Why would you name a law that takes away citizen rights the Patriot Act?

Question

or a law that is designed to cut funding to the schools that need it the most....the No Child left Behind Act?

Answer 1

Because the general public only read the titles.

So if the title sounds like it would be a good thing (even though it is not), the sheeple will feel better knowing it is there "Protecting" them.

UPDATE:

bryan:

Don't be an ******** and assume nobody has read the Patriot Act like you, some of have and I have outlined five of what I feel are the most profound threats to American liberties resulting from the U.S. Patriot Act and the War on Terror.

You have already lost more then you know and all you can do is say "Prove it"... OK here it is:

First, let’s compare a few important sections of the U.S. Constitution, before and after September 11, 2001.

#1: U.S. Citizens Now Face Possibility of Torture, Summary Execution and Imprisonment Without Trial.

Before September 11, 2001: Art. 1 (9) of the U.S. Constitution obliges the government not to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, except in cases of rebellion or invasion. The habeas corpus privilege prohibits the government from imprisoning you without giving you the opportunity to challenge your detention in court.

After September 11, 2001: On November 13, 2001, President Bush signed an executive order authorizing the government to designate any person who is not a U.S. citizen as an “enemy combatant” and imprison them indefinitely, without criminal charges or access to an attorney. Several hundred persons have been detained pursuant to this order, mostly at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The order also authorized the use of military tribunals against enemy combatants. The tribunal serves as interrogator, prosecutor, defense counsel, judge, and when death sentences are imposed, as executioner. Military tribunals can conceal evidence by citing national security, make up their own rules and find a defendant guilty even if a third of the officers disagree. Moreover, the procedural rules don’t prohibit the use of torture. The Bush administration claims that international conventions signed by the United States that prohibit torture don’t apply to enemy combatants. Further, it alleges that U.S. courts have no right to intervene in these procedures.

Then, in 2002, the Bush administration claimed the authority to designate U.S. CITIZENS as enemy combatants under the same conditions. While, in 2004, the Supreme Court ordered the Bush administration to permit U.S. CITIZENS held as enemy combatants to challenge their status in court, it also suggested that an “appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal” might suffice.

In other words, the Supreme Court has validated the government’s authority to drag U.S. CITIZENS into custody as an enemy combatant. You may be imprisoned indefinitely without being charged with any crime. If you are found guilty, there is no right of appeal, and your sentence, which may include execution, may be carried out immediately.

You might believe only members of known terrorist organizations are affected by these provisions. Think again.

In 2005, two 16-year-old girls from New York City were detained and rotted away for weeks in detention, because the FBI believed them to be “terrorist risks.” One girl wrote an essay in which she mentioned “suicide bombers.” The other was accused of being her friend. Based solely on this evidence, the FBI carried out warrantless invasions of the girls’ homes, detained them both and sent them off to prison without charging them with any crimes.

So much for habeas corpus (not to mention freedom of speech). But that was just the beginning…

#2: The Government Can Secretly Read Your E-mail…Examine Your Library Records…and Snoop in Your Bank Account…Without a Warrant

Before September 11, 2001: Amendment 4 to the U.S. Constitution protects U.S. persons against “unreasonable” searches and seizures. It requires the government to obtain a search warrant, backed by the legal standard of “probable cause,” before a search occurs.

After September 11, 2001: The U.S. Patriot Act greatly expanded the ability of government investigators to obtain personal and financial information, without obtaining a search warrant. The FBI now has the authority to issue “national security letters” that force businesses to hand over whatever customer information the agency demands, without going to court, and without a warrant.

Banks, brokers, Internet service providers, physicians and all other U.S. businesses must comply with the order, or risk fines and imprisonment. They have no right to appeal the terms of the order before a court. And they must keep the search secret forever. Indeed, it’s a criminal offense for the business to notify the customer of the inquiry. A federal court overturned this provision of the U.S. Patriot Act in 2004. But that hasn’t stopped the government from continuing to use it while it appeals the decision.

In testimony before Congress, in April 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said this provision of the U.S. Patriot Act is “critical” to maintain America’s security in an age of terrorism. That may sound reasonable at first glance, until you realize how these provisions have actually been used. For instance, in 2004, the FBI demanded that a public library turn over records of library patrons who had borrowed a copy of the book Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America.

That’s what it has come to. The FBI thinks it’s a matter of national security to know if you’ve been reading “controversial” books. And God knows what else.
Are these warrantless searches “reasonable” under the

Fourth Amendment? History will be the judge.

Could I be charged as a terrorist just for writing this? Yes… Scary isn’t it.

#3: If the Government Calls Your Business a “Terrorist Organization,”

They Can Seize its Assets…and You Have No Right to Appeal.

