The Patriot Act

[amrtin77]

Ok, up until now I have heard things about The Patriot Act, but all of my opinions were based on what people told me. I finally found it on the internet (its a long read ) and am skimming through it. Here is a link:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

The more i read this thing the more I'm against it. One of the first things i checked was this:

SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW.

`SEC. 236A. (a) DETENTION OF TERRORIST ALIENS-

`(1) CUSTODY- The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who is certified under paragraph (3).
`(2) RELEASE- Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien until the alien is removed from the United States. Except as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3). If the alien is finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to this subsection shall terminate.
`(3) CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General may certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien--
`(A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
`(B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States.
`(4) NONDELEGATION- The Attorney General may delegate the authority provided under paragraph (3) only to the Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General may not delegate such authority.
`(5) COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS- The Attorney General shall place an alien detained under paragraph (1) in removal proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a criminal offense, not later than 7 days after the commencement of such detention. If the requirement of the preceding sentence is not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the alien.
`(6) LIMITATION ON INDEFINITE DETENTION- An alien detained solely under paragraph (1) who has not been removed under section 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person.
`(7) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General shall review the certification made under paragraph (3) every 6 months. If the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General's discretion, that the certification should be revoked, the alien may be released on such conditions as the Attorney General deems appropriate, unless such release is otherwise prohibited by law. The alien may request each 6 months in writing that the Attorney General reconsider the certification and may submit documents or other evidence in support of that request.
`(b) HABEAS CORPUS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.
`(2) APPLICATION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2241(a) of title 28, United States Code, habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) may be initiated only by an application filed with--
`(i) the Supreme Court;
`(ii) any justice of the Supreme Court;
`(iii) any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; or
`(iv) any district court otherwise having jurisdiction to entertain it.
`(B) APPLICATION TRANSFER- Section 2241(b) of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus described in subparagraph (A).
`(3) APPEALS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2253 of title 28, in habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) before a circuit or district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings to any other circuit court of appeals.
`(4) RULE OF DECISION- The law applied by the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall be regarded as the rule of decision in habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1).
`(c) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION- The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any other provision of this Act.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of contents of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 236 the following:

`Sec. 236A. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorist; habeas corpus; judicial review.'.
(c) REPORTS- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, with respect to the reporting period, on--

(1) the number of aliens certified under section 236A(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection (a);
(2) the grounds for such certifications;
(3) the nationalities of the aliens so certified;
(4) the length of the detention for each alien so certified; and
(5) the number of aliens so certified who--
(A) were granted any form of relief from removal;
(B) were removed;
(C) the Attorney General has determined are no longer aliens who may be so certified; or
(D) were released from detention

Ok, honestly I'm going to have to read this more than once because a lot of it is going over my head, but from what i gather, this is letting the government hold people up to 6 months and then they can re-hold them for 6 months? I am dedicating this thread to discussion about The Patriot Act to hopefully educate people like me who are trying to understand it.


Edit: I found this Adobe Reader version
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hr2975terrorismbill.pdf
This version seems to leave a lot of stuff out........ Like sections
3-100, 113-150, 160-200, 208-210, 219-300, 310-350, 357-400, 407-500, 505-600, and 602-700.

Here is another link to The Patriot Act
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/hr3162.php

 

[shutupandgoaway]

The patriot act is an abomination of civil liberties. It clearly breaks the fourth ammendmant, and is said to break many others, but that is debatable. I'm really surprised so few people in the political world address it, and that so few of the democrats are using it to bash Bush(only Kucinich actually plans to repeal it if elected).

 

[FZ. | gOsu]

weeellll....

it does intrude on some of our civil liberties, but are you a terrorist?

if your not one, dont worry about it

i havnt notocied any change to my life now that the patriot act is in place...

 

[Nuts]

One clarification for the less informed.

Aliens are not afforded protection under the Bill of Rights. If you're in this country legally, then you have little to worry about. And if you're in this country illegally, then you should be deported immediately, unless of course you're a terrorist, in which case I agree wholeheartedly with confinement.

 

[Forged]

Originally posted by FZ. | gOsu
weeellll....

it does intrude on some of our civil liberties, but are you a terrorist?

if your not one, dont worry about it

i havnt notocied any change to my life now that the patriot act is in place...

