Patriot Act

Patriot Act
perception -- If you don't see the threatening aspect of all this, then you are looking at it from a far different viewpoint than some of the rest of us. I see this as being one more step toward a police state. The Patriot Act allows some legal hanky-panky which would normally be utterly forbidden. These procedures were intended to be applied to terrorists, and terrorists only. Like Phoenix, I was around for the McCarthy circus, and this article gives me the same cold feeling in the pit of my stomach that I felt then. Is that so hard to understand?

As for your repeated question -- don't we want criminals off the streets? Of course we do. But we have more than enough laws to get them off the streets -- it's the enforcing of the laws that is the problem. Overworked police departments, crowded court dockets, and lenient judges are the reason that many crooks still walk the streets. Making more laws is not going to help one bit.

This isn't a case of giving criminals an advantage (by the way, all accused have several "advantages": the presumption of innocence, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to counsel, etc. - these advantages go against the HUGE disadvantage that all defendants have, which is being arrested. Many, many people think that arrested = guilty) and it isn't a case of people running around free if there were no Patriot Act. There are laws against the actions of "drug traffickers, white-collar criminals, blackmailers, child pornographers, money launderers". These laws aren't going away any time soon, if ever. But running roughshod over rights in one's zeal to prosecute the bad guys results in problems for everyone.

It doesn't matter that I'm pure as the driven snow - I just don't want the expanded law enforcement powers that go along with the Patriot Act. I don't want them being applied to me. And it doesn't matter if I'm innocent or guilty, by the way (a fact that might make some gasp). We here in the US protect all defendants and everyone who is accused of committing a crime from the government and the police overstepping their bounds. This is why there is a right to counsel. This is why there are Miranda rights.

The police and prosecutors have rules they have to abide by. Those rules don't exist to keep people out of prison - they exist to keep the wrong people out of prison. And they exist to assure that the police and prosecution get the bad guys through legitimate, well-reasoned means. Why put people behind bars just because you can? Shouldn't we be putting people behind bars who are guilty? These safeguards exist so that fewer innocent people go to jail, and so that when people do go to jail, the community can be satisfied that the proof is there and that they're really guilty of what they were charged of doing. Take away those safeguards, and community confidence in law enforcement is reduced.

Finally, if we toss people in jail because it's easier to do so, isn't it possible that some bad guys will go free because the poorer, the dumber, the unluckier defendant was caught. That's scary.

Consider the great number of folks on death row in various states who may have been falsely convicted. Do we really wnat more people going to this fate thanks to the mandatory death penalty provisions that are attached to parts of the PATRIOT act?

Shoesharper- I think that people who have not experienced the McCarthy era would find it difficult to perceive how too much procecutory power, placed in the hands of the overeager, could cause a tremendous amount of harm to the country. Many innocent lives were ruined because of Mc Carthy's machinations.

Perception- The Patriot Act needs to be used for what it was intended.......to deal with those individuals who are a threat to national security. Period.

Phoeniox. it is a very short step inpublic perception to decide that any criminal act is a threat to "national security." Consider how the current regime repeatedly refers to the US being "at war." In "wartime" certain measures must be taken, we are told. Why this doesn't trip many people's alert mechanisms, I truly do not understand. How may of you here found the title "Department of Homeland(Vaterland, Mother Russia, etc...) Security" ominous? I certainly did.

hobitbob- Can't disagree. I think that the words, "war on__________" have been grossly overused, not only by this administration. In the last few years though, I must admit that the word has been used to cover many things that have nothing to do with war. And yes, the word DOES have a negative connotation, as well as the others that you have mentioned, although I would not react quite as negatively as you have to them.

Well, born in Libya, grammar school in Pakistan, during the time of the coup that overthrew the Zulfikar-al ali-Bhutto government......

Aha!

Yup. I've met the enemy, and he are me. At least according to some around here.

Seems to me that most the arguments against the Patriot Act are based mostly on hypothetical abuse. Certainly people should be protective of the Bill of Rights but some your comments remind me of the ongoing debate on the existence of UFOs-----after literally thousands of "sightings" I am not aware of any real proof that UFOs really exist. How many actual abuses of the Patriot Act exist?

not much i can add here, just that the bill of rights is vastly more important than "getting the criminal" or at least thats what they thought when they wrote it. the price of justive includes letting some quilty go free in order to ensure the rights of the innocent. Mr Ashcroft along with Joe (tail-gunner) McCarthy, J.Edgar Hoover were/are less concerned with the bill of rights than most of us are.

Perception, the Bill of Rights was added because of very real abuses experienced in Europe. Of course many of our worries involve hypothetical examples, but they are based on real experiences which were the result of too much power being placed in the hands of the police or the government.
If one man accused of murder is executed because of laws that are too comprehensive, that is the best possible example of why the Patriot Act is so reminiscent of the McCarthy era.

The protection of innocence is more important than the prosecution of the guilty. IMO.

Points made and taken good people but until I see real abuse of the Patriot Act I will continue to cheer the progress made preventing terrorism and taking the criminals off the street.

The legislative bodies gave Ashcroft the Patriot Act so that he would have a decent chance of performing his job of protecting the American people from another occurrence of Sept 11-----I remind everyone that so far he has done exactly that and I for one am grateful. Congress giveth and Congress can taketh away.

I also remind you that Bush has not requested that war powers be granted----THAT would be the first step toward a Police State-----not some imagined usurpation of rights brought about by the power to put certain people under surveilance

I've posted this before. Some people seem to have short memories.Patriot abuses
More abuses

perc old bud

What number of abuses would be not ok?

Do you recall the coverage from several years ago where a group of police in a particular precinct in Los Angeles decided to take it on themselves to get rid of more bad guys, through planted evidence, false testimony, etc?

There's good reason for vigilance on civil liberties and human rights matters and those reasons are precisely the reasons why we constrain policing - it's too easy, too tempting, to slip towards police-state measures.

All in all, the furor over the potential, and occasional real, abuses of the Patriot Act are a good thing ... much of it is being questioned, revisions and safeguards are being considered and proposed. Like a lot of "Quick Fixes", it could have been thought out a lot better than it was before it was tossed into the mix. I figure it'll undergo a period of adjustment, just as it seems to be doing. I would be most surprised not to see a dispute or two over the act's application or some aspect of its provisions go all the way to The Supremes. A word on The Supremes might be appropriate here, too; regardless who appointed them, they tend to be a rather independent lot, not noted for any particular partisan loyalty. Any number of Chief Executives have been most startled to discover this.

(Cut and pasted from another thread, as it is more appropriate here)

I thought I recognized that.

Perception -- You ask how many instances have there been of abuse. I would ask you how many instances have there been of terrorism prevented?

No, Bush has not formally asked for War Powers. How could he when we are not technically at war? According to the Constitution only the Congress can declare a state of war, and unless I was asleep they have not done that.

The Patriot Act is in reality a war power, is it not?

Ya damn well oughtta ... it was you who pointed it out when I posted it over on that other thread :wink:

But for many "true believers" the lack of 9/11 events since 2001 is seen as evidence of the administration's success and propriety of action.