after 911 the patriot act was passes?

Question

this act enables the government to allow domestic surveillance. this act could potentially turn the US into a police state. Now that is so scary. what do you guys think? Do you want to be watched all the time? Don't you think that our freedom is being stolen little by little

passed sorry

Answer 1

Our freedom is being taken away in giant swaths and the patriot act had much to add to it .We have had laws in place for years in which terrorists when caught could be dealt with properly . We see so many tactics now to frighten the american people out of their rights in the name of a fight on terrorism it's become daily news. And the mere name of it the patriot act , WOW ! Who could argue with that without being branded a traitor? In both of his presidential campaigns, George W. Bush proclaimed he believed in the strict construction of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, if the Constitution doesn’t say it, one cannot read a provision into it.
And, if the Constitution does say it, then the words used in it must be given their literal meaning. He made strict construction a litmus test for his appointment of judges to the federal bench.
However, Bush himself does not strictly construe the Constitution. He ignores those parts of it that limit what he, Vice President Dick Cheney and their advisers believe to be the president’s prerogatives.
The Federalist Papers, written contemporaneously with the U.S. Constitution, indicate that the drafters of our Constitution purposely decided not to put the powers of the chief executive in Article 1. They wanted to make a point of showing that the chief executive was not the primary authority in our new country, that he wasn’t a monarch or dictator.
POWER-SHARING IS MANDATORY
The executive branch was to share power with two co-equal branches, the legislative and the judiciary. Article 1 would be reserved for those who would be closest to the citizens, the legislators.
It is to the Congress, not the executive branch, that our founders gave the power to lay and collect taxes, to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, to raise and support the armed forces and to declare war.
It is this first Article of the U.S. Constitution (Section 7) that describes how a bill becomes a law. “Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it.”
It goes on to say, “If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.”
The president signs a bill, allows it to become law without signing it or vetoes it. The Constitution is clear and unambiguous about this.
Which brings me to a notion called a “signing statement.” This is a document appended by the president to a bill he signs. The president may not agree with the bill, but he doesn’t veto it (which might be a bad political move); instead, he signs it and says he will set whatever limits on it he deems necessary, including not enforcing it at all.
STATEMENTS RARELY RELEASED
These signing statements are rarely made public. Although they have been used by presidents since at least Ronald Reagan, no president has used them as often, or in the same way, as President George W. Bush has. The U.S. Constitution has no provision for such a signing statement. These statements unconstitutionally allow the executive branch to interpret and apply a bill passed by Congress in ways that are contrary to the specific words, and intent, of Congress.
In recent Pentagon appropriation bills, there was a provision passed by Congress that disallowed use of federal funds for any intelligence gathering that violated the Fourth Amendment
Bush signed the bills but added a signing statement stating that the commander-in-chief had the right to collect intelligence in any way he deemed necessary.
So far, Bush has added a signing statement to 750 bills he has signed. He added one to the bill introduced by Sen. John McCain making the use of torture by U.S. forces illegal. After much discussion and dissension, and lobbying by Vice President Cheney against this bill, the Republican majority in Congress finally passed it. President Bush signed it into law.
But attached to it was a signing statement saying that the president reserved the right to allow torture when he felt it was in the best interests of national security.
Congress specifically had considered that exception and rejected it. Yet Bush refused to veto the bill. He simply signed it and then decided he would do what he, not Congress, thought wisest, the Constitution and its balance of powers be damned
SLIPPERY SLOPE TO TYRANNY
I trust no president of either party with that kind of power. I am afraid that if this goes unchecked, we are on the slippery slope to a dictatorship. Yet members of Congress of both parties, afraid of confronting controversy and jeopardizing their re-election, aren’t fighting back. They would rather seem to have power, to seem to do the right thing, than to have power and do the right thing.
How sad is that for us citizens?

Answer 2

Yes, the Patriot Act is ridiculous, and many people now think 9/11 was done by the government so they could establish the Patriot Act. I don't remember voting on allowing the Patriot Act.

Answer 3

As a conservative, I am horrified at the response moderate conservatives give: "Well, I don't have anything to hide." These Bush loyalists don't know how to pull their heads out of the sand and think for themselves. We were given the freedoms this Act takes away in order to prevent the government from listening in on the gripes of a disgruntled populace. Or to prevent them from spying on a revolutionary faction such as the former CSA in the case of a breach of the contract known as the U.S. Constitution on the part of the Federal Government. This Act is a direct attack on our liberty to speak up for ourselves and defend ourselves from tyranny. It was designed to strip you of any trace of privacy and leave you standing naked before an all-powerful United Empire of America. It has done just that, and it's time conservatives saw the light and stopped drinking the Republican Koolade

Answer 4

Yes, I do think that are freedom is being taken, but at chunks at a time. And it concerns me a lot, because I don't want to live like the people had to live in Nazi Germany. It would totally suck to have to live in a police state. I would rather take my chances with the terrorist then with the gestapo. I can't hardly believe that the people of our country are letting a repeat of Nazi Germany happen: Right down to believing the fake terrorist attack.

