Patriot Act-free Zones

[ylexot]

Has anyone else seen this?
"Forget drug-free and nuclear-free zones. A growing grassroots movement seeks to make the United States a Patriot Act-free zone, one city at a time."

My problem with this is that I have never seen the people against the Patriot Act cite parts of the Patriot Act and how they remove rights. The "example" cited in the article:

She pointed to the recent case involving Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield, who was arrested by the FBI after it mistakenly matched Mayfield's fingerprint to one found on a bag related to the train bombing in Madrid.

"Brandon Mayfield illustrates what can happen if there are laws that are so elastic that they allow people to be picked up and detained and have their houses searched and their careers harmed using ways that are not effective for catching terrorists," Talanian said.

To me, this looks like an error, not a rights violation. Fingerprints are not "ways that are not effective for catching terrorists". They are used all the time in criminal cases because they are effective. No law can remove the possibility of human error.

If that's the best argument they have, I'm surprised they got this far.

 

[Warron]

You mean like these:

>>no accountability for the FBI

The PATRIOT Act weakened key oversight and accountability checks on the powers of the Executive Branch, reducing judges to mere "rubber stamps" and leaving many decisions about investigative techniques to the discretion of FBI agents

>>sneak & peek searches of people's homes and offices

The PATRIOT Act broadened the government's power to search an individual's home without telling her until weeks or months later, and to do so in any criminal case.

>>easy FBI access to sensitive business records

The PATRIOT Act gave the FBI nearly unlimited power to obtain any business records, including sensitive files like medical, library and bookstore records, with a secret court order issued with no factual showing of need.

>>the designation of political protesters as "terrorists"

The PATRIOT Act contains a definition of "domestic terrorism" so broad that someone committing a misdemeanor could end up being dubbed a terrorist, thereby facing asset forfeiture and other serious consequences.

also included

>surveillance of computer "trespassers" without a court order
>secret investigations with no public information about how they are being conducted
>monitoring of email and web surfing with limited judicial involvement
>expansive "roving" wiretap authority
>the FBI's ability to do an end-run around standard criminal procedures

http://www.cdt.org/action/safe/

Your pretty much correct in saying that no textbook right has been lost through the existance of the patriot act, but it sure goes a long way in the direction of weakening the right of due process guarenteed under the fifth amendment. It basically comes down to a removal of oversight in several key criminal investigation areas.

 

[ylexot]

Exactly. At no point did you actually quote anything from the Patriot Act itself. Everything you wrote is someone's interpretation. My point is that if you want me to believe that rights are being violated, provide facts, not interpretations.

 

[Warron]

So you want someone to quote you actual text from the law? That should be interesting to see. The patriot act is basically an amendment to a couple dozen other laws. Most of the law is phrases such as "insert 90 in place of 45 in subsection b, paragraph 8 of USCx-x." If you want to spend a week sorting through it and all the associated laws being amended, be my guest. Here is the text for ya.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12251&c=207

And by the way, I have done exactly that for several parts of it in the past, but don't plan on doing it again for a forum post.

 

[czygvtwkr]

And where are these people who have had their rights trampled due to the patriot act?

 

[Toxick]

Originally posted by Warron
And by the way, I have done exactly that for several parts of it in the past, but don't plan on doing it again for a forum post.

You just can't argue with that logic.


Ranks right up there with "I'm rubber, you're glue."

 

[ylexot]

Originally posted by Warron
So you want someone to quote you actual text from the law? That should be interesting to see.

Yes, I do. I don't trust the interpretations of others. However, if you can show your thought process, I'm willing to listen.

Originally posted by Warron
The patriot act is basically an amendment to a couple dozen other laws. Most of the law is phrases such as "insert 90 in place of 45 in subsection b, paragraph 8 of USCx-x."

Well, if that is truly the case, then I don't see how the Patriot act could possibly take away people's rights. The laws that are being amended sound like the ones that should be repealed for violating rights.

