dilute the bill, or cause it to likely fail as it can't get the support.
Lets say you've done major renovations on your house, add a whole extra wing. State of the art. You did it during a time when construction costs were extremely cheap, where as now they're amazingly high. However, out of this wing you have a few parts of the roof that are leaky and one room that is in need of full repair. Some of the wiring is bad. It'll take some time and money to fix it up, but in general the vast majority of the wing is sound.
So, do you destroy the entire wing of renovations you did and start completely anew because of some bad patches in the roof, faulty wiring, and a bad room....or do you fix those troubled spots and leave the core in tact, saving time and money to get the same results?
That's the same thing with PATRIOT. Hell, Russ Fiengold has even stated that 90% of the USA PATRIOT ACT was not just a sound, but needed legislation as of 2003. And that was prior to many of the questionable things sunsetting or being overturned/tweaked. You asked for a specific, check out section 204 which primary function was to change part of OMNIBUS TITLE III from "wire and oral" communications being able to be tapped to "Wire, oral, and electronic". Previously there were issues with emails and voice mails being able to be procured with a warrant as simply as phone records (previously you had to hope the phone you tapped was the one they used to get their voice mail messages). Another example of this is Section 216, which updates FISA information about pen registers and "trap and trace" devices. For those that don't know what these things are, they are devices that can be attached to a phone and records all the numbers dialed and incoming calls. 216 expands this, to allow for devices that record routing information and IP addresses, so that it can be used with new communications like email, chats, forums, and text messaging.
Other provisions are needed in the modern technological world we live in, but are however flawed all the same. They would be better to be edited rather than outright destroyed. Take section 206, dealing with the "roving wiretaps" everyone is afraid of. What these generally are is the ability to GET A WARRANT (it must have a warrant) to essentially wire tap the PERSON, instead of each particular thing they use. It must be shown that the things being tapped are routinely used by the person the tap is authorized on. This provision was put into place due to the prevalence and ease of access to cell phones now, and the vast away of new public means of accessing communication.
What's not commonly brought up about Section 206 when people like the ACLU mention it is the fact that it is not something new; it was authorized by congress in 1986 to be used for criminal investigations. The issue is when it was extended to be allowed with the FISA courts it was done at a less strict requirements than it is criminally.
Section 206 is not, in its nature, a BAD section. It is a needed one with the new technological era we are in. It should however be updated to the same level as in criminal procedures, which requires a much higher standard of ascertaining that the person in question is using the particular things being tapped.
Section 206 is an example of FISA law being updated to more modern times, and with a good foundation, but needing of some tweaks. Full removal of it would be foolish.
Let us continue.
Section 213, the infamous sneak and peak provision, is an example both of one that needs to be tweaked still (The "adverse result" which is the requirement for a judge to grant the warrant for such a search is too vague) and has been tweaked (The time that the government could wait before informing the person being searched was previously "reasonable time" but was changed to "30 days").
Section 505, about national security letters, is another that shows that its been continually tweaked to improve it rather than just scrap it. (removing libraries as targets and no longer requiring recipients to alert the FBI if they show the letter to an attorney). You can continue to see this provision has continued to be tweaked, such as the current court ruling we are discussing.
The biggest issue for me honestly is the definition of domestic terrorists in section 802, which I think needs a severe review and likely a near scrapping and rewrite.
I go with Feingold (I don't say that a lot), the vast majority of PATRIOT is good, sound, needed legislation needing very little if any real alterations. Another 5 to 8 percent is likely to need some major alterations, with a smaller percentage needing full out removal. However destroying the whole thing is chopping off your arm to solve a hangnail.
