Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/18/2004 7:10:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 7:12:58 PM EST by Dave_A]
Ok, between WI's (in)famous up-for-reelection Senator Feingold, and a bunch of folks on this board, there is the constant contention that the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional.

Howeever, NO ONE ever backs the claim up - it's allways repeated as a mantra, often with anecdotal evidence about things that were 'done' with things that are supposedly 'in' the Act's text..

Now, we can excuse Feingold - he's a liberal, and they of course believe that the Constitution says whatever they want it to at the time in question.

But Conservatives are supposed to believe in the strict, literal wording of the Constitution as law.

So I'm starting this thread.

The challenge is to find ONE PROVISION, which you must cite in it's entirety that violates the literal wording of the Federal Constitution, matched by an accompanying cite of the Constitution and any relevant USSC decisions except for the 'creative' ones like Roe V Wade that have no basis in the actual text of the Constitution...

Please keep irrelevant banter about how Hillary could abuse it, or how drug dealers have been busted on PATRIOT warrants out of this - none of that relates to the concrete concept of CONSTITUTIONALITY...

Also, if you're unwilling to PROVE that it's unconstitutional, please don't add to this thread.

All you PATRIOT Act haters...

GO!
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 12:52:30 AM EST
They won't because they can't. All of the "haters" with regards to the Patriot Act have never bothered to read it and are merely parroting what they heard from Alex Jones or Air America. It kind of reminds me of Condon's premise in the original "Manchurian Candidate" that the extreme right is actually a tool of the extreme left...
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:28:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 1:37:43 AM EST by Voldermortist]
SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

that right there is unconstitutional. You MUST have a warrant and MUST have probable cause to issue warrant. There are no exceptions. If you don't have the warrant in your hand, you don't go in. Plain and simple. Don't like it? Move to North Korea.

Article [IV.]
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.

and as far as citing USSC, there isn't any to cite. Most of the USSC judges are ashcroft-supporters. They don't believe in enforcing the constitution whether democrat or republican they merely enforce what they like or don't like. All judges seem to do that these days. In fact I think that'd be another good challenge, find an honestly JUST judge out there who follows the constitution to the letter. I bet you can't find that either.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:54:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 1:57:22 AM EST by rickinvegas]

Originally Posted By Voldermortist:
that right there is unconstitutional. You MUST have a warrant and MUST have probable cause to issue warrant. There are no exceptions. If you don't have the warrant in your hand, you don't go in. Plain and simple. Don't like it? Move to North Korea.



You're kidding right?

Nothing in the section you cited in any way affects the legal requirement to obtain a warrant from a court prior to searching. Try again.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:57:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 2:17:22 AM EST by Voldermortist]
ok I misread that. nevermind. happens at 4 am. well 6 am here but i've been up all night.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 10:50:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 12:10:37 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Voldermortist:
SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

that right there is unconstitutional. You MUST have a warrant and MUST have probable cause to issue warrant. There are no exceptions. If you don't have the warrant in your hand, you don't go in. Plain and simple. Don't like it? Move to North Korea.

Article [IV.]
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.

and as far as citing USSC, there isn't any to cite. Most of the USSC judges are ashcroft-supporters. They don't believe in enforcing the constitution whether democrat or republican they merely enforce what they like or don't like. All judges seem to do that these days. In fact I think that'd be another good challenge, find an honestly JUST judge out there who follows the constitution to the letter. I bet you can't find that either.



MISS!

That provision DELAYS NOTIFICATION of the execution of the warrant.

It does NOT allow search WITHOUT one.

See RED provisions..

Nice try Volder...

NEXT!

P.S. I see your statement now... You figured it out too... Oh, this is one of the most commonly misconstrued segments, btw...

As for your last statement, there ARE some Supreme Court decisions that actually do just literally read the Constitution. They aren't the (in)famous ones like Griswald, Roe or Dredd Scott, but they exist none the less...

And as for the rip on Ashcroft, so far he's been the most constitutionalist AG in recent years...
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 11:51:38 AM EST
Btt... Now THIS is interesting.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 12:21:54 PM EST

At this point,I have not entirely made up my mind whether I trust the USE of the patriot act even IF the act itself is constitutional.

