Does the patriot act secure our constitutional rights?

Question

Consider, for example, a provision that empowers the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to issue “national security letters” to Internet service providers for information on their subscribers—you and me. The provision bars the Internet service provider from informing anyone that it has received such a letter. And the letters require no advance judicial approval. Thus, the law provides for no judicial check—before or after—on the FBI’s use of this authority. In September 2004 a federal court ruled that this provision violates the First and Fourth Amendments, precisely because it provides no opportunity for a target to protect his constitutional rights.

Another Patriot Act provision allows the government to conduct so-called “sneak-and-peek” searches without notifying the person whose home is searched until long after the search has been conducted. The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches, generally requires government officials executing a search warrant to do so during daylight hours, and to knock on the door, announce their presence, show the homeowner the warrant, and only then conduct the search. This is designed to deter clandestine searches and to ensure that officers carry out searches in accordance with the terms of authorization in the warrant. The homeowner’s presence means that if the police engage in improper behavior, a witness will be present.

This “knock-and-announce” rule has always been subject to an “exigent circumstances” exception. If the government could show that contraband would be destroyed or that a person’s life or safety would be jeopardized by advance notification, it could obtain judicial approval for a delayed notification. Under the Patriot Act’s “sneak-and-peek” authority, however, the FBI can now obtain such approval for secret searches without showing that evidence or human lives would be endangered. It need show only that the criminal investigation will be seriously jeopardized. That “exception” would swallow the rule, for notifying a subject of an investigation that his home is to be searched will virtually always jeopardize the investigation. The “sneak-and-peek” provision, moreover, is not limited to terrorist crimes. It applies to all federal crimes, including the most routine mail fraud investigation. Thus, in the name of fighting terrorism Congress diluted protection for us all.

Answer 1

No, the (un)Patriot Act do not secure or rights granted to us under the Bill of Rights. The so called Patriot Act doesn't even secure us against terrorist. All it does is give the government the legal ability to watch, detain, and jail US citizens without due process of law. The Patriot Act is anything but patriotic. It's more similar to a law a dictator or fascist government would welcome.

Answer 2

Your question is a nonsequitur. The Patriot Act, however, is a GREAT piece of legislation - which is why it was enacted in the first place.

After a couple more 9/11s occur in this country (WHERE have those Al-Qaedis been, anyway?) you'll dream about the halcyon days of the Patriot Act as there will be MUCH more draconian legislation in place - with the wholehearted acquiescence of the American people, I might add.

Answer 3

The patriot act is intended to give the government the right to infringe on our rights under the guise of keeping us safer. It is another step towards a police state. In a war against it's own citizens the patriot act gives our government the authority to arrest citizens for disagreeing with their government. It's a tool to stifle the law.

Answer 4

Not necessarily. It secures your Human Rights as defined in the Declaration of Independence.

Your Rights are to Life, then Liberty, then the Pursuit of Happiness, in that order. The Constitution is a set of laws written to protect those Rights As the Declaration says, the Government is created to protect those Rights.

Without Life, the others do not matter. Therefore, Government's highest priority is to defend your Life - so that your other Rights will also be defensible.

During WWII, the Government took MUCH more severe steps to defend the Life of the Citizens, including muzzling the press, arresting people who spoke of military matters (loose lips sink ships), rationing food and fuel, enforced blackouts, opening and snooping postal mail, listening in on phone conversations, etc. Those are all in keeping with the duty of Government to defend the Rights to Life, then Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Answer 5

Do Republicans ever go to "subversive" sites to get inside info on terrorism or in the hope that they can find some damning connection between liberals and terrorists? Or for other "innocent" reasons?

If they do, there's a real chance that the government has a file on them.

Answer 6

Yes unless you are a terrorist.

Its the Democrats you have to worry about. Case in point Kelo Vs New London.

You no longer have a right to private property.

http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/index.html

Answer 7

No--it infringes on several of them, especially the 4th Amendment.

Answer 8

no it makes your rights less secure. especially the Fourth Amendment

Answer 9

I think our security from terrorist over rides technicalities in our Constitution.

Answer 10

Of course.
But the Terrorists and their friends sure don't like the Patriot Act.