Patriot Act

I don't know about a law to make dissent more protectied. In the US, you shouldn't need anything other than the basic freedom of speech, IMO.

Protests and dissent are more protected here than anywhere else I know of--

I think it is France, where published criticism of the Pres. is illegal. Other countries have laws against burning the flag...

I think it would be difficult to find a country more amenable to freedom of speech and expression than the US.

I don't get the furor over the "Patriot Act" name, either. We have a Patriot missle. People are known as expats... Doesn't it just mean in protection of country? Why does it evoke such ire?

Does anyone know the law of which dlowan speaks?

0 Replies

'Tweren't "a" law - my understanding is that, because of the excesses of the FBI under Hoover, and McCarthyism, in part, and other violations, that it was made more difficult to get wire-taps and such - ie that citizens in the USA were gradually given more protection from law enforcement agencies. Things like the judgement re "fruit of the poison tree" re illegal searches and Miranda come to mind. (These are, of course, interpretations of law, not new laws - but I do have an enduring impression that limitations were placed on the powers of law enforcement agencies...)

Presumably this "Patriot" Act rolls back at least some of these protections, no?

Of course, I have seen examples of these protections being used to shield egregious offenders - but this is the nature of law, I think - that it will be misused by both sides - the question is how to find the least harmful alternative, rather than thinking one will find a perfect balance.

As you know, Sofia, I think patriotism ridiculous (patriot missile, indeed!) - but this is not, presumably, the point of this discussion. (Though it might make a good suggestion for the debate suggestion thread, if I could but find it!)

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Presumably this "Patriot" Act rolls back at least some of these protections, no?

In a very few limited circumstances it does. Most of the USAPA changes are more benign and are there to allow law enforcement to keep up with current technology.

As an example, when Cable TV was developed a law was passed that prevented Cable TV providers from disclosing customer information to anyone (including law enforcment) so that people's veiwing habits wouldn't be comproimised (i.e. their 1st Amendment rights would be protected.).

At that point in time law enforcement DID have the ability, under law, to conduct wire taps and monitor telephone conversations providied they got court authorization.

Then technology stepped in and cable TV convereted to digital and now proviodes telephone servives over the same cable system as they provide TV.

Prior to the USAPA, law enforcment could wiretap a phone line that WASN'T on a cable system but not one that was because of all of this. The USAPA changed the law (because cable TV systems are now providing telephone services) to allow for law enforcement to conduct wiretaps on telephone service over cable the same way they could over more conventional systems.

This is one of the items that has been assailed as a "major infringement" even though law enforcement still can't gain access to any of the TV viewing data on the customer.

0 Replies

Realistically, I guess I should say any increased governmental powers, at least in theory, increases the ability for abuse.

Miranda had already been relaxed a bit in 1999--now, confessions won't be summarily dropped due to no Miranda. I think that's only common sense. Law enforcement still has to make the case, but the words of confession are admissable.

The wiretapping is much more complicated. It had been made much more complicated by the advent and wide-spread use of computers. There are reams of new laws due to that simple fact--multiplied by the Patriot Act--and history of terrorist types making use of puters.

I trust lots of us are watching for abuses. So far, so good, IMO.

0 Replies

As citizens, we do of course have the option of simply trusting the officials who are in charge of things, elected or appointed, in government or in business, to do the right and proper thing for the betterment of all.

This stance, let's call it The Patriot Stance, allows that constraints on those in charge are valid or necessary in those policy areas or periods of time when the people in charge suggest such are needed.

This stance also allows that calls for constraints on the policies and actions of those in charge made by other citizens, those not in charge, are themselves evidence of an unpatriotic lack of trust in those in charge.

As citizens, we do have the option of adopting The Patriot Stance.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I think it is France, where published criticism of the Pres. is illegal. Other countries have laws against burning the flag...

I doubt that strongly: ever read any French newspaper, Sofia?
Burning flags isn't illigal/criminal in any European state (as far as I remember. Has been in the USA, when I recall my law classe correctly.)

I don't think - I'm not a US-citizne, I know :wink: - that such has to anything with this thread

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,244905,00.jpg

but the boy can wear his t-shirt in school now again.
(And I can call our soldiers murderers.)

0 Replies

"The deterioration of every government begins with the
decay of the principles on which it was founded."
C. L. De Montesquieu.

0 Replies

You could be right Lightwizard, but if we are going to communicate at all, words must have similar meanings for all of us. I will be surprised if you don't agree.

0 Replies

I see everyone has skirted around my question so I'll restate it:

If the Patriot Act with all of it's altered (or beefed up if you prefer) provisions were enacted in the early 90's after the first attack on the Two Towers, would 9/11 have still occurred?

0 Replies

Yes, roger, and often definitions are brought up including cut-and-paste of actual dictionary definitions. Someone once posted a definition from an online dictionary, forgetting that it was a dictionary where anyone can post a definition. So Rush Limbaugh could post a definition of "black quarterback."

0 Replies

Bet that's one hell of a dictionary.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

I see everyone has skirted around my question so I'll restate it:

If the Patriot Act with all of it's altered (or beefed up if you prefer) provisions were enacted in the early 90's after the first attack on the Two Towers, would 9/11 have still occurred?

Why bother restating it? You know full well that the only accurate answer anyone can give is "Who knows?" No one can prove "what might have been" either way.

0 Replies

"Who knows?" is telling enough.

0 Replies

Still think the Patriot Act won't be used against you?

Then I hope you didn't go to Vegas for New Year's.

The FBI ordered casinos and airlines to give them information on guests and travelers:

Quote:

Las Vegas hotel operators and airlines serving McCarran International Airport are being required by the FBI to turn over all guest and passenger names and personal information, at least during the holiday period, several sources said Tuesday.

FBI spokesman Todd Palmer confirmed the federal action and said the requirement that the companies surrender customer information is a "normal investigative procedure."

As of now, they're not asking for your gambling winnings and losses, but they are asking for personal information:

Quote:

Hotel operators who asked not to be identified said the information being provided to federal officials includes guest and passenger names, addresses and personal identification information, but not casino records or guest gambling information...the FBI in Las Vegas is receiving 100 percent cooperation from the gaming companies and airline operators.

Compliance is mandated by the legislation Bush signed into law Dec. 13 -- that had been passed by both houses of Congress.

Quote:

Spokesmen for the casino companies said they agreed unanimously a week ago to comply with the FBI demands except for one company which insisted on receiving "national security letters" before surrendering guest records. Airlines are complying under subpoena from federal authorities.

President Bush signed legislation earlier this month expanding the authority of the bureau and other U.S. authorities conducting counterterrorist intelligence. The law authorizes them to demand records from financial companies including casinos without seeking court approval. Previously, casino companies generally released such private information only under subpoena. But under the new law, they will be required to release it if national security letters are issued by federal investigators.

There are fears that the requests will negatively affect Las Vegas tourism:

Quote:

Bill Thompson, University of Nevada, Las Vegas professor and casino industry expert, called the federal collection of information an invasion of privacy for Las Vegas visitors. He warned it could discourage visitors from coming to Las Vegas. "It creates an image like Central America, where (security) people stand around on street corners with their Uzis and it doesn't feel good," (emphasis mine) he said. "It's going to be cumbersome, bothersome and hurt tourism generally if it persists at all."

The data is transmitted electronically to the FBI and could amount to files on about 300,000 visitors to Las Vegas, daily, during the holiday period.

0 Replies

Bill Bennett wipes brow

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know