Example: section 213.

While it says the notice of the search can be delayed, wouldn`t this leave the door open to misuse by back tracking?

i.e. conducting fishing expedition searches and THEN getting the warrant and filling in the timeline AFTER the search and just saying the notice was delayed.

The PRIOR notice is in itself a check and balance against abuse.

This leaves a " just trust us " issue for many people.

I don`t think I want to just trust ANYONE in gov.

The whole key is the check and balance issue to limit abuse.

The founding fathers were very smart AND they lived through a system of tyrrany that most U.S. citizens today can not even begin to comprehend.


Better think LONG and HARD before you give up ANY freedom, right, or check and balance of them.


Link Posted: 9/19/2004 12:43:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 1:07:59 PM EST by FMD]
Sorry for the cross-post, but I was directed here by Dave from the thread on Feingold.

I have another idea, Dave. How about you cite the Constitutional Article that contains authorization for such legislation? Please also include the funding aspect.

No?

Then it's unconstitutional (from a "strict constructionist" standpoint).

Read the Constitution, Federalist papers, and the Anti-Federalist papers before you pick up one more copy of The New Republic, please.

As I stated in the previously mentioned post:


Originally Posted By Dave_A:
... I also believe that since the Constitution limits government only by what it says...



And that's my problem with your politics; You have no Constitutional scholarship.

The Constitution actually enumerates what the fed.gov is allowed to do, recognizing and protecting pre-exsisting rights held inviolate by the People and the States, not granting them. You have the whole relationship backwards. See the 9th and 10th Amendments for clarification.

-FMD
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 12:47:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 12:54:21 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By FMD:
Sorry for the cross-post, but I was directed here by Dave from the thread on Feingold.

I have another idea, Dave. How about you cite the Constitutional Article that contains authorization for such legislation? Please also include the funding aspect.

No?

Then it's unconstitutional (from a "strict constructionist" standpoint) then.

Read the Constitution, Federalist papers, and the Anti-Federalist papers before you pick up one more copy of The New Republic, please.

As I stated in the previously mentioned post:


Originally Posted By Dave_A:
... I also believe that since the Constitution limits government only by what it says...



And that's my problem with your politics; You have no Constitutional scholarship.

The Constitution actually enumerates what the fed.gov is allowed to do, recognizing and protecting pre-exsisting rights held inviolate by the People and the States, not granting them. You have the whole relationship backwards. See the 9th and 10th Amendments for clarification.

-FMD



Authorization for USAPA: 'Provide for the Common Defense'.

As for funding, what about it? The House passed an appropriations bill, in proper form, funding it.

That is in no way limited to the military, but also covers intelegence & other security measures as well...

As for the rest:

The Constitution is a legal document, not really a bunch of laws, closer to a contract between Government and the People.

But in either case, it does not matter what the 'intent' of the founders was. That is not strict constructionalisim, that is activisim.

Granted, it's Conservative or Libertarian activisim, not Liberal activisim, but it is just as flawed.

Laws have no spirit, only letter. Thus, what is said is the be-all and end-all of the meaning.

To use a law as an example: The SPIRIT of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was to ban ALL AR-15 variants by name, then ban them again by features. If we, in this country, enforced the 'SPIRIT' of the law, there would have been no new ARs for the past 10yrs...

But we enforce the letter only. So why should the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, be any different?

You can discuss the theory all you want, but in the end, a law or contract (incl the Constitution) is only what it says, no more.

This, btw, is a good topic for another thread...
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:00:55 PM EST
Dave,

You're a nice guy, but would have been tarred and feathered for being a Tory. There's so much wrong with the post above I really don't know where to begin...
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:22:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 2:39:57 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By FMD:
Dave,

You're a nice guy, but would have been tarred and feathered for being a Tory. There's so much wrong with the post above I really don't know where to begin...



I can't say that I would have supported the Brits back then, because this isn't back then... It is likely that I would not have, as representative govt is an ideal I believe in completely.... The only historical statment I can for-sure state is that I would have been pro-Union in the Civil War.

