The Patriot Act, etc.

[Stal]

*nod* I agree that if there is abuse of the Patriot Act going on, it should be addressed. But here's what I would like to point out...I have no problem with the profiling of people right now. None whatsoever.

Why?

It wasn't little ol' grannies that flew into the twin towers, nor was it Americans or Europeans. It was Muslim immigrants. I realize, not all our terrorists, just as not all teens are evil and so forth, but when you think about who we're at war with right now (an extreme sect of the islam religion), I do not mind some extra attention being given to those who have the red flags go up (just when those red flags are present, mind you. I'm not advocating the watch of every Arab in the US if you read what I'm saying). This profiling is helping to keep the country safe from future attacks.

And before anyone accuses me of being hypocritical and I'd hate if it happened to me...well it does. I'm a teenager, I may not like stereotyping, but I don't mind the profiling (big difference), especially considering the profiling is based upon statistics that there is a high theft rate among teens, and how most of those teens act and dress most of the profiling is going towards teens that act and dress like them. When I walk into the mall and have my trenchcoat and my backpack, I know for a fact I'm being given extra attention than those other teens. When I checkout/leave, I always offer the cashiers a chance to search my backpack if need be. So, yeah, it's not something I don't mind only when it doesn't happen to me.

Why am I mentioning profiling here? Because that's what this Patriot Act boils down to. A form of profiling. The government has these new rights, fine, so be it. I have nothing to worry about, since I'm not involved in any illegal activity or raising red flags. If I am raising red flags, then I invite the government to come in and find I'm innocent of any wrong doing...

I just dislike how easily this act could be abused and turned into a stepping stone into a dictatorship someday. They need to use some clearer definitions regarding "suspected terrorist activity". Without clearer definitions and the use of "fuzzy logic", things could get ugly pretty quick.

[sabreur]

Interesting. In my Computer Ethics class, I actually did a presentation on the Patriot Act. You can find it here: www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~shannaha/PATRIOT.html

I wish there was a polite way to say this, but sadly there isn't - you are all horribly, horribly wrong about the contents of the Patriot Act.

• The Patriot Act does NOT allow the government to just grab information on anyone it likes, anytime it likes. In fact, it specifically prohibits that sort of nonsense.
  
• The Patriot Act doe NOT permit illegal search and seizure - just like before, evidence must be obtained and presented under oath before a search can be carried out.
  

The Patriot Act primarily concerns itself with updating old laws that were so out of date as to render them useless. For example, wiretapping laws were so archaic that there wasn't a point on acquiring a judge's permission to wiretap on a known criminal, because the wiretap could only apply to a single phone line. In an age of cellular, wireless and multiple household phone lines the law was just wasting space. The updated law accounts for such new technologies, but keeps the old protections. Hard evidence must still be presented, a judge must issue a written wiretap order, etc.

The Patriot Act actually adds protections in areas where such protections were missing.

• Previously, it wasn't clear how wiretapping applied to internet communications. The Patriot Act imposes strict rules on law enforcement, prohibiting them from reading emails and monitoring private chat rooms, even with a warrant.
  
• Previously, if a privacy law was broken there was no legal need to notify the public. The Patriot Act introduced legislation requiring a public report on any abuses.
  

Ultimately, the Patriot Act represents a delicate balancing act between privacy and security. Both are wonderful things - we want our private lives private, and we don't want our towers and people blown up. The problem arises in that privacy and security can't always coexist - too much privacy at the expense of security allowed the 9-11 plot to go undetected until too late.

If privacy is not adequately protected, we risk losing the very freedoms we are trying to protect by making ourselves into a police state.

The result of not adequately protecting security is just as grave. Surprisingly, the loss of life caused by a terrorist incident is a side effect. The primary effect is simple - terror. Terrorist attacks aim to terrorize a populace or government into changing their actions toward a desired result. A prime example of this is the recent bombing attacks in Madrid, Spain. These attacks occurred right before the elections and are believed to have seriously swayed the results. If terrorist attacks are not prevented, our system of free democratic voting is at risk of being subverted.

