The Patriot Act, etc.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Stal, you don't seem to understand how businesses handle shoplifting and what triggers investigation of a person in regards to shoplifting.

I work at a large electronic retailer who occasionaly has huge problems with something known as 'shrink' (Shrink = a loss of inventory) I know first hand how we deal with shrink because I've been assigned to people for 'powerserving'. Powerserving is when you think that someone has been or is contemplating shoplifting, and you follow them around, asking them frequently if they need help and alerting everyone in the area to do the same.

How do we decide who to powerserve? Well, we don't look at the 'punky' kid coming in and decide he's a theft risk. We don't look at or target anyone based on race. We don't care what they look like, and it doesn't matter what age or race they are. It is behavior, and not a demographic that alerts us. We do not suspect or tail anyone until they exhibit the following types of behavior;

*If someone has large, empty bags and has been in our store a long time.

*Suspicious lumps in clothing

*Someone carrying five or six copies of the same CD or DVD.

*People who keep picking up product, carrying it around, setting it down in odd locations.

*People who cover the contents of their carts or baskets with jackets.

* People who knick return carts

* People with product who try to head to the batchroom

*People with product who go out of the way to avoid you, or get nervous when you try to talk to them.

Etc.

Our loss prevention team monitors EVERYONE, we watch them casually until someone exhibits suspicious behaviour. THEN we think they're up to something.

We might use profiling, if it WORKED. We are specifically told NOT to profile, because when we profile we miss the real theives. Quote our LP manager; "I don't care what they look like, how old they are, if they're black or white, if they're a little old lady, if they're wearing a suit and a tie- when I worked in the Springfeild store, we busted a ring of people who would come in in dress clothes and proceed to rip us off. There is no way to tell who is a shoplifter just by appearance."

We have just as many old as young, just as many black as white, just as many poor as rich steal from us. Profiling does not work.

"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."

Demographics have very little to do with it also. We're next to Wilmington, a city with a large black population. But we DON'T have a higher than normal precentage of black shoplifters.

As for police profiling, police RACIAL profiling, that doesn't work either. Police profiling is nothing but racist. It is literally based on the assumption that every black man with a nice car is a drug dealer. Racial profiling is a subject that I've always been actively persuing information on. The real statistics don't back up any claims that profiling police districts have. I urge anyone interested to read the book 'Profiles of Injustice'. Which provides many statistics and sources which support their claim that such profiling doesn't work (more sources than the other side has claming that it does work) It also brings the point home with many testimonies from people who have been victims of racial profiling.

One of the worst stories was of a black lawyer and his family who were returning home from a funeral. He was pulled over for a minor traffic violation. (I think it was a burnt out tail light.) and asked if they could search his vehicle. He, being the edjucated man he was, knew that they had no grounds on which to search. So he excercised his right to refuse a search. Now, he had nothing to hide and if he had let them search they would have not found anything. But he was a person of principle, and of a conviction that I admire. (Moreover his family was in the car and I know that I wouldn't want my children to see me allowing the law to tromp all over me.)

So they brought a dog in. (If the dog reacts, it gives just cause for a search, even if there is no just cause for the search prior to the arrival of the canine unit.) They believed that the reaction of the dog was sufficeint to strip down the car. They even went so far as to remove the panneling of the doors of the car.

The search and reassembly of the car took upwards of five hours. The police found nothing, (because there was nothing to find) and he was eventually sent on his way without apology.

Imagine coming home from a funeral, as stressed and broken as that can leave you, and then having your car pillaged by police for no good reason. Now think about how you would feel knowing that this would not have happened to you if you were white.

Another story (These are true and contain information that can be used to verify the stories) involves a hispanic man coming back from a trip in Mexico. He was stopped by the border police (and this isn't the first time) and had all of his papers and credentials checked simply because he was of Mexican desent and he was driving a pick up truck. This man was an American judge!