But the facts remain: our legal system judges things by the letter of the law not the spirit.

And I have answered your challenge, so please answer mine.

As to constitutional theory, that might do better in the fiengold thread...

"Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

Is the clause that authorizes the Patriot Act, BTW.

And the Federalist Papers are not a source of law, they are a series of advications for a certain form of government.

So, FMD, now that we've cleared it under Common Defense, a cited provision of the Act and a citation of what it violates, please?
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:34:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By FMD:
Dave,

You're a nice guy, but would have been tarred and feathered for being a Tory. There's so much wrong with the post above I really don't know where to begin...


Of course you don't know where to begin.
You've never read the Patriot Act.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:37:41 PM EST
Biggest flaw in most criticism of the Patriot Act:

Most of the portions that people find so "scary" ONLY pertain to foreigners, and are amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveilence Act.
They do not affect US Citizens.

Most people are simply too lazy to read the Act itself.
They simply rely on others to translate it for them, and then tell them what to think.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 1:53:25 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:37:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 2:38:42 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Biggest flaw in most criticism of the Patriot Act:

Most of the portions that people find so "scary" ONLY pertain to foreigners, and are amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveilence Act.
They do not affect US Citizens.

Most people are simply too lazy to read the Act itself.
They simply rely on others to translate it for them, and then tell them what to think.



And I think that is the "danger" of the Patriot Act.

Due to previous discussions, and clarifications by members like you, I have revised feelings regarding the Patriot Act. I have even found many flaws in the objections by groups like the ACLU in regard to the Patriot Act and even worse, most objections are politically motivated and don't have the best interests of this country in mind. In other words, people will even object to something "good" if Bush did it.

Back to my reservations of the Patriot Act. I think it is a step into dangerous territory.

As you noted, MOST people do think the "scary parts" pertain to US citizens even though it is NOT true. It is sorta like how most people think the AW Ban now allows machine guns. And given that FALSE by widely held belief, the door is now open for future legislation that would apply those same rules TO US citizens.

I can see it now, promoters of the bill saying "this really doesn't say anything the Patriot Act doesn't already say" and the next thing you know we have a brand new law that DOES apply to US citizens. The prospect of that law in the hands of a Bill Clinton type President is terrifying.

But my major objection to the Patriot Act is this, it is NOT necessary.

As it applies to "foreigners" they do NOT legally enjoy the freedoms and rights of a US citizen. As such they cannot be violated and the Pat Act is not necessary. I think that is how the issue should be approached. Just as terrorists are not "enemy combatants" and don't enjoy the rights of a POW under the geneva convention, foreign nationals are NOT US citizens and have no such rights as such to begin with.



In an ideal society you'd be right Steyr... We'd just say 'Sorry, the Constitution only applies to 'We the People of the United States' (eg CITIZENS) and turn the CIA/FBI loose on suspected hostile foreigners...

Unfortunately, decades of liberals in the government means that the 'crats believe foreigners DO have constitutional rights (even illegal aliens), and so we now need a law to authorise actions that should be legit against foreigners anyway...

In the world where the 9/11 hijackers could have sued the airlines for racial profiling if they had been told 'Sorry, we don't let terrorists fly', things like the USAPA are needed simply and solely because of the sheer hidebound stupidity of the paper pushers that run the govt...
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:41:21 PM EST
You must remember...

FISA was a set of self-imposed laws that bound our hands.
The Patriot Act amended FISA to make it easier to track foreigners suspected of being terrorists, enemy agents, etc..
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:48:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 8:18:56 PM EST by Master_Blaster]
A few months back, I read an article that talked about DOJ attorneys consulting w/ local city officials, DA's, etc. on how to "stretch" the Patriot Act to apply it to heretofor local matters (gang activity, etc. - e.g. "neighborhood terrorism"). Problem w/ this is, these are local issues, or State issues at most. The fed is broadening its influence into local issues. Besides, there are already plenty of laws aimed at gang-related crimes. The problem, just like w/ firearms laws, is a lack of enforcement, manpower, $$$, or all of the aforementioned. Stacking a fed law onto this only covers up for local enforcement problems, & does nothing other than to bring the fed more intrusively into the local sector.