That said, would you take a look at about 8 -10 minutes of this interview with Professor Steven Jones ? It's a 45 minute video and well worth looking at to its end. At the very least, pass it on to those you care about.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2842384983834100001

Answer 5

They're going to legalize the warrantless wiretapping that the administration has been pulling behind our backs and flagrantly lying about to our faces. This is directly contradicting Bush's duty to uphold and protect the Constitution. Guess he wasn't kidding when he said a dictatorship "would be a heck of a lot easier"..

Answer 6

Our freedom isn't being stolen little by litte. It's being stolen in large chunks at a time.

I'm very scared.

Answer 7

Oh yeah. That is one scary Act.

Answer 8

I have nothing to hide, and if it will make our country more safe from attacks, then I'm all for it.

Answer 9

Further dismantles court review of surveillance, such as by terminating court-approved limits on police spying on religious and political activity (sec. 312), allowing the government to obtain credit records and library records secretly and without judicial oversight (secs. 126, 128, 129), and by allowing wiretaps without a court order for up to 15 days following a terrorist attack (sec. 103);
Allows government to operate in secret by authorizing secret arrests (sec. 201), and imposing severe restrictions on the release of information about the hazards to the community posed by chemical and other plants (sec. 202);
Further expands the reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism so that organizations engaged in civil disobedience are at risk of government wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) asset seizure (secs. 428, 428), and their supporters could even risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501);
Gives foreign dictatorships the power to seek searches and seizures in the United States (sec. 321), and to extradite American citizens to face trial in foreign courts (sec. 322), even if the United States Senate has not approved a treaty with that government; and
Unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism by stripping even lawful immigrants of the right to a fair deportation hearing and stripping the federal courts of their power to correct unlawful actions by the immigration authorities (secs. 503, 504).
These are only examples of the unfettered powers that the new bill would grant to the government; for a complete analysis, please see ACLU's detailed section-by-section summary, available on our website.[3]

2. Undermining Checks and Balances

Under our Constitution, government powers are subject to control by the courts, the Congress, and ultimately by the American people, informed by a free press. Checks and balances help ensure both safety and freedom. They ensure that government actions taken for very important purposes, such as to prevent terrorism or other crime, do not violate the rights of ordinary citizens, and that government is held accountable when they do. They also help the government, ensuring that its resources are concentrated on arrests of real criminals - not on ineffective, feel-good solutions advanced by political leaders anxious to reassure a frightened public.

This section explains why eroding checks and balances is a false solution to the real problem of terrorism, and then explains just how Patriot Act 2 would further erode three key checks and balances - the courts, Congress, and the free press.

Eroding Checks and Balances Is a False Solution
Anti-terrorism policies that infringe on basic rights - such as ethnically-based roundups of innocent persons, or intrusive surveillance of peaceful political activists - not only make America less free, they make our nation more vulnerable to terrorism. Such policies waste scarce government resources that should be used to track down real criminals, and help sew the seeds of mistrust among communities that might otherwise be willing to assist the government in arresting terrorists.

As FBI special agent Coleen Rowley observed in a recent letter to Director Robert Mueller, questioning the FBI's priorities in investigating and fighting terrorism:

The vast majority of the one thousand plus persons "detained" in the wake of 9-11 did not turn out to be terrorists. . . . [A]fter 9-11, Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seem to be essentially PR purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for statements on our progress in fighting terrorism. The balance between individuals' civil liberties and the need for effective investigation is hard to maintain even during so-called normal times, let alone times of increased terrorist threat or war. It is, admittedly, a difficult balancing act. But from what I have observed, particular vigilance may be required to head off undue pressure (including subtle encouragement) to detain or "round up" suspects, particularly those of Arabic origin.[4]

In the same vein, in late 2001, a memorandum was circulated by senior intelligence specialists expressing serious concerns that a focus on racial profiling or other investigative techniques that intrude on civil liberties could undermine security by distracting security officials from less clumsy and more reliable individual suspicion.[5] At the same time, no fewer than eight high ranking former FBI officials, many from the Reagan and Bush administrations, strongly criticized anti-terrorism proposals that violate civil liberties, saying such tactics were likely to be ineffective and to distract from proven investigative techniques.[6]

While granting new powers to federal agents, the draft bill systematically attacks precisely these basic checks and balances on government power, thus making it harder for professional law enforcement agents to resist pressure by political leaders to implement highly visible policies that violate civil liberties, rather than rely on proven techniques that are effective.

Answer 10

yes it is, by both party's