Before September 11, 2001: Amendment 5 to the U.S. Constitution stipulates that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

After September 11, 2001: On September 24, 2001, President Bush imposed a state of national emergency under authority of an obscure 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The order authorized the Treasury Department to declare any business, group or association a “terrorist organization” and freeze its assets.

Pursuant to this order, the FBI began raiding businesses or organizations that allegedly fund international terrorism. One was the Holy Land Foundation, a large Muslim charity. When the Treasury Department froze Holy Land’s assets, the charity went to court. However, in March 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that Holy Land had no right to challenge its designation as a “terrorist organization.”

Is this authority compatible with the Fifth Amendment? The Supreme Court says that it is. Its decision means that the government can designate any business or group as a “terrorist organization”—perhaps yours—and seize its assets, with no right of appeal.

Could they seize my business and assets for letting people read this? Yes… chills the blood doesn’t it?

#4: Say Goodbye to Your Right to Legal Counsel—The Government is Now Accusing Lawyers who Represent Accused Terrorists…of Terrorism

You might be thinking, “It couldn’t happen to me. Only a few hundred people have been affected by these laws and emergency orders so far. And besides, I’m not a terrorist…if there ever was a problem, I have good lawyers. They would find a way to get me out of detention…recover my assets…get the charges dismissed.”

Well maybe…and maybe not. Because if you hire an aggressive attorney, prosecutors might accuse your lawyer of the same crimes it alleges you committed. In the most notorious prosecution of this type, civil rights attorney Lynne Stewart was, in February 2005, convicted of conspiracy, providing material support to terrorists, and defrauding the U.S. government.

Prosecutors alleged that public statements made by Stewart were in reality coded messages intended to be heard by her client’s terrorist co-conspirators, inciting them to violence. And the jury, conditioned to be petrified of anything that even hints of a terrorist connection, obediently found her guilty.
Any of us could be detained, tortured and summarily convicted, and for hiring a lawyer to try and defend you, your lawyer could end up being executed with you. How’s that for reality?

#5: Get Ready for the “Forever War”.

You might also believe, “this is only a phase…eventually the United States will return to ‘normal’.”
Think again. During George W. Bush’s first term, Vice President Richard Cheney said that the war on terror could last “for generations.” Now, President Bush promises that the “War on Terror” could last “forever.”

The result of the forever war is continued erosion of civil liberties. Those persons Bush has appointed to pursue this war, particularly Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former FBI Director Robert Mueller, were seeking even stronger legal powers to fight terrorism.

Fight Terrorism? Or terrorize Americans? You will have to make up you own mind on this one but here is my opinion:
The U.S. Patriot Act is an insult to Americans. The very name itself is an insult, given what the Act contains and what it will someday bring about:

• The complete abdication of democratic law and principles.

It should be called the Constitution Shredding Act; it is a piece of crap that never should have been passed.

It utterly relinquishes any semblance of due process, violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments, and unacceptably mixes aspects of criminal investigations with aspects of immigration and foreign intelligence laws. Let me be even more blunt. This law is dangerous. It is a travesty.
What is worse is that few Americans have the slightest idea what this law contains or what it means. Why is this?

Because, the U.S. Patriot Act has several clever catches in it that have enabled it to slip by the awareness of the average law-abiding citizen.

First, it relates mostly to foreign nationals. (So it can’t affect U.S. citizens, right? Wrong!)

Second, it deals with terrorism. (And we’re not terrorists, are we? Don’t be so sure.)

If you think this law applies only to the bad guys and terrorist, think again. Many provisions in this law apply to and will affect Americans, in many bad ways.

The Attorney General can essentially throw anyone in jail he wants. All he has to do is point his finger at someone and say the magic words, "terrorist," or "threat to national security," and the suspect is detained.

The Attorney General need give no reasons or explanations. He can do this on "evidence" he never has to reveal. Such evidence could be mere implication or hearsay without proof or corroboration.

As the ACLU has said, this sort of "'trust us, we're the government' solution ... is entirely unacceptable."

What is more frightening about it is that, despite the fact that the U.S. Patriot Act was passed hastily without any debate or hearings and under a cloak of fear, its provisions were obviously very carefully thought out and crafted to take power out of the hands of courts and ensure absolute lack of oversight of law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies.

There is no way that the U.S. Patriot Act was crafted in a few weeks after September 11th and came into existence solely in response to September 11th; it was written and very well thought out and sitting in someone’s EVIL OVERLORD portfolio waiting for just such an event to get it enacted, and in fact, it is clear from prior legislative and case history that law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been trying for many years to obtain these powers. It is only the fear and propaganda that followed September 11th that allowed its planners to pass it.