The Patriot Act best serves to address non-citizen combatants, who do not (or should not) have Constitutional rights. As it is, the DOJ, & DOI weren't up to the job. I don't see why these bureaucracies aren't being thoroughly taken to task (As in, being subjected to a good house cleaning) for their failure. The current problems we are having are indicators of the corrupt, inept "career bureaucrat" culture in the fed, rather than problems w/ our laws. We have tons of laws - literally. We lack the ability - & even the will, in some instances - to enforce them.

9/11 should not have happened, & it didn't have to. It did because the "career bureaucrat" culture didn't (& probably still doesn't) want to - God forbid - make "waves" or do something that might otherwise be considered un-PC. When you consider the report concerning the female translator at the FBI who was chastised by her boss for being too efficient & inhibiting the department's effort to use the current crisis as an "opportunity" for increasing its funding, I think you may see why I am skeptical - to put it mildly - of giving more power to the gov't after so much has already been found wanting, & failing. It's like giving a raise & a promotion to someone for making a royal screw-up. Doesn't happen in the private sector, so why should the fed have it differently?

The fed needs to get itself in order, not hit up the constituency for more power & a bigger budget.

JMO.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 2:58:23 PM EST
Still, NO ONE has managed to show a single segment that is unconstitutional...

Not one...

According to Feingold it would violate the Bill of Rights...

So, let's see where it does...

Given how many of you can't stand this law on supposed 'Constitutional' grounds, SOMEONE has got to know where the violations are and what they violate

Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:22:47 PM EST
Patriot Act supporters:

I'll admit, I haven't read it. All I know is that it is supposed to give the governemnt more power "to bust terrorists." We've seen pleny of arguments from the side against it, now lets hear your arguments. What does it do? How does it do it? Why should it be supported?
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:23:19 PM EST

I did a google search (or three) and the only (realistically credible) one I found is this one where the actual wording in one part of the act was "vague".

www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:26:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:27:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By G-Rated:
Patriot Act supporters:

I'll admit, I haven't read it. All I know is that it is supposed to give the governemnt more power "to bust terrorists." We've seen pleny of arguments from the side against it, now lets hear your arguments. What does it do? How does it do it? Why should it be supported?



I think should help answer your questions...

www.lifeandliberty.gov/

It's an easy read.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 3:53:28 PM EST
The delay in notification in no way violates the 4th Amendment, and has been done for years in Foreign Counterintelligence cases and some Organized Crime cases.

The general rule with search warrants is that you must leave a copy of the warrant along with an inventory of the items seized. There are some cases, though, where a covert search is necessary to gain evidence in a really big case, and the normal legal requirement to leave a posted notice doesn't make any sense and would compromise the investigation. The Patriot Act adds Foreign Counter Terrosrism cases (and those cases only) to the list of situations where a judge may authorize a covert search.

I'll give you a very simple common sense example. The agents develop probabale cause that a group of foreigners are members of a terrorist organization, and the cell regularly meets at one member's house to have planning sessions. The feds want to hear what is discussed, but other technical means are not good enough to recover sound. They need to install a listening devie, and obtain a Search Warrant, based on PC, to conduct audio surveillance. But, in order for the device to be placed effectively, they have to enter the cell leader's house. Giving notice that they served a warrant would kill the chances of getting effective information from the tap, and may cause the cell to disperse, denying the information necessary to disrupting any larger terrorist plots. So, the agents obtain one of these "sneak and peek" warrants, and covertly enter the terrorist's house one day while he was away. Maybe they even mirror his PC and take pictures of his files while they are there, if the warrant authorizes it. At some point in time, the agents will have to serve the search notice, though hopefully that will be to the terrorist's attorney as he is being indicted.