The Patriot Act wonderfully performs this balancing act between safety and security. While new powers are added to law enforcement officials, these powers are carefully defined with strict limitations. New technologies are accounted for, and the entire process is kept open to the public eye. I could go on, but I have used up a great deal of space already. Suffice to say that it is simply impossible to use the Patriot Act to create the nightmare police state that is so feared - if anything, the Patriot Act is our most recent defence against it.

I would like to commend all of you who brought up concerns against the Patriot Act. It is of vital importance that we scrutinize our lawmakers, and ensure that everything they do is in the best interests of the Nation. It was because of hearing such concerns that I decided to investigate the Patriot Act for myself.

Lastly, I will check back on this post later tonight. If there's any concern about the Patriot Act that I missed, please bring it up and I'll reply to it later (assuming I have an answer, that is!).

- Sabreur

[Stal]

Sabreur (question: Is "Lord Sabreur" still applicable here at the NTWF?), thanks for that post. I was pretty unclear on what the Patriot Act totally entailed, myself, and merely went off of what I had heard about it (I don't have much time to do an in-depth study of it). But now that I see that a lot of what I've heard is just baseless lies/embellishments/"misinterpertations" thrown out to the people from its main political opponents...

In any case, thank you much for that post. It helps to make some things clearer in my mind.

[Kiddo]

Yuki said:

Sabreur (question: Is "Lord Sabreur" still applicable here at the NTWF?), thanks for that post. I was pretty unclear on what the Patriot Act totally entailed, myself, and merely went off of what I had heard about it (I don't have much time to do an in-depth study of it). But now that I see that a lot of what I've heard is just baseless lies/embellishments/"misinterpertations" thrown out to the people from its main political opponents...

In any case, thank you much for that post. It helps to make some things clearer in my mind.

Just Sabreur is fine, I'm sure! We just try to keep formalities up in the guild to ensure respect between members.

Thanks for posting this bro. I knew you did a presentation on it but I've been wanting to see what you said... since you're the most thorough researcher I know.

[Princess Ember Mononoke]

Yuki said:

Sabreur (question: Is "Lord Sabreur" still applicable here at the NTWF?), thanks for that post. I was pretty unclear on what the Patriot Act totally entailed, myself, and merely went off of what I had heard about it (I don't have much time to do an in-depth study of it). But now that I see that a lot of what I've heard is just baseless lies/embellishments/"misinterpertations" thrown out to the people from its main political opponents...

In any case, thank you much for that post. It helps to make some things clearer in my mind.

Hear hear! I guess there's just been a lot of alarmism lately, huh? With just the hard facts, it actually sounds like a good piece of law.

But my question about how "harmful to minors" is defined still hasn't been answered. That's something I'd really like to no more about, since depending on how it's defined it could effect me directly, since I'm a minor who reads quite a number of adult books (nothing gross or perverted, I just mean books you wouldn't find under the children's section of the library.)

[Stal]

Ember: My guess would be anything that could help contribute to the delinquency of a minor (to use another law for reference) i.e. Pornography and "erotic" novels.

Other things may be those that would influence a young impressionable mind a little too much if seen at too early an age, before they have their feet grounded (i.e. An extremist book of any sort).

[Buddy]

Yuki said:

*nod* I agree that if there is abuse of the Patriot Act going on, it should be addressed. But here's what I would like to point out...I have no problem with the profiling of people right now. None whatsoever.

Why?

It wasn't little ol' grannies that flew into the twin towers, nor was it Americans or Europeans. It was Muslim immigrants. I realize, not all our terrorists, just as not all teens are evil and so forth, but when you think about who we're at war with right now (an extreme sect of the islam religion), I do not mind some extra attention being given to those who have the red flags go up (just when those red flags are present, mind you. I'm not advocating the watch of every Arab in the US if you read what I'm saying). This profiling is helping to keep the country safe from future attacks.

