The Patriot Act

A dangerous piece of legislation, granting sweeping and virtually uncontrollable powers to government and its agencies. Now that it has not been repealed, nor is there any official discussion (to my knowledge) of it so being. Governments NEVER give up powers once they have them, without a damn hard fight, whether those are powers of taxation or "security." Original review: Here's something for the ardent defenders of this piece of legislation to consider.  As it stands now, in a few short months Barack Obama will be president, and his party in control of both houses.  Historically, governments are reluctant to give up controlling powers once they have acquired them, and there is no surety this legislation will be repealed . With that in mind, and given the fear that some elements of the right have of Obama, it will be interesting to see how they talk about this intrusive, constitution trampling legislation once their boys aren't in the drivers seat.

This 401 page bill, presented for passage only 45 days after 9/11 (I've always wondered how is it possible to write a bill of such enormous complexity in the span of 4-6 weeks?), basically allows the government to act with impunity against the citizenry. Warrantless searches and all kinds of monitoring of private communications are just some of the draconian (and unconstitutional) provisions of this legislation. One aspect of the bill that's rarely discussed is the provisions for asset forfeiture, which can have grave implications for the future of American capitalism. This is a very important issue, one which hasn't truly received the attention that it should.

"PATRIOT ACT" DOUBLESPEAKWAR IS PEACEFREEDOM IS SLAVERYIGNORANCE IS STRENGTHBUSH IS PRESIDENT

It's amazing how those who scream liberty, freedom, and solidarity are the first to attack those who question this far-reaching piece of legistlation that treats the constitution like cat-litter. . .

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither. need I say more?

Well, I don't know if my privacy has been violated. Under the "sneak and peak" provisions, my home could be searched right now while I'm at work and I won't even know about it. I find the mere thought of that creepy. And if you think you have to be "nefarious" for the government to violate your rights, I'd suggest you read up on a little history of Cointelpro, Palmer, Alien-sedition acts, not to mention McCarthy. The targets are not potential terrorists. The government is spying on peace groups like the Catholic Worker, and fretting over the "radical militant librarians" who are refusing to send the government reading lists of private individuals without a warrant. It's not about prevention of terror, it's about the suppression of dissent. It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives rant against the evils of government, but are willing to leave our most basic rights to the generosity of government itself. If you want to learn more about the dangers of the Patriot Act, visit... Read more

The USA Patriot Act is a direct assault upon the Bill of Rights and the freedoms agains illegal search and seizure, criminal rights, and others ennumarated therein. This act ought to be allowed to expire, or challenged in court to the point of being struck down by the Supreme Court. If your unalienable rights as a US citizen mean something to you, this act should be a hot topic, and it is for me. I for one will not surrender my right to be secure in my home and effects, free from search, seizure, and snooping without due process of law. If Uncle Sam wants to know what I am doing and who I speak with, he can get a warrant just like he always has had to, and should present evidence in open court to obtain the warrant, just like always. I do like being safe, but not at the expense of my rights under the Constitution.

This is a very important issue today. There are so many Americans out there who want to curb the threat of terrorism, but not at the expense of our rights and freedom. If I could ask President Bush one thing, I would ask him to explain how an act such as this one "defends liberty" by taking it away. That's like preserving a person's life by killing them. The terrorists attacked us on 9/11 partly because they hate our freedoms. You'd think, consequently, that we'd be even more dedicated to our liberties than ever before - in direct defiance of the terrorists and their anti-Democratic views. But we were scared out of our comfort zones (which probably isn't altogether a bad thing) after 9/11, because we realized that we, as a country weren't safe. Instead of promoting liberty, we overcompensated and allowed the government unprecedented abilities to spy on the American people. Such a thing should never be allowed, as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself are not meant to be ab... Read more

I have to respectfully disagree with E.O. on this one. I didn't like the Patriot Act when it passed, and I don't like it now. I cannot agree with any piece of legislation that allows the govenment, on suspicion alone, to detain anyone they want, for as long as they want, without being made to prove the suspect did anything. Perhaps this has made us safer (something I'm doubtful about) but I don't feel that eroding EVERYONE'S rights because of the actions of a few is justified. I think that if they streamlined the sharing of information between our various government spy agencies, that we could make ourselves just as safe, by actually catching the people likely to do this again. I know that they are trying to just this, and let's hope they get it figured out soon.

One of those rare pieces of legislation, hastily drawn up in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack/disaster and passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, which has been targeted by staunch liberals to pillory Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft (but not the democrats who voted for it). Have I mentioned that the 9/11 Commission (the bi-partisan body which calmly, objectively analyzed the events and conditions which made such an attack possible) stated unequivocally that this legislation DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH TO PROTECT AMERICANS FROM A REPEAT OF THIS TYPE OF ATTACK? Did I mention that? Heh. You must have been too busy calling John Ashcroft a Nazi.