We have been doing this for years to foreign spies and the Mob, and now the Patriot Act allows it for foreign terrorists. Nothing violating the 4th or particularly new and alarming about it.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:02:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 4:06:39 PM EST by FMD]

Originally Posted By _Ugly_:

Originally Posted By G-Rated:
Patriot Act supporters:

I'll admit, I haven't read it. All I know is that it is supposed to give the governemnt more power "to bust terrorists." We've seen pleny of arguments from the side against it, now lets hear your arguments. What does it do? How does it do it? Why should it be supported?



I think should help answer your questions...

www.lifeandliberty.gov/

It's an easy read.



G_Rated: That would be waaay too much. Why should one have to prove that a law is Constitutional before enactment. You must prove its unconstitutionality.

_Ugly_: The link you provided is nothing more than a summation, that really has no substance.

Okay. I'll bite. Besides an incredibly boring read that references umpteen Titles, Chapters, and Codes it amends, the PA also has nuggets like this (taken almost at random, literally):


SEC. 316. ANTI-TERRORIST FORFEITURE PROTECTION.
(a) RIGHT TO CONTEST- An owner of property that is confiscated under any provision of law relating to the confiscation of assets of suspected international terrorists, may contest that confiscation by filing a claim in the manner set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims), and asserting as an affirmative defense that--

(1) the property is not subject to confiscation under such provision of law...



Last time I checked (and no doubt you will "prove" otherwise, Dave), an affirmative defense only happens after arrest or arragnment (or in this case confiscation). Further, the first caviat basically says "It's an affirmative defense if we screwed up and confiscated your stuff illegally".

I believe the Constitution has something to say about that: ...The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus [due process of law for fer us non-lawyer types] shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

The Constitution does NOT provide an affirmative defense. It's the basis of the law (supposedly).

If you read the Constitution ("plain language" not interpretation, Dave) it's an easy concept to grasp...

"Those that trade liberty for safety deserve neither", to paraphrase.

Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:06:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Biggest flaw in most criticism of the Patriot Act:

Most of the portions that people find so "scary" ONLY pertain to foreigners, and are amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveilence Act.
They do not affect US Citizens.

Most people are simply too lazy to read the Act itself.
They simply rely on others to translate it for them, and then tell them what to think.



And I think that is the "danger" of the Patriot Act.

Due to previous discussions, and clarifications by members like you, I have revised feelings regarding the Patriot Act. I have even found many flaws in the objections by groups like the ACLU in regard to the Patriot Act and even worse, most objections are politically motivated and don't have the best interests of this country in mind. In other words, people will even object to something "good" if Bush did it.

Back to my reservations of the Patriot Act. I think it is a step into dangerous territory.

As you noted, MOST people do think the "scary parts" pertain to US citizens even though it is NOT true. It is sorta like how most people think the AW Ban now allows machine guns. And given that FALSE by widely held belief, the door is now open for future legislation that would apply those same rules TO US citizens.

I can see it now, promoters of the bill saying "this really doesn't say anything the Patriot Act doesn't already say" and the next thing you know we have a brand new law that DOES apply to US citizens. The prospect of that law in the hands of a Bill Clinton type President is terrifying.

But my major objection to the Patriot Act is this, it is NOT necessary.

As it applies to "foreigners" they do NOT legally enjoy the freedoms and rights of a US citizen. As such they cannot be violated and the Pat Act is not necessary. I think that is how the issue should be approached. Just as terrorists are not "enemy combatants" and don't enjoy the rights of a POW under the geneva convention, foreign nationals are NOT US citizens and have no such rights as such to begin with.



In an ideal society you'd be right Steyr... We'd just say 'Sorry, the Constitution only applies to 'We the People of the United States' (eg CITIZENS) and turn the CIA/FBI loose on suspected hostile foreigners...

Unfortunately, decades of liberals in the government means that the 'crats believe foreigners DO have constitutional rights (even illegal aliens), and so we now need a law to authorise actions that should be legit against foreigners anyway...

In the world where the 9/11 hijackers could have sued the airlines for racial profiling if they had been told 'Sorry, we don't let terrorists fly', things like the USAPA are needed simply and solely because of the sheer hidebound stupidity of the paper pushers that run the govt...