It might be made for terrorist but it can be used against anyone.

The FBI needs no proof to call you a terrorist, so basically anyone and everyone is a terrorist in the eyes of the patriot act.

and for nuts, why should immigrants be deported? We are immigrants we imigrated from the europe killed all the indians and took their land, then we fought a war over taxes and called ourselvces a nation...

 

[Nuts]

Forged, read much? I said ILLEGAL immigrants. Illegal as in, not in this country legally, which is a crime and punishable by deportation.

 

[amrtin77]

that section above is talking about being able to hold any alien indefinately... im not sure if they can do the same thing with citizens the suspect to be terrorists.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Nuts, will you stop paying attention to percentages, laws and statistics and read what he is interpretating.

He ment immagrants in general not just illegal. America are just foriegns, how can you say what the immigrants from europe did was legal?

The patriot act is an abomination of civil liberties. It clearly breaks the fourth ammendmant, and is said to break many others, but that is debatable. I'm really surprised so few people in the political world address it, and that so few of the democrats are using it to bash Bush(only Kucinich actually plans to repeal it if elected).

I think it tramples (correct me if im wrong) 5 amendments. This 'patriot' act is another clear sign that bush is an idiot. Just wondering shutupandgoaway are you a democrat? From the sources i have seen about about american politics i would definitely vote for the demo's. If bush is the best the repubs have.... sorry...

 

[Nuts]

Originally posted by amrtin77
that section above is talking about being able to hold any alien indefinately... im not sure if they can do the same thing with citizens the suspect to be terrorists.

Only if the citizen is deemed an enemy combatant. Such is the case with Jose Padilla.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/jose-padilla/

Nuts, will you stop paying attention to percentages, laws and statistics and read what he is interpretating.

Even if it interpreted incorrectly?

He ment immagrants in general not just illegal. America are just foriegns, how can you say what the immigrants from europe did was legal?

The fact that the United States ceased to exist at that point, that's how.

 

[Forged]

Only if the citizen is deemed an enemy combatant

And who is to say who is a threat or a combatant? The perscuters...

Even if it interpreted incorrectly

O It was correct I am afraid it is you, the trailer trash, and the corpate boys who are wrong on that issue.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Even if it interpreted incorrectly?

Explain exactly how and give your "correct" interpretation. (Interpretation cannot be wrong, they can only be good or bad)

The fact that the United States ceased to exist at that point, that's how.

How can something cease when it never existed? They were still killing indians and breakig treatys with them when the US was founded.

 

[Ciphus]

Yeah, the patriot act sounds bad...then I realized I'm not a terrorist and have nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me.

Also, even illegal immigrants are protected by the consitution.

 

[Forged]

I am sorry I value my privacy. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin (you might of heard of him he was one of the founding fathers) who said "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety"

 

[shutupandgoaway]

Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Nuts, will you stop paying attention to percentages, laws and statistics and read what he is interpretating.

He ment immagrants in general not just illegal. America are just foriegns, how can you say what the immigrants from europe did was legal?

I think it tramples (correct me if im wrong) 5 amendments. This 'patriot' act is another clear sign that bush is an idiot. Just wondering shutupandgoaway are you a democrat? From the sources i have seen about about american politics i would definitely vote for the demo's. If bush is the best the repubs have.... sorry...

I am not a democrat. They are too moderate. They are, however, not Bush, so theyre who i hope wins next election(note:i cant vote, so i can only hope and bitch at other people to vote against Bush). I am somewhere between a green and a communist, but closer to a green.

@original topic:
It doesn't matter if you're not being affected by a law, under the PATRIOT act any person disliked by Ashcroft's justice department (i.e the Drake University protestors, and many others) could be searched, seized, and held for quite a while without any real evidence. All they need is 'suspicion' of terrorist activities. The PATRIOT act also breaks at least 4 amendmants; it's in that ancient Bush essay I posted a while back.

 

[Forged]

The democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. They are driven by corperations and do what they ask...