Not to mention profiling the 'Muslims'. After September 11th, in my town at the Food Lion, (This I can validate beyond any shadow of a doubt because I know the witness and the person whom it happened too.) Mrs. Patel an INDIAN woman who is a citizen of this country was shopping. People, seeing her dark complexion and hearing her accented English, started yelling at her. Total strangers in a grocery store screaming at her, calling her a murderer and a 'camel humper.' This woman has known enough heart ache. She'd lost two of her sons in a deadly car crash; one died instantly and the other was on lifesupport until the disicion to cut off the support was made. She was a substitute teacher at the Highschool, an active member of the community and a good person. Please remember that we live in a country were some people can't tell the darn DIFFERENCE between a muslim from Afghanistan from a hindu from India. These people were blindly mocking a woman who taught their own children.

I blame profiling largely for this. I can't help but blame government sanctioned racism for the way Middle Eastern (And Cuban and Mexican) are all being grouped together as murderers and terrorists because of their skin colour because our government has through it's actions said; "Yeah, all Muslims are terrorists."

As for the thought that if we are in 'enough danger' the constitution doesn't matter... Even if it has been done in the past, that doesn't make it right in the present. People also used to own people in this country. Women didn't used to be able to vote or own property. We are in a position to not repeat the sins of the past. We as a country do not have to conceed to something we feel is unjust just because the 'did it before'.

Furthermore, to say that 'just because the loophole allows the government to abuse it, doesn't mean they will.' Well, history will, and has seen me out on this one. In America, in which many of us live, the government has not always acted in the best intrest of it's people. Our government is run by human beings, and as such has the flaw that our officials sometimes put themselves and their interests first, as all people do sometimes.

Ours is a government that has administered LSD to fighter piliots without their knowledge to see what it would do to thier flying abilities.

As for freedom of speach, the thing that is so valued by this country, (In fact, it's just about the only thing that makes us a 'free nation.) our government has done horrible things in the past to people who have dared to excercise it.

In the nineteen seventies, a time a hair's breadth away from most of our births and a tangeble memory for others in this forum, to government ASSASINATED American citizens who's political veiws made the government feel 'threatened.' The government killed members of the Black Panthers. No, this is not some crazy conspiracy theory I'm pulling out of the air. There is actual government documentation of this avalible thanks to the 'Freedom of Information Act' - which I love, for making the government and the people more equal and for making the internet an even more fun place.

Here's a link discussing the opposition of the Patriot Act held by booksellers, librarians, religious centers and more; www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000158.shtml
It's section 215 of the Patriot Act that they oppose.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

Here's some actual scary-scary text from the Patriot Act that has people up in arms. (So to speak) The afforementioned Section 215 and it's related parts.

"SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.
Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

`SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.
`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.

`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period--

`(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and
`(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'.
"

Now this is not 'misinformed/exaggerated/lies' from 'political opponents'. This is a part of the Act itself.
Under this section, if a person is suspected of being involved with terrorism for ANY reason that is not limited to their excercising of first amendment rights, the government can come in and get documentation from libraries, religious organizations, booksellers, etc.

This is how it goes down according to this section; If the government decides to investigate someone and it's decided that they can, the call together a court which decides what information they can go get access to. This happens without the knowledge of the third party. (such as a library) The government then comes in a seizes the needed documents. However, not only could the third party not object to the decision (Because they have no way of knowing about it before they're served) once the FBI comes in and gets their information, a gag order goes into place forbiding the employees of the third party to discuss the investigation to anyone who is not directly involved in getting the information to the government.

This is one of the most disturbing aspects; If the government finds out what books you are reading, and for some reason decide that it is related to your possible terroristic activities, they could easily cross-referance your reading with other suspects and compile a sort of literary 'black list' where reading certain books could red flag you as a terrorist. Even further than this, the library cannot let any of it's patrons know that the government is conducting an investigation and that their records may become known to and scrutinized by the government.

Just because there are POSITIVE things in this Act, such as the applaudable section 102, doesn't make the Act a good or positive thing that we're just 'over-reacting' towards. That's what we (Opposed parties and other involved folks) are trying to do. We're not trying to unpass the Act persay, we're trying to get rid of the parts that are unconstitutional or that threaten our liberties.