And before anyone accuses me of being hypocritical and I'd hate if it happened to me...well it does. I'm a teenager, I may not like stereotyping, but I don't mind the profiling (big difference), especially considering the profiling is based upon statistics that there is a high theft rate among teens, and how most of those teens act and dress most of the profiling is going towards teens that act and dress like them. When I walk into the mall and have my trenchcoat and my backpack, I know for a fact I'm being given extra attention than those other teens. When I checkout/leave, I always offer the cashiers a chance to search my backpack if need be. So, yeah, it's not something I don't mind only when it doesn't happen to me.

Why am I mentioning profiling here? Because that's what this Patriot Act boils down to. A form of profiling. The government has these new rights, fine, so be it. I have nothing to worry about, since I'm not involved in any illegal activity or raising red flags. If I am raising red flags, then I invite the government to come in and find I'm innocent of any wrong doing...

I just dislike how easily this act could be abused and turned into a stepping stone into a dictatorship someday. They need to use some clearer definitions regarding "suspected terrorist activity". Without clearer definitions and the use of "fuzzy logic", things could get ugly pretty quick.

Just as a quick note, I heard that Al Quada and a few of those other terrorrism groups were working to recruit European-looking members, so as to beat that type of system.

Now, don't take it that I'm disagreeing with you - I'm not! If 95% percernt of Al Quada is Arab/Muslim, it only makes sense to look for Arab/Muslims, right? I'm just kind of pointing out that the system of profiling could easily be gotten around and, to some degree, eventually, made inadequate. Not saying it's useless, just that it's not nessecarily the best way to catch terrorists, all things considered.

And I'm really glad Sabreur pointed that all out! I really hadn't known too much of the Patriot Act, other than that it appeared to go through and update previous laws which I knew nothing about. So thanks!

[Stal]

Buddy said:

Just as a quick note, I heard that Al Quada and a few of those other terrorrism groups were working to recruit European-looking members, so as to beat that type of system.

Now, don't take it that I'm disagreeing with you - I'm not! If 95% percernt of Al Quada is Arab/Muslim, it only makes sense to look for Arab/Muslims, right? I'm just kind of pointing out that the system of profiling could easily be gotten around and, to some degree, eventually, made inadequate. Not saying it's useless, just that it's not nessecarily the best way to catch terrorists, all things considered.

Nah, not the best way at all. But I'm saying it helps. That's why I don't mind it.

[shimmer2]

Sabreur said:

Interesting. In my Computer Ethics class, I actually did a presentation on the Patriot Act. You can find it here: www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~shannaha/PATRIOT.html

I wish there was a polite way to say this, but sadly there isn't - you are all horribly, horribly wrong about the contents of the Patriot Act.

• The Patriot Act does NOT allow the government to just grab information on anyone it likes, anytime it likes. In fact, it specifically prohibits that sort of nonsense.
  
• The Patriot Act doe NOT permit illegal search and seizure - just like before, evidence must be obtained and presented under oath before a search can be carried out.
  

The Patriot Act primarily concerns itself with updating old laws that were so out of date as to render them useless. For example, wiretapping laws were so archaic that there wasn't a point on acquiring a judge's permission to wiretap on a known criminal, because the wiretap could only apply to a single phone line. In an age of cellular, wireless and multiple household phone lines the law was just wasting space. The updated law accounts for such new technologies, but keeps the old protections. Hard evidence must still be presented, a judge must issue a written wiretap order, etc.

The Patriot Act actually adds protections in areas where such protections were missing.

• Previously, it wasn't clear how wiretapping applied to internet communications. The Patriot Act imposes strict rules on law enforcement, prohibiting them from reading emails and monitoring private chat rooms, even with a warrant.
  
• Previously, if a privacy law was broken there was no legal need to notify the public. The Patriot Act introduced legislation requiring a public report on any abuses.
  