And in the "non perfect" world the same people also think the Pat Act already applies to US citizens and a a result the way is paved for the future law that will do just that. And that is why it is a danger.



Agreed.

All laws have a potential for abuse...

I am trying to discuss constitutionality here...
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:20:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By G-Rated:
...What does it do?...



For one thing it allows law enforcement who's hands are often tied by 'red tape' to act before the suspects are 'tipped' off.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:32:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 4:43:58 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By FMD:

Originally Posted By _Ugly_:

Originally Posted By G-Rated:
Patriot Act supporters:

I'll admit, I haven't read it. All I know is that it is supposed to give the governemnt more power "to bust terrorists." We've seen pleny of arguments from the side against it, now lets hear your arguments. What does it do? How does it do it? Why should it be supported?



I think should help answer your questions...

www.lifeandliberty.gov/

It's an easy read.



G_Rated: That would be waaay too much. Why should one have to prove that a law is Constitutional before enactment. You must prove its unconstitutionality. If you allege that a law that was passed is unconstitutional, yes, you must prove it. Otherwise, it's a straw-man argument. We've allready covered constitutional authority here, via 'Common Defense' clause

_Ugly_: The link you provided is nothing more than a summation, that really has no substance.

Okay. I'll bite. Besides an incredibly boring read that references umpteen Titles, Chapters, and Codes it amends, the PA also has nuggets like this (taken almost at random, literally):


SEC. 316. ANTI-TERRORIST FORFEITURE PROTECTION.
(a) RIGHT TO CONTEST- An owner of property that is confiscated under any provision of law relating to the confiscation of assets of suspected international terrorists, may contest that confiscation by filing a claim in the manner set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims), and asserting as an affirmative defense that--

(1) the property is not subject to confiscation under such provision of law...



Last time I checked (and no doubt you will "prove" otherwise, Dave), an affirmative defense only happens after arrest or arragnment (or in this case confiscation). Further, the first caviat basically says "It's an affirmative defense if we screwed up and confiscated your stuff illegally".

I believe the Constitution has something to say about that: ...The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus [due process of law for fer us non-lawyer types] shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

This referrs to property siezed with a warrant, and then confiscated under civil forfeiture proceedings. It allows for civil forfieture trials to sieze terrorist property via 'reasonable' methods with use of warrants and due process, and ithe 'affirmative defense' allows an nnocent third party to recover property siezed in anti-terror operations (say, if your stolen car was siezed, or if terrorists used an employer's vehicle and it was siezed).

Further, siezing someone's property is not illegal just because you got the wrong guy. If that were the case, there would be a lawsuit every time somoene was found innocent of a crime. This does not circumvent the requirement for a warrant, or due process, and is hardly a novel idea (See the case 'US vs One Colt Machinegun' as an example of (a) how the process works, and (b) a gigantic ATF screwup, for those who need more material against that perticular agency)


The Constitution does NOT provide an affirmative defense. It's the basis of the law (supposedly).
Nor does it prohibit them, either. 'Self Defense' is an affirmative defense, and there are many others in law. The Constitution requires due process, and affirmative defenses are part of that: you are still presumed innocent untill proven guilty, all an affirmative defense does is give you a codified-in-law argument that you should be found NOT guilty. They do not violate the Constitution

If you read the Constitution ("plain language" not interpretation, Dave) it's an easy concept to grasp...

"Those that trade liberty for safety deserve neither", to paraphrase.




Again, you're about as off as Volder was...

None of this violates anyone's rights - warrants are still requiored, procedure must be followed, etc... The affirmative defense is an improvement, since it creates a specific condition where you MUST have your property returned, as opposed to 'if the judge feels like it' (forfieture cases are in CIVIL court, there is only a jury if the dollar limit is exceeded. The standard of evidence is also lower: perponderance of the evidence vs beyond a reasonable doubt)...
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:39:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 4:47:30 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By _Ugly_:
I did a google search (or three) and the only (realistically credible) one I found is this one where the actual wording in one part of the act was "vague".

www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/



That case was blatant judicial activisim by the 9th Circus again....

