The Patriot Act, etc.

[jeska]

This is one of the most entertaining debates I have read in a while, as well as the most informative. Up until now, I only had dim conceptions of what the Patriot Act was, exactly. Now I am understanding it a lot more, and I'm finding the different positions on it very interesting. Keep up the good work! ^_^

By the way, thanks for putting a lot of my fears to rest, Sabreur, though you didn't know you were doing it. My mom and I are taking Arabic lessons at a local mosque, her because she most of her patients (she is an OBGYN) are Muslim, and I because it would be another check for me when it comes to realizing my dream (getting into the FBI, they like people who can speak Arabic nowadays). When I first heard about the Patriot Act, I was afraid Mom & I might be targeted, because we spend so much time at the mosque (where we obviously don't belong) and are always checking out books in Arabic. Now, I'm pretty secure about this Patriot Act not working against us. Okay, that ended up longer than I meant it to be, but... oh well.

Somebody said something about Lincoln earlier, and how his actions may not have been considered just if the South had won the war. Maybe it is because I live in the South, but anyone who actually knows the stuff Lincoln did during the war doesn't consider it just, at least down here. Just felt impelled to point that out.

[Crystal]

Buddy said:

*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.

*plops down next to Buddy* You got that right. Buttered popcorn anyone? Ember?

[Buddy]

Seriously, I don't know which side I prefer now!

[Crystal]

Buddy said:

Seriously, I don't know which side I prefer now!

I don't live in the US, so it doesn't affect me, so I'm neutral and eating popcorn on the issue. *watches debate in glee*

[shimmer2]

Yes, I'm going to post here again. Go ahead and yell at me. I'm sure you'll look brilliant yelling at your computer screen.

Sabreur said:

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.

Might I remind you that the title of the board is "The Patriot Act, etc."
Anyhow, what do you consider "political entities"? Foreign investments can be made by individuals and corporations. If the US government were going to seize foreign assets, I sincerely doubt they would take time to differenciate.
As long as the Azreabiyuaens in the States have an Azreabiyuae citizenship rather than an American one, the government could very well decide to take their property and call it a foreign investment. However, I doubt the government would go through the effort unless there is a large profit to be made from it.
As for investing in other countries, the US (including citizens and corporations) invests in other countries all the time. The US actually "intervened" in some Latin American countries under the Roosevelt corollary of the Monroe Doctrine to protect American investments. There is actually some speculation that for both WWI and WWII, the presidents wanted to join to protect American investments (many of which belonged to their friends) and were hoping for something to happen that would give them an excuse.

[shimmer2]

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

Just because all the entire investigation will be documented doesn't mean the documents will be publicized any time soon. It can be years or even decades before such documents are exposed and Americans can decide if the investigations were carried out fairly.
If there is enough suspicion, the FBI launches an investigation. Because the court order will be requested in private, the FBI can present a very one-sided case. Also, there is a large amount of pressure on judges, none wants to be the one who "let the terrorist get away." I do believe more often than not judges will let the FBI have their way. However, I don't have statistic to back up my belief, because they haven't exactly been made public (or at least not to my limited knowledge).
Actually, the FBI can investigate your library readings. That is why librarians object to the Patriot Act. They, and other Americans, believe that library records are to be kept between librarians and the individuals, just as doctors are to keep patients' medical records and lawyers are to keep their clients' conversations with them. What worries many people is that letting the Patriot Act go will set a future precedent for infringing upon people's rights which will be taken even further.
Did you know that the idea of secession started in the North? At the Hartford Convention, a group of Federalists were upset by the 1812 war with England and talked of leaving the US. THe same thing happened during the Louisiana purchase. Later the South took the idea and tried to leave the Union. My point is such laws and ideas can snowball over time.
Another fear is that Patriot Act will start a notion of "anything you read can and will be used against you in the court of law."

[shimmer2]

Jeskann said:

Somebody said something about Lincoln earlier, and how his actions may not have been considered just if the South had won the war. Maybe it is because I live in the South, but anyone who actually knows the stuff Lincoln did during the war doesn't consider it just, at least down here. Just felt impelled to point that out.

What I was trying to say was that history would have been recorded different had the South succeeded in secession. I actually live in the South. My great-great-great grandfather was a Confederate soldier (although I'm not sure if he willingly enrolled or was drafted). I'm not going to go up to my grandparents and start talking about what a great man Sherman was and how he must have had a pleasant march to the sea. However, you must admit that the history books we study in school present Lincoln as a great man because of how he kept the Union together. If the country had split, you, I and most other Southern students would probably be reading about how the South courageously left the Union run by that horrible tyrant Abraham Lincoln. Although I can't say for sure because, well, it didn't happen.