Ultimately, the Patriot Act represents a delicate balancing act between privacy and security. Both are wonderful things - we want our private lives private, and we don't want our towers and people blown up. The problem arises in that privacy and security can't always coexist - too much privacy at the expense of security allowed the 9-11 plot to go undetected until too late.

If privacy is not adequately protected, we risk losing the very freedoms we are trying to protect by making ourselves into a police state.

The result of not adequately protecting security is just as grave. Surprisingly, the loss of life caused by a terrorist incident is a side effect. The primary effect is simple - terror. Terrorist attacks aim to terrorize a populace or government into changing their actions toward a desired result. A prime example of this is the recent bombing attacks in Madrid, Spain. These attacks occurred right before the elections and are believed to have seriously swayed the results. If terrorist attacks are not prevented, our system of free democratic voting is at risk of being subverted.

The Patriot Act wonderfully performs this balancing act between safety and security. While new powers are added to law enforcement officials, these powers are carefully defined with strict limitations. New technologies are accounted for, and the entire process is kept open to the public eye. I could go on, but I have used up a great deal of space already. Suffice to say that it is simply impossible to use the Patriot Act to create the nightmare police state that is so feared - if anything, the Patriot Act is our most recent defence against it.

I would like to commend all of you who brought up concerns against the Patriot Act. It is of vital importance that we scrutinize our lawmakers, and ensure that everything they do is in the best interests of the Nation. It was because of hearing such concerns that I decided to investigate the Patriot Act for myself.

Lastly, I will check back on this post later tonight. If there's any concern about the Patriot Act that I missed, please bring it up and I'll reply to it later (assuming I have an answer, that is!).

- Sabreur

I understand that there are parts of the Patriot Act that are designed to prevent in from being abused. However, there are also loopholes for abuse in it. For instance:
Amendment to International Emergency Powers Act

“when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.”

This amendment gives the President, not courts, the power to infringe upon the rights of foreigners, which includes people with green cards. Even though these people are not citizens of the US, the constitution was written on the basis that everyone had "natural rights." When such power is given to one person, it can easily be abused.
Also:
"“`(c) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- In any judicial review of a determination made under this section, if the determination was based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera. This subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review."
This part has been criticized because it violates the right to a public trial.

These are just a couple of parts of the Patriot Act that people object to. It's thundering now, so I'll have to finish reading the Act later, but if anyone here wants to: www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

One more thing, there is a high rate of crime among blacks, does that make racial profiling against them okay? I don't think so...

[Buddy]

Luz said:

I understand that there are parts of the Patriot Act that are designed to prevent in from being abused. However, there are also loopholes for abuse in it. For instance:
Amendment to International Emergency Powers Act

“when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.”

This amendment gives the President, not courts, the power to infringe upon the rights of foreigners, which includes people with green cards. Even though these people are not citizens of the US, the constitution was written on the basis that everyone had "natural rights." When such power is given to one person, it can easily be abused.
Also:
"“`(c) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- In any judicial review of a determination made under this section, if the determination was based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera. This subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review."
This part has been criticized because it violates the right to a public trial.

These are just a couple of parts of the Patriot Act that people object to. It's thundering now, so I'll have to finish reading the Act later, but if anyone here wants to: www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

One more thing, there is a high rate of crime among blacks, does that make racial profiling against them okay? I don't think so...

Toche. However, again, as a matter or note and record, things like this exist everywhere. Know the Second Amendment, the one that says people can not be forced to house soldiers against the owner's will? It actually says that such rule can be suspended during time of crisis.

The same goes with the rule saying a person has to be charged with something to be held in jail (there's a name for it, though I've forgotten it). Such a thing was done during the Civil War, when Lincoln imprisoned many Maryland politicians for fear they might influence Maryland to succeed.

As Lincoln once put it, "Sometimes actions must be taken in times of war that would not normally be taken in times of peace", or something like that. Does it nessecarily justify the Patriot Act? Well, I'd have to read more about it to make a real decision. But just some food for thought - just because the capability to abuse powers is there, doesn't mean it will automatically be done.

Though, I'm sure many can't help but be worried...