A loonie leftie judge who never met a bunch of terrorists (er 'freedom fighters') he didn't like invented a 'right' to help terrorists as long as you provide 'peaceful' assistance...

The Constitution doesn't have any provision protecting a 'right' to help foreign terrorists so long as you are only showing them how to stall (er 'negotiate')...

"The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals. "

That was his logic, that because 'Flower Power' assistance to terrorists was not permitted, the law was 'wrong' (even if perfectly constitutional) and should be struck down...

But again Linking to 3rd party sites does not count, I asked for a specific cite of the Act and a specific cite of a provision of the Constitution violated by it.


Originally Posted By G-Rated:
Patriot Act supporters:

I'll admit, I haven't read it. All I know is that it is supposed to give the governemnt more power "to bust terrorists." We've seen pleny of arguments from the side against it, now lets hear your arguments. What does it do? How does it do it? Why should it be supported?



Weather the law is 'Good' or 'Bad' is not a matter of discussion for this thread. The thread is here as a challenge to the opponents who continually allege that the law is not just 'bad' but UNCONSTITUTIONAL! So far, no one has been able to meet it: We have Volder's late night 'oops', and FMD's shot at civil forfieture law as a concept (that's a whole 'nother thread)...

Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:50:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/19/2004 4:50:57 PM EST by longun45]
The Assett forfeture scope was widened, the scope of the reporting requirements for " large transactions" was enlarged top more institutions and the amounts were trimmed.

Now if you think that GUBERMENT AGENTS seizing your property on a suspicion they do not have to prove is a great thing then keep right on going.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.


The government makes the assumption that if you have a large sum of money ( not defined ), you are engaged in illegal dealings and have every right to steal your peoperty.
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 4:57:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By longun45:
The Assett forfeture scope was widened, the scope of the reporting requirements for " large transactions" was enlarged top more institutions and the amounts were trimmed. And nothing is unconstitutional about this

Now if you think that GUBERMENT AGENTS seizing your property on a suspicion they do not have to prove is a great thing then keep right on going. CITE


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.


The government makes the assumption that if you have a large sum of money ( not defined ), you are engaged in illegal dealings and have every right to steal your peoperty.No, they don't



Where is the portion of the PATRIOT Act that allows them to sieze property 'without having to prove a thing'?

You are doing the classic mantra-repeating...

Every siezure proceeding requires at least a warrant, and in some cases a full-blown civil trial...

The reporting of dollar amounts transferred is not 'stealing' anything from you...

If they decide that that reporting indicates terrorisim financing, they still have to go thru the full forfeiture process, or get a warrant to sieze the proceeds as evidence...
Link Posted: 9/19/2004 6:08:20 PM EST
Basically, the Patriot Act allows us to use the same tools against terrorists that we've used against the Mob for decades...people blow shit all outta proportion sometimes...
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 3:56:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By IamtheNRA:
Basically, the Patriot Act allows us to use the same tools against terrorists that we've used against the Mob for decades...people blow shit all outta proportion sometimes...



+1

Still no one has been able to provide a SINGLE instance wherein the Patriot Act violates the Constitution.


Game, set, match.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 5:48:39 AM EST
FISA is a self-imposed set of rule that we placed upon ourselves, in dealing with suspected FOREIGN terrorists/agents.

Most of the mewling we hear, is about the lossening of THESE restrictions.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 7:01:05 PM EST
BTT...

Anyone???

Come on, answer it...
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 7:17:28 PM EST
i dont know the words of the act, but since it has been used to deny people the right to an atourny, or a speedy public trial. doesnt that break the law? i dont really feal like getting the text of the act.. but gidion vs wainwrite, the 5th, 6th, and 9th amendment, back that up.

if the patriot act is constitutional, then they wouldnt be able to do the stuff that i've heard about. even if they are called a traiter, that's still illegal.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 7:38:23 PM EST

Does this meet your standard Dave?

From slate

What it does: Section 505 authorizes the use of what's essentially an administrative subpoena of personal records. The subpoenas require no probable cause or judicial oversight.