[Buddy]

Shimmerieeeee said:

Just because all the entire investigation will be documented doesn't mean the documents will be publicized any time soon. It can be years or even decades before such documents are exposed and Americans can decide if the investigations were carried out fairly.
If there is enough suspicion, the FBI launches an investigation. Because the court order will be requested in private, the FBI can present a very one-sided case. Also, there is a large amount of pressure on judges, none wants to be the one who "let the terrorist get away." I do believe more often than not judges will let the FBI have their way. However, I don't have statistic to back up my belief, because they haven't exactly been made public (or at least not to my limited knowledge).
Actually, the FBI can investigate your library readings. That is why librarians object to the Patriot Act. They, and other Americans, believe that library records are to be kept between librarians and the individuals, just as doctors are to keep patients' medical records and lawyers are to keep their clients' conversations with them. What worries many people is that letting the Patriot Act go will set a future precedent for infringing upon people's rights which will be taken even further.
Did you know that the idea of secession started in the North? At the Hartford Convention, a group of Federalists were upset by the 1812 war with England and talked of leaving the US. THe same thing happened during the Louisiana purchase. Later the South took the idea and tried to leave the Union. My point is such laws and ideas can snowball over time.
Another fear is that Patriot Act will start a notion of "anything you read can and will be used against you in the court of law."

Just a few notes:

As far as keeping the request for a warrant secret, here's a little tid-bit of information for you: everyday, police departments all over the country request warrants to search/seize/arrest. Do you think the police ever make it known to the person they intend to search/arrest that they're getting a warrant? The concept of keeping it secret is not a new one that somebody suddenly came up with a few years ago. It's always happened.

What the F.B.I. does is no different than what every other police department must do. In order to arrest someone or search someplace, they must go to a judge and request a warrant. The judge looks at what they have, then decides if it merits a search or arrest. This is how it's always been done. Nothing new.

As for library records, well, my question is, who cares? So what if the F.B.I. knows what I read? Big deal. I don't care. They can go through all the library records they want, it doesn't matter to me. Anyways, to aquire such records, they would need a warrant. So really, the usefullness of said records is cut down, since the agency must already have enough evidence to subpena the records to start with.

[shimmer2]

Buddy said:

Just a few notes:

As far as keeping the request for a warrant secret, here's a little tid-bit of information for you: everyday, police departments all over the country request warrants to search/seize/arrest. Do you think the police ever make it known to the person they intend to search/arrest that they're getting a warrant? The concept of keeping it secret is not a new one that somebody suddenly came up with a few years ago. It's always happened.

What the F.B.I. does is no different than what every other police department must do. In order to arrest someone or search someplace, they must go to a judge and request a warrant. The judge looks at what they have, then decides if it merits a search or arrest. This is how it's always been done. Nothing new.

As for library records, well, my question is, who cares? So what if the F.B.I. knows what I read? Big deal. I don't care. They can go through all the library records they want, it doesn't matter to me. Anyways, to aquire such records, they would need a warrant. So really, the usefullness of said records is cut down, since the agency must already have enough evidence to subpena the records to start with.

Yes, I do understand the regular process of getting a warrant. I took ELP, although I will admit that I wasn't really thinking of regular search warrants when typing that last comment (and it didn't help that I was being rushed off the computer).
However, the problem people have with the Patriot Act's search warrant process is that it is more clandestine. I have never heard of gag orders with regular criminal search warrants, although they could very well exist.
As for the library records, it's like I said before, many people believe it is the right of the person checking out the books to have their records kept between them and the librarians. You may not mind people looking at your records, but others may find theirs more personal and prefer them kept secret. Although I don't believe there is anything "incriminating' in my library records, I still wouldn't want anyone reading them. I hate it when people say "If you don't have anything to hide, why do you care?". It's the concept of having your privacy ensured. Also, as I said before, in trials, they tend to take every little thing and use it as some sort of evidence. The same very well could be done with everything you read.
THere was actually an article in my local newspaper once about librarians opposing the Patriot Act. THey didn't like having to turn over other people's library records and they didn't like the way they couldn't say anything to anyone. They couldn't even tell the reporters whether or not they had been asked to turn over someone's records.
It's that forced secrecy that makes people uncomfortable and angry.
(Randomness: All this talk of libraries reminds me that I should be working on my summer reading. )

[jeska]

Shimmerieeeee said:

What I was trying to say was that history would have been recorded different had the South succeeded in secession. I actually live in the South. My great-great-great grandfather was a Confederate soldier (although I'm not sure if he willingly enrolled or was drafted). I'm not going to go up to my grandparents and start talking about what a great man Sherman was and how he must have had a pleasant march to the sea. However, you must admit that the history books we study in school present Lincoln as a great man because of how he kept the Union together. If the country had split, you, I and most other Southern students would probably be reading about how the South courageously left the Union run by that horrible tyrant Abraham Lincoln. Although I can't say for sure because, well, it didn't happen.