Basically, I have yet to see one person with the capability to effectively argue the problems with the Patriot Act. It's always "it's bad" or "it takes away rights", "trust me".

 

[Warron]

Originally posted by Toxick
You just can't argue with that logic.


Ranks right up there with "I'm rubber, you're glue."

Your right that its a bad response, but there is nothing stopping you from digging through the act and piecing it all together to come to your own conclusions. I don't like saying that its more work then you are worth to prove it, but thats how it is.

 

[Warron]

Originally posted by czygvtwkr
And where are these people who have had their rights trampled due to the patriot act?

Do an internet search and you will find a good dozen cases where the Patriot act has been applied to ordinary crimes. And as I said, its more a reduction in oversight then a textbook rights violation.

 

[SamSpade]

I was listening to a C-SPAN discussion - I have no idea if it was a Congressional meeting, because I didn't listen long enough - but they covered the purpose and the point of the "roving wiretap".

Under current law, you MUST get authorization for each phone you want to tap. Terrorists, as well as drug dealers, have known about this for a long time, and as a consequence, constantly change phones to avoid detection. They've been doing this for many years, because they know that law enforcement can't catch them.

The "roving wiretap" is intended to permit following a single individual over several phone changes. It is NOT a blanket authorization to freely wander about looking for trouble. It's about awkward implementation of the law. Try to imagine requiring authorization to pursue a criminal in a car, and then when he switches cars, having to go back and get re-authorized.

I realize people are concerned about the door it opens for abuse. There's always that possibility with law enforcement. We've given the authority to police to carry and use guns, and to arrest people, to hold stakeouts and surveillance. They've always had that ability, but it isn't generally abused because it's hard to do without someone knowing about it.

[edited]
But with the complaints about the Patriot Act, and the WAY IT IS WORDED, you don't get this explanation - only how it's invading our rights. They've ALWAYS had the right to tap your phone.

 

[Warron]

Originally posted by ylexot
Yes, I do. I don't trust the interpretations of others. However, if you can show your thought process, I'm willing to listen.

I respect anyone who doesn't blatantly believe what they are told. But it goes both ways. You need to reject all sides without proof, not just one. And what it comes down to, is that you can just as easily go through the act and prove those interpretations wrong as I can go through and prove them right. I said that I'm not willing to do it because of the amount of work involved, but that is in no way stopping you.

Originally posted by ylexot
Well, if that is truly the case, then I don't see how the Patriot act could possibly take away people's rights. The laws that are being amended sound like the ones that should be repealed for violating rights..

Thats not true. You have no idea how many subjects those other laws cover. And the specific topics covered in the Patriot Act have no meaning without the Patriot Act being passed into law. If you repeal the Patriot Act you only repeal those specific changes, if you repeal every modified law, you will be eliminating a considerable amount of stuff which is not under dispute.

Originally posted by ylexot
Basically, I have yet to see one person with the capability to effectively argue the problems with the Patriot Act. It's always "it's bad" or "it takes away rights", "trust me".

Every discussion of such a law is going to be done with interpretation. Interpretation of laws is the reason that 3/4 of the lawyers and half the judges in this country exist. But there is nothing stopping you from going into the law and forming your own interpretation.

Also, in counter. You will never find anyone who supports the patriot act going through it in detail to prove their point either. In fact, I have yet to see or hear of anyone even disputing the text of the interpretations by opponents of the law. Supporters of the law merely say the acts covered in the law are not violations of anyones rights. And I agree that its is a very subjective topic when discussing how much oversight can be removed before due process is no longer in effect.

But, if you can find anything that proves the text of any of these interpretations is factually incorrect, I would be interested in seeing it.

 

[Toxick]

Originally posted by Warron
Your right that its a bad response, but there is nothing stopping you from digging through the act and piecing it all together to come to your own conclusions. I don't like saying that its more work then you are worth to prove it, but thats how it is.

Here's my suggestion to you then - being that I'm not worth the effort and all: Either back up your assertions with facts, or close the hole on your face.