Indeed, one MUST question whether Congress could sincerely have intended this Act, given that portions of it are re-enactments of the 1996 anti-terrorism laws which had been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional by federal courts. Most troubling is that very few of these powers do anything to increase the ability of law enforcement or intelligence agencies to bring terrorists to justice, but they do much to undermine the Constitution and violate the rights of both immigrants and American citizens alike.

Another reason why Americans do not know what a terrifying weapon has been put in their government’s hand is that the Act is extremely nuanced and amends numerous other laws. One provision, for example, merely amends the words of an earlier act, which had read "the purpose," to read "a significant purpose." What difference could that tiny change make? It opens the door for the FBI to evade the probable cause warrant requirement in criminal investigations whenever the FBI decides the information might have "a significant purpose" in an intelligence investigation... No court can intervene.

In other words, the legal protection that a court must determine that there is probable cause of criminal activity before a search or seizure can be made is totally discarded here. If the FBI thinks the information might contribute to an investigation, whatever the target’s activity is illegal or not, the FBI can simply go to your home and search it and seize anything. And under the new "sneak and peek" provisions, they can do so without you ever knowing it. Notice also that this clause mixes foreign intelligence gathering with domestic criminal investigation, allowing the FBI to spy on Americans whom no court has determined has committed any crimes.

Finally, this information, under another provision of the Act, can now be shared with the CIA, in violation of its charter, which bars it from engaging in domestic spying. As the ACLU analysis of this section states, this simple little clause is being used "as an end-run around the Fourth Amendment." It is a "power grab [that] will sweep in Americans" as well as aliens.

It behooves U.S. to take a good, solid look at the U.S. Patriot Act, so we can tell our representatives what we think of it.

Answer 2

There's nothing in the Patriot Act that takes any rights away from citizens. All you know about the Patriot act are assumptions made by people that haven't taken the time to read what is in the Patriot Act. No rights are violated by the Patriot act in any way. Look at the link below and read the report it will explain the Patriot Act a lot better than the ACLU and other groups that have no clue.

Answer 3

Maybe they read 1984 and have a sick sense of humour?

Nah, I think it's just because a lot of politics these days involves the sneaky art of attaching values that few people would argue with to policy decisions that people might find contraversial. Who wants children to be left behind? Nobody. So if someone votes against the act, they're going to look bad to the people who don't look very deeply into the issues.

Eg. Bush tells people (I paraphrase here a bit) "The people who don't agree with me don't want to do what's right for America," rather than addressing the actual issue. Nobody is going to argue that we should do what's wrong for America. Problem solved, right?

Answer 4

NO NEW TAXES = revenue enhancers

WE DON'T TORTURE = enhanced interrogation technics

READ MY LIPS = i'm lying

I'M A UNITE -ER NOT A DIVIDER = we are going to introduce legislation at 11:57 pm and vote on it at 12:03 am without even letting the other side of the isle read it

THE PRESIDENT HAS THE POWER TO APPOINT QUALIFIED PEOPLE = biggest campaign contribute-rs no matter what their expertise

IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY = so the American people or congress won't know what we are up to (95% of the time)

Answer 5

i attempted to record a lawsuit against a white collar criminal affiliated with Supplemental Warfunding lower back in '06. From what i will tell, at that factor, basically a terrorist could have a verichip implanted w/o consent or understanding. i assume my attempting to collect on carried out artwork made me a terrorist-AND IT did no longer take place under THE shape!

Answer 6

Well, most people these days don't think anymore. They just see a pretty title and say "that's what I want" without reading the fine print. Mind you, we who answer these kinds of questions know better; the people I refer to are the ignorant idiots out there who simply go with what "feels good" instead of actually looking something over and making a rational decision about it.

Answer 7

Simple minded conformist individuals won't question something of this nature and will jump right on the bandwagon and dance to the beat of the propaganda. Well, simple minded is perhaps a bit strong- let's just say people who are not terribly critical and accept everything the president says without questioning or second guessing it. It was Uncle Adolf (Hitler) who once said, "what luck for leaders that men do not think".....

Answer 8

It's double speak.

Just like the Clean Skies Act and the Healthy Forest Initiative. These actually reduced environment standards and made it easier for timber companies to cut down forests.

Answer 9

Patriot is also an interceptor missile. In this case the Patriot Act intercepts due process and explodes it before it can reach the accused.

Answer 10

It's an Orwellian practice to hide the real purpose. The name is also designed to make people think they must fall into line and agree 100% with the president's agenda in order to be a patriot.

Answer 11

It's called doublespeak.
Bush has taken a page out of the old book by George Orwell called 1984.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Read it sometime, some of the similarities are scary.