Hehe, our US History books are a tad different. Mrs. Fowler is paranoid about how history is biased in history books, so she assigns us independent reading books. One of which was basically a rant against the tyrant-like actions taken by Lincoln during the war. XD

On another note: I don't think the government is as "Big Brother-ish" as to actually bother to scan people's library lists. How would it help anything? How could it really help an investigation?

[Crystal]

Jeskann said:

Hehe, our US History books are a tad different. Mrs. Fowler is paranoid about how history is biased in history books, so she assigns us independent reading books. One of which was basically a rant against the tyrant-like actions taken by Lincoln during the war. XD

. . .

In my opinion, all History books are biased. Especially mine.

Would you believe that of the *checks* 10 chapters we have to study this year, 4 and a half of them are all based totally on Islam? It's like they're trying to convert us, we have to learn about Muhammad's birthdate, how Islam spread from Mecca to Madinah, from there to the rest of the world, how much of a good guy Muhammad was (seriously, there are 5 pages all on how good a guy he was.) We have to learn about the Islam holy book, the Quran, (surah al-Alaq (the first vision-type thing to ever come to Muhammad), surah al-Muddasir (the second) and so on and so forth). And the names of his friends and children and followers. And how he was amanah, fatanah, tabliq and siddiq (that's in Arabic, I forgot the meanings).

It's so STUPID. And what does Christianity get? One page in the second chapter. What does Hinduism and Buddhism get? A quarter chapter each, and that only because we were studying about India. Where do we study about America? Nowhere, or maybe next year. Russia? Africa? Nope. Europe? One chapter, and that's because the British conquered Malaysia later on. And they were always portrayed as the bad bad bad guys. Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia? Nopishness. Instead we get 115 pages to study, all on ISLAM. My History book is undoubtedly the most biased thing I have ever laid eyes on, and that's a fact.

Now you know why I was so happy when the guy who made up this IDIOTIC syllabus got arrested on charges of sodomy and thrown into jail. I hope he stays there for a long, long time.

Boy, this turned from a simple reply to a full blown rant. Sorry guys.

[jeska]

Crystal said:

. . .

In my opinion, all History books are biased. Especially mine.

Would you believe that of the *checks* 10 chapters we have to study this year, 4 and a half of them are all based totally on Islam? It's like they're trying to convert us, we have to learn about Muhammad's birthdate, how Islam spread from Mecca to Madinah, from there to the rest of the world, how much of a good guy Muhammad was (seriously, there are 5 pages all on how good a guy he was.) We have to learn about the Islam holy book, the Quran, (surah al-Alaq (the first vision-type thing to ever come to Muhammad), surah al-Muddasir (the second) and so on and so forth). And the names of his friends and children and followers. And how he was amanah, fatanah, tabliq and siddiq (that's in Arabic, I forgot the meanings).

It's so STUPID. And what does Christianity get? One page in the second chapter. What does Hinduism and Buddhism get? A quarter chapter each, and that only because we were studying about India. Where do we study about America? Nowhere, or maybe next year. Russia? Africa? Nope. Europe? One chapter, and that's because the British conquered Malaysia later on. And they were always portrayed as the bad bad bad guys. Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia? Nopishness. Instead we get 115 pages to study, all on ISLAM. My History book is undoubtedly the most biased thing I have ever laid eyes on, and that's a fact.

Now you know why I was so happy when the guy who made up this IDIOTIC syllabus got arrested on charges of sodomy and thrown into jail. I hope he stays there for a long, long time.

Boy, this turned from a simple reply to a full blown rant. Sorry guys.

What is your history book called? I've heard about one like that on the news...

[thegreenmooseofdoom]

Buddy said:

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). .

Writ of habeus corpus? Or what that the right to a fair trial...? Eh, it's either of those.

[Crystal]

Jeskann said:

What is your history book called? I've heard about one like that on the news...

Umm... Sejarah Tingkatan Empat, Buku Teks, Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah. Written by Nik Hassan Shuhaimi bin Nik Abdul Rahman, Muhammad Yusof bin Ibrahim, Muhammad Bukhari bin Ahmad and Rosnanaini binti Sulaiman.

Literally translated....

History Form Four, Textbook, Secondary School Curriculum (Bersepadu can't be translated - basically it means that everybody in Malaysia is using this book, sorta.). Written by Nik Hassan Shuhaimi bin Nik Abdul Rahman, Muhammad Yusof bin Ibrahim, Muhammad Bukhari bin Ahmad and Rosnanaini binti Sulaiman. (<----- Malay names. Bin = son of, binti = daughter of.)

[thegreenmooseofdoom]

Shimmerieeeee said:

Just because all the entire investigation will be documented doesn't mean the documents will be publicized any time soon. It can be years or even decades before such documents are exposed and Americans can decide if the investigations were carried out fairly

Exactly. The Warren Commission, anyone?