About the Patriot Act...

[Phillips7609]

I posted this in another section of the forum, but it was a little off subject so I didn't get any replies.


Does anyone know all the provisions of The Patriot Act?
I haven't researched it much and what you hear from the media is bull or half truths anyway.

To the point: I heard that under the P.A. that warrantless search and seizure of property was made legal. If you're a suspect (and who makes that call?) and you're gone on vacation, you could come back to a wrecked home and there's nothing you could do about it.
To make matters worse, if they found any guns along with anti-government propaganda (anything negative against the government) you could be charged and held as a terrorist without question.
Is this true? Is the P.A. that far reaching and invasive?

 

[Bullseye 2620]

Patriot Act Analysis

See this link for an authoritative analysis of the Patriot Act by two liberals and draw your own conclusions.

A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 2 - By Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turner - Slate Magazine

I can tell you this: even if you are a Quaker pacifist and protest a foreign war you can be accused of being the agent of a foreign power. That being the case, wherein one is clearly exercising First Amendment rights of peaceable assembly and petition for redress of grievances, if they want to search your home without a warrant there is no barrier to their doing so. And, it seems that the evidence gained in such warrantless searches directed against American citizens accused of being foreign agents for intelligence gathering, can now, under the Patriot Act, can be used in criminal prosecutions against those same people. At a minimum, I would make absolutely sure I was not open to any kind of firearms charge. And i would scream bloody murder until Congress comes it its senses and repeals this real threat to American liberty.

 

[Phillips7609]

See this link for an authoritative analysis of the Patriot Act by two liberals and draw your own conclusions.

A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 2 - By Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turner - Slate Magazine

I can tell you this: even if you are a Quaker pacifist and protest a foreign war you can be accused of being the agent of a foreign power. That being the case, wherein one is clearly exercising First Amendment rights of peaceable assembly and petition for redress of grievances, if they want to search your home without a warrant there is no barrier to their doing so. And, it seems that the evidence gained in such warrantless searches directed against American citizens accused of being foreign agents for intelligence gathering, can now, under the Patriot Act, can be used in criminal prosecutions against those same people. At a minimum, I would make absolutely sure I was not open to any kind of firearms charge. And i would scream bloody murder until Congress comes it its senses and repeals this real threat to American liberty.

I read the article and it gives me a really uneasy feeling to say the least. Legislation like this almost makes you afraid to leave your house. Who's to say that something you do or say in complete innocence won't be taken wrong by someone and get you put on some kind of list as a suspect?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why do we credit two liberals on a forum like this??
In fact the act did nothing of the sort. And many provisions sunsetted in '05.
Really, people.

 

[Phillips7609]

Why do we credit two liberals on a forum like this??
In fact the act did nothing of the sort. And many provisions sunsetted in '05.
Really, people.

I must've missed something. I'm confused by your entire post.

What two liberals? The act did nothing of the sort of what? What provisions sunsetted in '05? Do you know of a web-site that has more up-to-date statistics?
I've never heard anything positive about the Patriot Act.

 

[RAW]

"Meine ehre heist treue"
subliminal message of Patriot Act

 

[The Rabbi]

I must've missed something. I'm confused by your entire post.

What two liberals? The act did nothing of the sort of what? What provisions sunsetted in '05? Do you know of a web-site that has more up-to-date statistics?
I've never heard anything positive about the Patriot Act.

Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turner, authors of the article linked, described in the OP as liberals. The article itself is outdated.
Go look at the actual provisions vs what the libtards say about them. Some of them have been struck down, some have sunsetted.
And where are those thousands of people whose civil rights have been trampled?

 

[n4zov]

Here you go and happy reading!

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107

 

[willy]

And where are those thousands of people whose civil rights have been trampled?

Doesn't have to be thousands!

ONE is to many ,
especially if it would happen to be me!

 

[The Rabbi]

Have you had your civil rights trampled recently?

There are individuals getting their civil rights trampled daily. With 360million people it happens sometimes.
What would you propose to guarantee 100% compliance?

 

[willy]

What would you propose to guarantee 100% compliance?

Maybe if congress and all law enforcement read the Constitution and remembered it is their job to up hold it!

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe if congress and all law enforcement read the Constitution and remembered it is their job to up hold it!

You mean like the Terry stop, originated in OH, if I recall?

 

[willy]

You mean like the Terry stop, originated in OH, if I recall?

EXACTLY!
What a crock that is!
We have as much rights when it comes to illegal searches as a Jew in Germany did in the 30's!

 

[The Rabbi]

EXACTLY!
What a crock that is!
We have as much rights when it comes to illegal searches as a Jew in Germany did in the 30's!

Except tht was ruled constitutional by the supreme court.

 

[willy]

Except tht was ruled constitutional by the supreme court.

I should have included the supreme court with the the rest of them who need to read the constitution!

 

[The Rabbi]

I should have included the supreme court with the the rest of them who need to read the constitution!

Ok so what you really mean is that every police officer and politician and judge needs to consult Willy for the definitive answer to what is constitutional and what isn't before acting.
That'll happen.

 

[willy]

Ok so what you really mean is that every police officer and politician and judge needs to consult Willy for the definitive answer to what is constitutional and what isn't before acting.
That'll happen.

Be a good start!


So what your saying is that The TERRY STOP is fine with you?
Because the supreme court said so?
Do you think the Patriot Act is fine too?
And are you one of the sheeple that are willing to give up freedom for security?

 

[The Rabbi]

Please point to any of my posts where I said any of that.

 

[kenpofan]

I don't support the " Patriot Act " and thought our Dear Leader would have done away with..

" Yeah Right !"

However I do support the Terry ruling as it is understood.

here is my understanding ..articulated in the included wiki article.

Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop." The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).


Read this court opinion..

This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch"

"The Court assessed the reasonableness of the police activity here by comparing it to activity that would ordinarily require a warrant. "... in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion." In a situation where the police obtained a warrant, they would have brought these facts and inferences to the attention of a judicial officer before embarking on the actions in question. Post hoc judicial review of police activity is equally facilitated by these facts and inferences. "

 

[The Rabbi]

See, it doesn't matter what the Supreme or any other court says. The Terry Stop fails the Willy Test. Just ask Willy if the Terry Stop is constitutional. I double-dog dare you.