Nothing is stopping me from digging through the act, true, but I'm not the one making wild accusations without backup.

 

[ylexot]

Originally posted by Toxick
Nothing is stopping me from digging through the act, true, but I'm not the one making wild accusations without backup.

Exactly.

For example, how about if I make the accusation that the federal budget gives a trillion dollars to China and you have to prove me wrong. My accusation would be an interpretation based on some train of logic. However, without knowing what that train of "logic" is, you can't prove it wrong.

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by ylexot
For example, how about if I make the accusation that the federal budget gives a trillion dollars to China and you have to prove me wrong. My accusation would be an interpretation based on some train of logic. However, without knowing what that train of "logic" is, you can't prove it wrong.

It wouldn't be ANY train of logic. The burden of proof lies on the person making an assertion, unless it is patently obvious (such as the sun being in the sky).

If you make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it. It's not on the *rest of the world* to prove you wrong. That *is* logic.

 

[ylexot]

Originally posted by SamSpade
It wouldn't be ANY train of logic. The burden of proof lies on the person making an assertion, unless it is patently obvious (such as the sun being in the sky).

If you make a claim, the burden is on you to prove it. It's not on the *rest of the world* to prove you wrong. That *is* logic.

That was my point. Migtig and Warron want me to prove that what people are saying about the Patriot Act is wrong.

 

[Bruzilla]

I'm all for repealing the Patriot Act. It was a knee-jerk reaction to a non-existant threat and is now nothing more than a big waste of money.

 

[Warron]

Originally posted by Toxick
Nothing is stopping me from digging through the act, true, but I'm not the one making wild accusations without backup.

Thats an interesting statement considering I am the only person in this thread that has posted any links supporting what they have written (in addition to a link to the patriot act itself). And anyone can produce a dozen sources for similar imformation with little more then a simple internet search.

Wild accusations is an interesting phrase as well. You'd think I stated UFOs landed on the white house lawn.

 

[Warron]

http://www.cdt.org/security/010911response.shtml

Heres a page from a site I posted earlier that should provide you with enough detail about the patriot act to keep you dreaming about it for a couple weeks.

Included are redlines showing how existing law was modified by the USA PATRIOT Act, analysis of the patriot act by numerous orgainizations and persons, and alot of other crap.

 

[Toxick]

Originally posted by Warron
Thats an interesting statement considering I am the only person in this thread that has posted any links supporting what they have written .

That's because you're the only making any assertions that don't require someone to prove a negative, as near as I can tell.

Lemme break it down for you, as it doesn't seem I was clear before: You are trying to persuade people, are you not? You appear to be engaged in a debate. You seem to want people to agree with you. Unfortunately your total argument amounts to:

Paraphrased by Yours Truly:

You: A is true.

Everyone else:

You: No really - A is true - however, I cannot be bothered to provide you with any factual substantive evidence upon which I'm basing this claim. I even did the research. Really. But I don't feel like doing it again. Go look it up yourself, assclown.

Forgive me if I remain spectacularly unconvinced.

And the link you provided is a link to a lobby group. Forgive me if I don't take anything on that website as gospel.


For the record: I've never been a fan of the Patriot Act. I agree with you to an extent, but your arguements are wanting.

 

[Larry Gude]

The only people who have any...

...grounds for complaint about the Patriot Act are true Reagan conservatives and Libertarians.

Liberal Republicans and everyone to the left of them are merely arguing over whose oxen are being gored as they actively support shredding the Constitution as a matter of course depending on wants of the day, from free speech restrictions via campaign finance 'reforms' to the 2nd amendment and so forth up to today demanding that this and that right should have been ignored to prevent 9/11.

So all and all, yeah, the Patriot Act is in violation of the Constitution. But it's just one of many.

So, certainly, we'll have communities who support all manner of rights violations and 'living document' arguments, such as smoking bans etc, making their own rules.

It's what they do.