I'm not going to be like the Eagle in the Aesop's fable that drops a feather used on the arrow shaft that later kills it. I'm not going to sew the seeds of my own ruin, or allow them to stand where I believe they exist. It's my right and my duty to protect the freedoms that I hold dear.

You can't say that the government will never misuse the dangerous or threatening sections of this because they haven't yet anymore than you can tell me a person holding a loaded gun is harmless because they haven't fired it yet. In that situations, you disarm the man and you unload the pistol.

(As if you couldn't tell; I'm the kind of person who considers a banned book list my summer required reading. ^____^ These freedoms I hold precious above all.)

[Princess Ember Mononoke]

Teow, if you had just delivered all that as a speech, I would give you a standing ovation. You are one of the smartest, wisest, best-informed people I know, and I cannot begin to tell you how much I admire you for that.

[Patjade]

Yuki said:

Pat, may I ask you what freedoms have been taken away? Have there been freedoms taken away from you? Is your life still the same way it was before the Patriot Act was passed, or has it changed for the worse?

I really would like to know, because it sounds like you're extremely angry and speaking from experience here. But at the same time, if there's been no change in your life (and the life of many other Americans), and no loss of freedoms for you...then what is there to be angry about?

((EDIT -- I had to change the sound of my post. It sounded like an interrogation at first and not just curiosity...still doesn't sound right. ))

I am an American that works overseas. In the travels back to the USA since 9/11, I have been subjected to extra scrutiny. They tear apart my kuggage, there is no apology for what is damaged. This is even towards someone who is retired military, still works with the government, and carries a security clearance.

My mail is routinely ransacked and damaged, and the only excuse is "Sorry, increased security, bear with it and file a claim."

Tell me if it is freedom or fair or right or just, or even legal. My mailing address is a military post office and is considered US territory.

[Patjade]

Buddy said:

I was actually thinking the same thing. People don't care if people's rights are getting taken away - as long as it's not their rights. This is a sad, but ultimately true, piece of human nature we are all probably guilty of at one point or another.

So what if Al Muhammad down the street is getting his phone tapped for no reason? So what if soldiers are dieing over in Iraq everyday? It's not my phone, right? It's not my son or daughter, right? Why should I care?...

Exactly. As long as Joe Blow down the street can sit back in his easy chair, drink his beer, watch Monday Night Football or Idle American, he doesn't give a flying fig WHAT happens, until his sports game or "reality TV" show gets preempted. By then, it'll be too late.

Sheeple are just too stupid, and America now reminds me of the waning days of the Roman Empire. Everyone is all set on their own personal comfort and entertainment, ad as long as it doesn't affect THEM, personally, they don't give a flying fig as to what happens to the person next door or down the street.

[Stal]

TheEaterofWorlds said:

Stal, you don't seem to understand how businesses handle shoplifting and what triggers investigation of a person in regards to shoplifting.

Next time, know who you're talking to before you make an assumption such as that. I do know what I'm talking about.

You seem to think I'm saying profiling is an end-all and only possible method. If you read what I said earlier, I said it was not the best method, but it does work (Or at least in my area, it works quite well). If you noticed, I said you keep and eye on those that exhibit traits of trouble. I used certain examples not wishing to go indepth. And that's exactly what your store does. When people show traits of trouble, you keep an eye on them.

Let's quote some of the things I said:

I do not mind some extra attention being given to those who have the red flags go up

Red flags being warning signs. Isn't that what your store does?

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

Saying that it's not the best.

Now I go on and speak more of the demographics of my part of the USA. We've got security and cameras in the store I refer to, but the salespeople don't have them. And so they keep an eye on everyone, giving extra attention to those that look and act like the type they have a high crime rate with. And you know what? It's worked extremely well.

And I don't advocate racial profiling in the least. I simply don't mind those that set off warning signals getting the extra attention. That's all I'm saying, and perhaps I'm not sending the right signals in my words.

In any case, this is it for me on the thread. I'm taking off for the week in a little more than an hour.

