Why does this frighten you?

Question

SEC. 1003. DEFINITION OF ``ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE''.

Section 101(f)(2) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50
U.S.C. 1801(f)(2)) is amended by adding at the end before the semicolon the following: ``, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511(2)(i) of title 18, United States Code''.

This is part of the Patriot Act. Does anyone know what it says?

How about this one?

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) Domestic Terrorism Defined.--Section 2331 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking ``by assassination
or kidnapping'' and inserting ``by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping'';

Who is opposed to making mass destruction part of the definition of terrorism?

Please, read the Act, tell me what's scary about it. I can't see it.

http://www.patriotact.com/

No, Answergirl, I am not opposed to that. I am asking why people are frightened of the Patriot Act when most of it is exactly like this, mere extensions and clarifications of existing laws.

And saying that two judges struck portions of it is not responsive. What is scary about the rest of it, since obviously those same two judges didn't strike the rest? We don't have to go into why the judges were right or wrong.

Jacktree, I think the line we are approaching has less to do with our government becoming Fascist than with our media becoming Orwellian. My whole point is that they are manufacturing reality by saying "the Patriot Act is SCARY!" and they get away with it because nobody reads it. It would be more accurate to say "the Patriot Act is incomprehensible" because without access to the US Code, it cannot be understood at all, but they don't say that.

I'm not afraid of the government so much as I am the people who want to control what I perceive reality to be, and that isn't Bush, it's the media.

Answer 1

The only thing that is scary is that it is a Republican's idea. In the mainstream media that automatically means it is bad.

Answer 2

This is more to respond to the answer stating that "if you fear this act, you fear the wrong thing."

Want to know what scares me more than the terrorists or, for that matter, the Patriot Act? Americans who would use the law (constitutional or not) to run amok and weed out "undesirables" no matter what the reason. When the ends justify the means.....that's what scares me.

By my next statement, I by no means am equating America with WWII Germany or Bush with Hitler, etc. But, that being said, the way Hitler rose to power was through perfectly legal means through a law that allowed him to take control in order to face enemies of Germany. I am not implying that anyone in the administration wants to take over in that sense, but we have approached a very fine line. As justified as we think we are, we need to be very cautious.

Answer 3

To start out with, section 805 was ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins. And section 505 was ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.

After that is basically gives the government too much power. They always had the ability to fight terrorism. Now, in the argument of safety, they have received too much power, and restricted freedom. They can still fight terrorism, but there is no way to police their actions.

It's not like before this act, terrorism was legal or we couldn't fight terrorism. There was just a system in place that policed the government a little while they did this.

Answer 4

You are opposed to "mass destruction" being a defining part of terrorism? Did I understand you correctly? I guess that you don't believe that the destruction and consequent death of nearly 3000 people was an act of terrorism. You need to read the entire Patriot Act and not pick and choose little pieces to take out of context. If you are afraid of this act, you fear the wrong thing.

Answer 5

Im not American and hence most I dont know quite how much of this is new and i probbably dont grasp most of the Act as i dont know your legal system well enough, but i do think the part about confiscating the property of any foreign national etc does lack accountability, is this legally accountable? if so how? Thank you for making me read this though, as im supposed to be analysing the flaws/advantages of your constitution for next week its fascinating