2007-01-08 04:13:00 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I agree that parts are good and parts are bad. We purchased our first home a while back, we had to sign papers stating that our home could be taken if we are thought to be terrorists. The part that really bothered me is that there is no clause about defending yourself or a chance to prove your innocence. I realize that the chances that I will be accused of terrorism are slim to none, but what happened to innocent until proven guilty. If they were to sieze the home of innocent Americans how much time and red tape would there be before they got their home back?
2007-01-08 04:25:46 · answer #1 · answered by Jacy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would declare it neither good nor bad.
Mostly because the 'Patriot Act' did not actually create any new laws. Just put a bunch of already existing laws all in the same place.
2007-01-08 13:28:21 · answer #2 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is bad and is certainly not patriotic. American citizens are not the terrorists. Now the Department of Homeland security has assigned a "terrorist rating" to each American citizen, based on their background check on us, which was allowed by the Patriot Act. Rather than securing our ports and borders, time and money is being spent by the Dept of Homeland Security to "data mine." They are searching our internet records, phone bill, credit, etc. They have no business going through our library records. They should not have the ability to search our homes when we are not there, and not even have to tell us. There is nothing patriotic about this Act.
2007-01-08 12:23:07 · answer #3 · answered by cathy e 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The main thing behind the act are intentions, with which the act has been formulated. If the intentions were good then the act was good at the time of its promulgation. Now the time comes for its implementation~ the same formula will apply for that as well ~ the formula of intention.
2007-01-08 12:25:23 · answer #4 · answered by MY Regards to All 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like any legislation, some parts are good and some are not.
Certainly, getting intel agencies to share info/work together is good. Financial tracking and controls of potential criminals is good.
Illegal/or unchecked eavesdropping of private matters is bad.
2007-01-08 12:17:45 · answer #5 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good
2007-01-08 12:15:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Which part?
In General I think it is essential to our Homeland Security,as was it's intended purpose.
2007-01-08 12:32:30 · answer #7 · answered by lisa m 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bad.
2007-01-08 12:15:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Good.
2007-01-08 12:14:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