Can anyone justify the USA PATRIOT Act? - What do cappies sa

[MarxIsGod]

In late 2001, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act which gave the United States' government far-reaching powers in areas such as expelling non-citizens, the so-called "sneak-and-peak" searches, as well as numerous other powers which in inhibit and seek to eliminate the civil rights of every American citizen. I want to know if anybody (left or right) can somehow justify this 300+ piece of legislation which passed through both houses with hardly any debate or investigation and was (shockingly) passed in the Senate by a 98 to 1 vote!?

Also, is there anything going on to protest it?

[Loknar]

I don’t think it is serious yet, I read an article about the 2nd Patriot act and it scared the hell out of me actually. I don’t trust Ashcroft that much. As it stands now, I think we are ok, that bill largely allowed for the US government to hold foreign nationals and suspected terrorists. I disagree with what happened to Jose Pidea though, he should be tried as a US citizen because he is one.

Overall, right now we are ok, but the future looks a bit uncertain.

[CopperGoat]

The future looks....

O - R - W - E - I - L - L - A - N

you know what I am talking about right?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Even capitalists have to keep subversionists at bay. Feel glad they are only observing and perhaps incercerating rather than the alternative.

[Totalitarian]

The American people's "freedoms" are so very precious; they have to be taken and locked up safely by the Feds so that those nasty terrorists will never get to them!

[Ghost Writer]

"I disagree with what happened to Jose Pidea"

Why? The federal government is operating in full compliance with current law, in his case.

"Under the current scheme, there are seven acts that are considered expatriating and will result in the loss of citizenship. These are:

1.) Being naturalized in a foreign country, upon the person’s own application made after reaching 18 years of age;

2.) Making an oath or other declaration of allegiance to a foreign country or division thereof, again, after reaching 18 years of age;

3.) Serving in the armed forces of a foreign country if those armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the US, or if the person serves as an officer;

4.) Working for the government of a foreign country if the person also obtains nationality in that country, or if to work in such a position an oath or other declaration of allegiance is required;

5.) Making a formal renunciation of US citizenship before a US consular officer or diplomat in a foreign country;

6.) Making a formal written statement of renunciation during a state of war, if the Attorney General approves the renunciation as not contrary to US national defense; and

7.) Committing an act of treason against the US, or attempting by force or the use of arms to overthrow the government of the US. Renunciation by this means can be accomplished only after a court has found the person guilty."

source: visalaw.com (http://www.visalaw.com/02apr1/12apr102.html)

I would say that this is a combination of #3 and #7. This has been the subject of frequent law suits surrounding the war on terror. It is clearly expressed in the law that those who join a foreign army hostile to the United States may lose their citizenship. Even though Al Qaeda is not considered a conventional army that belongs to one nation, their intent is clear. Therefore the spirit of this law must apply, in order for our government to protect its citizens.

This is generally what U.S. District Court Judge Michael Mukasey stated in his 102 page decision, which found that Bush "is authorized under the Constitution and by law to direct the military to detain enemy combatants." Furthermore, Mukasey ruled that the president must have "the power to detain unlawful combatants, and it matters not that Padilla is a United States citizen captured on United States soil." In addition, the judge sited the North Korean, Vietnam, Persan Gulf, and Kosovo wars to support his conclusion that a formal declaration of war was not a significant factor when applying this power.

Of course, the terrorist sympathizers known as the ACLU have taken up Padilla's case to challenge Mukasey's ruling, and this will undoubtedly be reviewed by the high court. This is why their is a need for the Patriot Act II. Under section 501 of the DOMESTIC SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003 (http://www.dailyrotten.com/source-docs/patriot2draft.html), a provision is drafted to deal with this specific issue. Under Section 501, a U.S. Citixzen can be dubbed an enemy combatant, and face expatriation. Therefore, such a law would further define the rules of expatriation, making it constitutional.

Even though there is a law being proposed to deal with this, the constitutionality of Padilla's detention can be determined within the court system. If Mukasey's ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, i will effectively become constitutional.

Either way, it is evident that there exists a need to strip those like Padilla of their constitutionally protected right to remain silent. Information that he has can help to prevent further attacks on our nation. Some advocate legislation that will revise the protection of the 5th and sixth amendments in the case of terrorist. The thinking is that they should lose the 5th amendment right not to incriminate themselves by making statements to the police or courts, while maintaining their right to counsel. A problem still exists when the nations national security is at stake. Remember that it was Ramsey Yousef's attorney that was passing messages to terrorist groups through the use of his attorney client priviledge. The information was given to the leftwing attorney via code, and taken out in the memory of this most despicable American lawyer.

Whatever the answer, it is no easy task to balance the need to protect sensitive information, and protect the nation at large, while ensuring the rights of the accused. In this case, I believe Mukasey made the right decision. Hopefully, higher courts will agree. Otherwise, our enemies are right to assume that our system of government is one of our greatest weaknesses.

[Sabocat]

Wow....that's easy then....I hearby swear my allegiance to Tonga......will they send me there now? I can hardly wait.

[Soul Rebel]

Yeah- i was about to say: i guess i am out of here, as i have seriously done most of those.

[Loknar]

I see, I didnt know he actually lost his citizenship.

[Cold Rage]

The first Patriot Act was rushed through the legislature due to the hysteria after 9/11. However, not being totally short sighted, for once, the legislators placed an experation date on the Act. The Patriot Act II is a way for Bush to circumvent this experation date while he is still in power. Thus allowing his Republinazi, oil baron minions to spy on and arrest dissedents without probable cause.

Do I think that the American justice system is incapable of handling the threat of terrorism? Yes, but the justice system is also incapable of handling the threat of murderers and rapists as well (unless the suspect is a minority).

I agree that something needs to be done to combat terrorism. However I don't think making it easier for law enforcement agencies to spy on and seize records of citizens and foreign nationals within American borders is the answer.

What is the answer? Well one possible answer is encouraging cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Also proper training and education for employees in both organizations, without a blindly racist, short sighted view. The FBI is one of the most backward law enforcement agencies in the World. Their crimilogical theories are based on experiments with small populations of people and many of the experiments were designed to produce to outcome the Feds wanted. They also refuse to aknowledge any other theories from other countries, because they are not American.

Anyway, to stop me from babbling I will sum up in saying that the Pariot Act II will only be used to harm Americans who happen to disagree with the party line. It will be a dark day for the ideals of the Founding Fathers, if it is passed.