Patriot Act opposers?

Question

Can you name one good thing about the Patriot Act? If not, then you haven't read it... PS, I am sort of mixed on it

Answer 1

Nothing positive about the patriot act and , yes, I have read it. It violates basic civil rights and is unconstitututional. How can be anything good about it?

Answer 2

I read about the first 13 pages of the whole mess- its a tough read (and I used to tranlsate Russian Missile treaties into English).

The definition of "terrorist" is pretty damn vague, especially the area of "biological warfare" (Im paraphrasing), but it's vague enough to include someone who has a cold, who doesn't cover their mouth when they sneeze.
There are no SPECIFIC powers the President or the JCS are given; it's more general than that, and almost EVERY one of these points is covered in legislation passed in the 90s after the FIRST WTC attack under Bill Clinton. But, Bush had to look like he was doing SOMETHING, so they threw this mess together, used public outrage and fear over the attacks to browbeat their Congressmen and -women to back it, pass it, fix it, do SOMETHING NOW. Ask any legislator who voted for the PATRIOT act, whether he or she actually read all 1,200 whatever pages of the thing. If they have any soul at al they will tell you they dont have time to read HALF the bills which cross their various desks.

A couple notable exceptions are the warrantless wiretaps and the dissolution of HABEAS CORPUS in arresting suspected "terrorists". That's all Dick Cheney.
In case you dont know how important the legal doctrine of Habeas Corpus is, it literally means the "body of the case". This mean you cannot be arrested, locked away for years, denied counsel, etc, without compelling reason, determined in a court of law, in a trial where you have competent legal assistance and a chance to face your accusers. You are granted as speedy a trial as is possible in the current overburdened US Justice system.
Without Habeas Corpus, Police no longer need probable cause to stop you, search you or arrest you. Without it, you go to jial, do not go to trial, and there you remain until sanity once again grips the US. Someone can point their finger, holler TERRORIST and like the Salem witchhunts or the McCarthy hearings of the 50s, the bloodthirsty public once again will haul out the stocks and the chains. All it takes is accusation. No habeas corpus, no proof needed.

Answer 3

I haven't read the whole thing but I have read some of it. It is extensive. There are hundreds of pages to read. It does start the ground work for undoing the Constitution. I know we need to have security in the nation, but it does go a little too far in some things. It has affected my job and the security requirements. I have mixed feelings on it. And I don't trust a govt. controlled by the Dem, party to not abuse it. During the Kennedy and Johnson administration and the Clinton administration our rights were trampled upon worse than anything Bush has done. Wire taps, invasion of homes, Janet Reno, and so on. It should be illegal to just be ugly as Janet Reno. Domestic wire taps were very common. And it wasn't against terrorists and it was done without the courts. The FBI was used as a personal toy of these presidents.

Answer 4

It's all smoke and mirrors. After 9/11 the Bush administration made it appear that it was in the best interest of public safety for America. In fact it was put in place to be able to suspend many of our constitutional rights with out the benefit of debate, or open forums for debate. It's a scare tactic, to give us the impression that there is a need for such things. There were plenty of indications that came down the pike prior to 9/11 that terrorist may have been planning an attack. Hind sights always 20/20.

Answer 5

The very first question I asked on Y!A was in regards to the Patriot Act. "What is section 2332e of title 18, United States Code?" It is a bit confusing and a long read. I do not believe the government needed to go so far as to infringe upon the rights of US citizens.

Answer 6

I'm not "opposed" to the idea of the Patriot Act, but I'd like to see it rewritten so it protects Americans' rights a little bit more than it does.

Answer 7

It's not the Patriot act, it's the PATRIOT Act. It's an acronym for Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. You would know that if you'd read it.

It horrifies me. Honestly, I can't think of anything positive about it.

Answer 8

There is nothing good about an Act that shreds the Constitution into a million little pieces.

Answer 9

Obviously they weren't going to pass such extensive legislation without passing a thing or two which really did update our intelligence gathering and abilities to counter terrorism and crime... but an UPDATE was all we needed. We didn't need unconstitutional domestic spying programs, the suspension of habaes corpus and the ability to jail and torture anyone from any nation with no charges or trial for indeterminate time (years, so far) or a fascist state.

Answer 10

Has anyone actually read it? It is a bunch of code 654.345 negates code 546.34 except in terms of BS.