[Stal]

Patjade said:

Sheeple are just too stupid, and America now reminds me of the waning days of the Roman Empire.

And ancient Jerusalem before their captivity and destruction.

We are the epitome of a culture in decline and decay. I have my own beliefs as to how it got this way, though, but in the end it's still practically dead. Or getting there.

In any case, Pat, I'm sorry to hear that stuff that's going on. No, that's not right and something should be done about it.

[Princess Ember Mononoke]

Patjade said:

Sheeple are just too stupid, and America now reminds me of the waning days of the Roman Empire. Everyone is all set on their own personal comfort and entertainment, ad as long as it doesn't affect THEM, personally, they don't give a flying fig as to what happens to the person next door or down the street.

Funny, I was thinking of Ancient Rome too, only more about how it went from being a Republic to an Empire. It's history's proof that even the best ideas can go bad if people allow them to. Of course, I don't really think we're all that close to anything like that happening, but the danger is evident.

[TheEaterofWorlds]

"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... "

Your responce: "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."

If it wasn't targeting every black person, it wouldn't be racial profiling, now would it? It's called racial profiling because they profile everyone in a certain race. If they're targeting high risk behaviour in general, it's not a racial profile.

There is a huge difference between profiling in general and racial profiling.

"Now I go on and speak more of the demographics of my part of the USA. We've got security and cameras in the store I refer to, but the salespeople don't have them. And so they keep an eye on everyone, giving extra attention to those that look and act like the type they have a high crime rate with. And you know what? It's worked extremely well."

Those who look like the type they have a crime rate with? Those that stores have a high crime rate with are people who shove things into their pockets. Not people from the 13-20 range. Or people who are Mexican or Black.

You're saying (and have said in your prior post) that it's understandable for stores to target younger people. I'm saying that's not what works, that's not what gets results. When people follow you around the store, it's because you are carrying a bag and wearing a large coat. It is not (or I should say, should not) be because of your age.

It's the ACT like, not the LOOK like, that works. Potential to shoplift has nothing to do with age or race and everything to do with showing signs that they are shoplifting or about to shoplift.

"giving extra attention to those that look and act like the type they have a high crime rate with. And you know what? It's worked extremely well" I know I'm quoting this part again, and that's because I want to make this as clear as I can; the part that works is monitoring suspicious behaviour, not saying 'Oh, better watch our for those teenagers, they steal things.'

If profiling based on age or race works so well, how about you tell me what age or race I should be looking out for? You can't, because it doesn't work. There is no particular age group or race responsible for shoplifting. If you only target people based on their age or their race, you will miss the real theives because you will be too busy chasing innocent people.

[Buddy]

*sits back* It's like watching two giants swing punches at each other! Really, this is cool! And it's good not to be in the middle for once.

[Oily]

Ember said:

Funny, I was thinking of Ancient Rome too, only more about how it went from being a Republic to an Empire. It's history's proof that even the best ideas can go bad if people allow them to. Of course, I don't really think we're all that close to anything like that happening, but the danger is evident.

I was thinking of Rome on how it descended into individual selfishness and then a great empire was destroyed by outside enemies due to its own failures

A little bit of doomsaying every day keeps the doctor away

I agree that racial profiling etc is often taken too far - I've heard stories about what was basically racism sanctioned by government. A British journalist travelled to America - he was thrown in jail for a night with no food or water or access to a phone to call someone, due to apparent failure to repay part of a payment on a car five years ago in Jordan, something that he knew nothing about. He was then deported back to England the next day.

I know I get watched more in stores than older people - but that's because it is generally assumed we are more likely to steal things. And I think that's true - we do cause more trouble, generally, and are thus more watched. And people bias on things like accent too. *shrugs*

I've learnt to trust nothing - I'm sure our Government could very easily collect everything on everyone tomorrow, legal or not, because they'd wrangle their way around it, or just do it illegally. Apparently Labour's trying to fix the British elections anyway.

Whoever said the victors rewrite history was true. The atrocities are always committed by those who lost (Not to say that the atrocities weren't actually done, just that the winners' ones are airbrushed over.)