[Fj0rd]

I think someone commented on the name "USA Patriot act". It's actually an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Whew! There's a mouthful. They probably -did- make it to be an acronym of Patriot for their own reasons, but it's interesting to know what it actually stands for.

[Stal]

Luz said:

One more thing, there is a high rate of crime among blacks, does that make racial profiling against them okay? I don't think so...

I'm going to get myself into trouble for saying this, but yes I'd say as long as the demographics of an area substantiate it and it wasn't aimed at every single black person.

You're actually talking all in general. Myself? I'm talking those few that look and act like the type that the high theft rate is actually among. You'd better believe I'd keep an eye on any grungy looking person that walked into a store of mine (regardless of color. Race has nothing to do with this). Especially if I knew in the area I was in had a high crime rate among the teens (once more, of any color) and among those teens the type that look like trouble. I have nothing against that form of profiling. As I said, I know for a fact I get the same scrutiny. It's no different.

EDIT --

To further clarify what I mean, I will say this. Let's say that you had two people. You had to keep an eye on one of them. For the point of this argument I'll throw in race/color. The first two you have is a middle-aged to elderly black woman and the second is a trashy, punk looking, asking for trouble white teen. Who would you keep track of? The teen, no doubt.

Colors reversed, the result would be the same. Throw in middle eastern, arab, asian or anyone else, I'm fairly sure the result would be the same. You'd always watch the one that looks like trouble as opposed to those that don't look it.

[shimmer2]

Buddy said:

Toche. However, again, as a matter or note and record, things like this exist everywhere. Know the Second Amendment, the one that says people can not be forced to house soldiers against the owner's will? It actually says that such rule can be suspended during time of crisis.

The same goes with the rule saying a person has to be charged with something to be held in jail (there's a name for it, though I've forgotten it). Such a thing was done during the Civil War, when Lincoln imprisoned many Maryland politicians for fear they might influence Maryland to succeed.

As Lincoln once put it, "Sometimes actions must be taken in times of war that would not normally be taken in times of peace", or something like that. Does it nessecarily justify the Patriot Act? Well, I'd have to read more about it to make a real decision. But just some food for thought - just because the capability to abuse powers is there, doesn't mean it will automatically be done.

Though, I'm sure many can't help but be worried...

Yes, stuff like this has been done many times in the past. Now when we look back at them some things are viewed as fairly wise decisions, like Lincoln's imprisoning Maryland politicians, and some are viewed by most as wrong, like the Japanese encampments during WWII. I think the Patriot act is the child of fear, and we will not know it's true effects until years from now when we can look on it with a critical, neutral eye. However, I also believe history is written by the victors; If the South had won the Civil War, would Lincoln's decision have been viewed there as just? Or would it have been used as justification for seccession?

Yuki said:

To further clarify what I mean, I will say this. Let's say that you had two people. You had to keep an eye on one of them. For the point of this argument I'll throw in race/color. The first two you have is a middle-aged to elderly black woman and the second is a trashy, punk looking, asking for trouble white teen. Who would you keep track of? The teen, no doubt.

...And wouldn't it be ironic if the black lady pulled out a gun and shot you?
Anyway, I really shouldn't have gotten involved in this conversation in the first place, especially since I find it difficult to stop arguing. Do me a favor and yell at me if I post here again...

[Stal]

Shimmerieeeee said:

...And wouldn't it be ironic if the black lady pulled out a gun and shot you?
Anyway, I really shouldn't have gotten involved in this conversation in the first place, especially since I find it difficult to stop arguing. Do me a favor and yell at me if I post here again...

Extremely ironic. ;D

Hey, no problem. I'm the same way and I leave for camp tomorrow. I shouldn't be posting in this thread period. XD

[Deleted]

I'm having trouble with just about everything the Bush administration has done and is doing.

While I do believe it was necessary to remove Saddam and the people who worked with him, I think it's past the time to pull troops out of Iraq. I also don't believe that we should force "democracy" upon them.