Please give me some arguments against the patriot act?

Answer 1

There are lots of arguments.

The question is: are there good ones?

Notice how all of the people who criticize the act cannot quote the sections of the act that they disagree with?

For example if they claim that the act violates the First Amendment - they need to quote the section that is in violation.

Answer 2

--The patrriot Act violates the privacy of citizens because it allows for wiretapping and Internet monitoring of communications out of the U.S.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act allows the government to obtain “roving wiretaps” without empowering the court to make sure that the government ascertain that the conversations being intercepted actually involve a target of the investigation

--It also allows for the government to monitor the reading habits and library records of ordinary citizens

Section 215 of the Patriot Act does cover library records. It authorizes the government to more easily obtain a court order requiring a person or business to turn over documents or things “sought for” an investigation to protect against international terrorism. Business records include library records.

Your medical records, records and lists of individuals who belong to political organizations are also fair game for the government to seize


--There are folks that think the act enabled law enforcement to arrest and indefinitely detain "material witnesses", but:

Federal law enforcement is abusing the current material witness statute, which the Patriot Act did not amend, to improperly detain “material witnesses” and failing to provide these detainees their rights in accordance with criminal statutes.

The material witness statute has been used to detain individuals whom the government believes has information concerning a terrorist investigation. It has failed to provide them their rights to counsel, an initial hearing to determine whether the individual poses a flight risk, and prevented the individuals from contacting family members that they have been arrested.

Most of these “material witnesses” have not been charged with any crime and were proven innocent.

--Some even go so far as to believe that the Patriot Act is completely constitutional. This is incorrect because:

In Doe v. Ashcroft, a federal district court struck down a “national security letter” records power expanded by the section 505(a) of the Patriot Act, noting that the failure to provide any explicit right for a recipient to challenge a such a broad national security letter search order power violated the Fourth Amendment.

In Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft, the court held that specific phrases in Title 18 Section 2339A, as amended by the Patriot Act section 805(a)(2)(B), violated First Amendment free speech rights and Fifth Amendment due process rights.

There are more enlightening links below that will give you food for thought. This is one of the scariest pieces of legislation to come down the pike, and we, the people need to stand up to a government ideology that prescribes to the ideas of reducing our personal freedoms as American citizens.

If you are in favor of the Patriot Act, as it is currently written, then consider this: In 30 or 40 years, when you, your spouse, or your friends are being wheeled out of the nursing home bound for jail, simply for having opposing social/political views, you can look back to this time when the Patriot Act was passed, because -IT- will be what opens the door to this country becoming a police state, where fair representation will come in the form of mock "trials" a la the McCarthy era.

Answer 3

We don't use the same tools to fight terrorism as we use to stop organize crime.

I think the looking at the library records was a bit much however they never use that.

I doubt if anyone has read the full context of the Patriot Act.

There are lots of rants but little subtance.

Answer 4

Best Argument. If the CIA, FBI, INS all cooperated as required by law and investigated their collective leads 11 of the 19 hijackers could have legally been arrested. and thats just with the data they would have gained with a cursory search.

The Patriot act was not needed to stop a major terrorist attack ergo it is unessecary to expand federal powers in that way

Answer 5

It's an illegal power grab done by the very people who either
A) attacked us on 911
B) attacked us with anthrax in 2001
C) protected those attackers
D) all the above.

How convenient for them.

Answer 6

It suspends Habeas Corpus which is a direct violation of the US Constitution

Answer 7

Violates First Amendment (free speech) and Fourth Amendment (due process).

There were lots of issues surrounding how hastily it was enacted and the complicated manner in which it was written. Probably nobody actually read the thing.

Answer 8

It gives the executive branch of government too much power and authority, while disgarding the checks and balances used by the other branches.

Answer 9

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Answer 10

You know what?

When I see so-called "Americans" attempting to defend/support an illegal document which plainly and clearly circumvents the Constitution, it really makes me feel like

WE DESERVE WHATEVER WE GET.

Yes, I know that is harsh. But if the citizens of this country do not even RECOGNIZE when our very foundation is being crumbled beneath us, we don't DESERVE this country.