[sabreur]

I'm back! On my sisters computer, but I'm back! Mine is currently disassembled due to moving out of the dorms.

In any case, this board seems to have taken a rather drastic turn. I hate to squelch anyone's ideas, but it might be better to create separate boards for the topics that are only remotely related to the Patriot act, such as racial profiling and whether military action in Iraq was necessary. It's a lot easier to debate when there's a limited set of subjects, and a lot more productive as well. For now, let's keep this board focused on the Patriot Act itself.

On the subject of seizure of foreign property during a crisis, I can see why there is some concern. However, the law is actually fairly simple and common-sense. If a foreign power attacks the USA, the last thing we want is for that same power to make money off us during the crisis. War traverses a lot of boundaries, including economic ones - acts like this allow us to limit an enemy's assets and threaten them with loss of profit. If anything, this strikes me as far more benevolent than actual military force, as it provides a potentially peaceful way of averting crisis (just as economic sanctions have been used in the past).

As for concerns of abuse, I'm pretty sure this law only applies to political, not personal entities. So if Azreabiyuae (made up name) attacked us, we could seize assets in the USA belonging to Azreabiyuae, but not assets belonging to Azreabiyuaens living in the States.

And yes, foreign governments do invest in the USA. Historically, even hostile governments invest in the USA. Go figure. Profit is profit, I guess.

- Sabreur

P.S. If by some coincidence Azreabiyuae is a real name, I apologize to any Azreabiyuaens who may have been offended.

[sabreur]

TheEaterofWorlds said:

Here's some actual scary-scary text from the Patriot Act that has people up in arms. (So to speak) The afforementioned Section 215 and it's related parts.

"SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.
Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

`SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.
`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.

`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period--

`(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and
`(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'.
"

Now this is not 'misinformed/exaggerated/lies' from 'political opponents'. This is a part of the Act itself.
Under this section, if a person is suspected of being involved with terrorism for ANY reason that is not limited to their excercising of first amendment rights, the government can come in and get documentation from libraries, religious organizations, booksellers, etc.

This is how it goes down according to this section; If the government decides to investigate someone and it's decided that they can, the call together a court which decides what information they can go get access to. This happens without the knowledge of the third party. (such as a library) The government then comes in a seizes the needed documents. However, not only could the third party not object to the decision (Because they have no way of knowing about it before they're served) once the FBI comes in and gets their information, a gag order goes into place forbiding the employees of the third party to discuss the investigation to anyone who is not directly involved in getting the information to the government.

This is one of the most disturbing aspects; If the government finds out what books you are reading, and for some reason decide that it is related to your possible terroristic activities, they could easily cross-referance your reading with other suspects and compile a sort of literary 'black list' where reading certain books could red flag you as a terrorist. Even further than this, the library cannot let any of it's patrons know that the government is conducting an investigation and that their records may become known to and scrutinized by the government.

Just because there are POSITIVE things in this Act, such as the applaudable section 102, doesn't make the Act a good or positive thing that we're just 'over-reacting' towards. That's what we (Opposed parties and other involved folks) are trying to do. We're not trying to unpass the Act persay, we're trying to get rid of the parts that are unconstitutional or that threaten our liberties.

I'm not going to be like the Eagle in the Aesop's fable that drops a feather used on the arrow shaft that later kills it. I'm not going to sew the seeds of my own ruin, or allow them to stand where I believe they exist. It's my right and my duty to protect the freedoms that I hold dear.

You can't say that the government will never misuse the dangerous or threatening sections of this because they haven't yet anymore than you can tell me a person holding a loaded gun is harmless because they haven't fired it yet. In that situations, you disarm the man and you unload the pistol.

(As if you couldn't tell; I'm the kind of person who considers a banned book list my summer required reading. ^____^ These freedoms I hold precious above all.)

Ah, good old section 215. Possibly the most misunderstood part of the entire package.

First off, seizure of written materials is only possible after an application The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge). In other words, this isn't something the FBI can do every time it pleases.