I would say that the Greenparty is the best choice.
gp.org

 

[Ciphus]

I hate it when people say they aren't going to vote for Bush, just whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Kerrys vote FOR the patriot act, now speaks out against it. Votes for the war on Iraq, then speaks out against it. Fights the war in Vietnam, comes back and throws his medals on the steps of the capital building and speaks out against it. If you don't want either of them, vote Nader.

I believe the Patriot act is being blown way out of proportion. Keep in mind both Republicans AND Democrats voted for it. Also, people would complain that the government didn't do enough if there were to be another big terrorist incident. They can't please everyone....so as they say "Better safe than sorry".

 

[amrtin77]

oh no, i disagree. i put my rights and freedoms above everything. i do not want them trashed. people before us died for these rights, now they are being thrown out to "protect" us. if the government has to take our liberties away to defend us i dont want defended. why cant we use the military for defense? terrorists really arent a major threat..... they can never damage us enough to bring us down. the government is using peoples fears to gain moer power.

 

[shutupandgoaway]

Originally posted by Ciphus
I hate it when people say they aren't going to vote for Bush, just whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Kerrys vote FOR the patriot act, now speaks out against it. Votes for the war on Iraq, then speaks out against it. Fights the war in Vietnam, comes back and throws his medals on the steps of the capital building and speaks out against it. If you don't want either of them, vote Nader.

I believe the Patriot act is being blown way out of proportion. Keep in mind both Republicans AND Democrats voted for it. Also, people would complain that the government didn't do enough if there were to be another big terrorist incident. They can't please everyone....so as they say "Better safe than sorry".

I hope that whoever wins the democratic nomination wins. I know that Kerry is barely better than Bush, but I say go with the lesser of two evils. Kerry voted for Iraq and the PATRIOT act, but at least now he recants his previous stance. Bush, however, apparently still has a memory gap about the fourth amendmant, and has not even hinted at rethinking the PATRIOT act. I don't want either, but Nader will simply hand the election to Bush, and anyone with half a brain knows this.

The PATRIOT act is NOT being blown way out of proportion. Here's a little something, it's from a nice little document I call the Constitution of the United States; for those of you who don't know, that's the fundamental document on which, in theory, all law in the US is made. This document says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The PATRIOT act violates this by allowing library records to be searched; these records can be searched without a warrant as a source to gain a warrant. The library system of America is supposed to be confidential, and records therein could quite easily be construed as 'papers'. This alone proves the law unconstitutional! No, but it does not stop there. The PATRIOT act also allows law enforcement agencies to rifle through a suspect's house and take personal articles. Now, with a probable clause this could be feasible and clearly constitutionally valid, but the cause requirements for terrorism under the Bush administration are increasily lower. This adds to the unconstitutionality of this specific law. I don't know what else it violates, but a single constitutional violation should be enough to rule a law wrong.

Now, you may say that only terrorists and other such degenerates must be afraid of this law. I disagree. This law could easily be used to harass people that simply are peaceful and lawful dissenters with the government, and could be used to harass and hold political opponents. Ashcroft's justice department, however, could easily use the foundation this law has lain to give law enforcement agencies A LOT of power to work with serveillance. 1984,anyone?

 

[Gedrin]

There are a few versions of a famous poem linked here, i'm not sure of the original.

http://www.christianethicstoday.com...or the Jews By Franklin H Littell_009_29_.htm

http://www.serendipity.li/cda/niemoll.html

Every time I hear the words patriot acts I think of this poem. I think that it is one of the worst things that came of the terrorist attacks. I am not trying to compare anyone with nazis btw so don't flame me for this. I am saying that these laws create a danger to many more people than terrorists. If I had very unpopular opinions, and pissed of the wrong people would this set of laws put me in danger of losing all that I hold dear?

There was one law, I am not sure if it was part of the patriot acts but at leats is of similar ilk, was passed that changed the rules for research of certain microorganisms. The law was mostly for pathogenic organisms, but some that were not angerous qualified anyway. In some cases facilities were given the choice of destroying research or sending it to edgewater. I would sooner destroy years of research before I would send a single thing to edgewater myself.

The main danger in my eyes is that this allows for a few people to have a lot of power. This document allows for too much leway. Sometimes I wonder what Ben Franklin would think if he were alive now. Perhaps in 80 or so years i'll ask him.