Second, even the Director can only request such materials. A court order is required to actually get the items. In order to get a court order, hard evidence must be presented under oath - in short, a criminal or terrorist investigation must already be well underway for the person in progress. Mere "suspicion" of terrorism is inadequate.

In addition, this law can't be used to just grab anything - first amendment stuff, such as your library reading list is specifically protected. Also, there is the question of information retention - the FBI is required by law to only investigate criminal or terrorist activity. If an investigation turns up information not directly relevant to criminal or terrorist activity that information must be discarded.

There is also the question of delaying notification of the party being investigated. Now, call me crazy, but I think this is a great idea. I've heard of this thing called "destruction of evidence". It would be kinda hard to run an investigation if the FBI were required to call up the suspect and tell them "Uh yeah, this is the FBI, we're coming over to your apartment to pick up those incriminating documents you have, would you mind not destroying them before we get there? Thanks!"

Besides, it's not like the entire investigation can be carried out in total secrecy - the request for obtaining evidence is legally required to be documented, the court order is documented, the investigation itself is documented, and the whole thing is subject to oversight. Short of a massive bipartisan government wide conspiracy of X-Files proportions, this stuff can't be kept in the dark for very long.

The primary purpose of this law is to allow access to records. For example, you might recall a couple of charitable organizations being busted recently when it was discovered that they were funelling money to terrorists. Without this law to gain access to those organization's tangible, written financial records, those busts might never have happened.

Lastly, I'm sorry - but the idea of a "black list" of banned reading being compiled from a terrorist's reading list is just absurd. There is no legal precedent for it, either in the Patriot Act or elsewhere.

- Sabreur

[Princess Ember Mononoke]

Sabreur said:

Ah, good old section 215. Possibly the most misunderstood part of the entire package.

First off, seizure of written materials is only possible after an application The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge). In other words, this isn't something the FBI can do every time it pleases.

Second, even the Director can only request such materials. A court order is required to actually get the items. In order to get a court order, hard evidence must be presented under oath - in short, a criminal or terrorist investigation must already be well underway for the person in progress. Mere "suspicion" of terrorism is inadequate.

In addition, this law can't be used to just grab anything - first amendment stuff, such as your library reading list is specifically protected. Also, there is the question of information retention - the FBI is required by law to only investigate criminal or terrorist activity. If an investigation turns up information not directly relevant to criminal or terrorist activity that information must be discarded.

There is also the question of delaying notification of the party being investigated. Now, call me crazy, but I think this is a great idea. I've heard of this thing called "destruction of evidence". It would be kinda hard to run an investigation if the FBI were required to call up the suspect and tell them "Uh yeah, this is the FBI, we're coming over to your apartment to pick up those incriminating documents you have, would you mind not destroying them before we get there? Thanks!"

Besides, it's not like the entire investigation can be carried out in total secrecy - the request for obtaining evidence is legally required to be documented, the court order is documented, the investigation itself is documented, and the whole thing is subject to oversight. Short of a massive bipartisan government wide conspiracy of X-Files proportions, this stuff can't be kept in the dark for very long.

The primary purpose of this law is to allow access to records. For example, you might recall a couple of charitable organizations being busted recently when it was discovered that they were funelling money to terrorists. Without this law to gain access to those organization's tangible, written financial records, those busts might never have happened.

Lastly, I'm sorry - but the idea of a "black list" of banned reading being compiled from a terrorist's reading list is just absurd. There is no legal precedent for it, either in the Patriot Act or elsewhere.

- Sabreur

Well that's good to know. Thanks for straightening that out.

*grabs popcorn and chocolate covered raisins* and plops down next to Buddy* You're right Bude! This IS good! *eats a raisin* Oi, we're such nerds, thinking a political debate is fine entertainment.

[Tdyans]

I'd just like to say that I appreciate all of the information and points of view being so civilly discussed on this thread. Like a lot of other people, I didn't really know much at all about what the Patriot Act really entailed until now, so I'm really enjoying learning about it and how people are interpreting it.