The law before and how it changed: Before Patriot, these letters could only be issued against individuals who were reasonably suspected of espionage. But Patriot loosened the standard by allowing the letters to be used against anyone, including U.S. citizens, even if they themselves are not suspected of espionage or criminal activity. These letters may now be issued independently by FBI field offices, rather than by senior officials. And unlike Section 215 warrants, they are not subject to even perfunctory judicial review or oversight.

The records that can be obtained through the letters under Patriot include telephone logs, e-mail logs, certain financial and bank records, and credit reports, on the assertion that such information would be "relevant" to an ongoing terrorism investigation. They cannot be used in ordinary criminal investigations. Unlike 215, no court order—not even a rubber-stamped order—is required. Those forced to turn over records are gagged from disclosing the demand.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 9:02:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By cck:
Does this meet your standard Dave?

From slate



You are citing an article by Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turner?? Give me a break. Lithwick is Canadian with a HUGE anti-American, anti-Bush agenda and Turner seems to write mostly "hit pieces" about the Bush Daughters

In studying and reporting on the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act, we have attempted to be as evenhanded as possible.

My Ass!!

Re-read this "Guide", it is full of assumptions, half-truths and outright innacuracies (read lies). It uses lines like, "What it does: Section 505 authorizes the use of what's essentially an administrative subpoena of personal records" Essentially?? WTF does that mean? It either is or it isn't. You can get better anaylasis on DU.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 3:50:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 3:54:55 AM EST by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By cck:
Does this meet your standard Dave?

From slate

What it does: Section 505 authorizes the use of what's essentially an administrative subpoena of personal records. The subpoenas require no probable cause or judicial oversight....


Show me where...

SEC. 505. MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORITIES.
(a) TELEPHONE TOLL AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS- Section 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting `at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director' after `Assistant Director';
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director'; and
(B) by striking `made that' and all that follows and inserting the following: `made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and'; and
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director'; and
(B) by striking `made that' and all that follows and inserting the following: `made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.
(b) FINANCIAL RECORDS- Section 1114(a)(5)(A) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(5)(A)) is amended--

(1) by inserting `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director' after `designee'; and
(2) by striking `sought' and all that follows and inserting `sought for foreign counter intelligence purposes to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.
(c) CONSUMER REPORTS- Section 624 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge of a Bureau field office designated by the Director' after `designee' the first place it appears; and
(B) by striking `in writing that' and all that follows through the end and inserting the following: `in writing, that such information is sought for the conduct of an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge of a Bureau field office designated by the Director' after `designee' the first place it appears; and
(B) by striking `in writing that' and all that follows through the end and inserting the following: `in writing that such information is sought for the conduct of an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'; and
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) by inserting `in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director' after `designee of the Director'; and
(B) by striking `in camera that' and all that follows through `States.' and inserting the following: `in camera that the consumer report is sought for the conduct of an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.



Nowhere.
These Leftists "tell" you that the Act is UnConstitutional, and HOPE that you don't read it.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 4:28:22 AM EST
An "Administrative Subpoena" or "Grand Jury Subpoena" for financical, medical or other personal records, could be issued, by a magistrate (judge) based on reasonable suspicion before the Patriot Act was enacted. It still required a finding by a judge. We have been routinely getting these under state law for the following types of information (a brief and by no means inclusive list):
-Bank and pay records for drug dealers (for "forensic accounting" to prove that they could not be living their lifestyle based on their legal, reported income only);
-Toxicology screeening results from DWI suspects transported to the hospital;
-Medical records for deceased persons, to help determine cause of death;
-ISP records and user information from internet fraud cases;
-Telephone records in Harassment and Stalking cases;
-ATM records that place a suspect near the scene of a major crime;
-Credit card transactions that show who paid for a hotel room where a major crime occurred;
-Cell phone records for the victim in Missing Person cases.

These were routine investigative tools in use before 9-11 by LOCAL law enforcement. The Feds actually have far stricter standards before they can get those kinds of information, even though they are routinely used by their local counterparts, even for relatively minor, even misdemeanor, non-violent cases. As a local cop, it is easier (even with the Patriot Act) for me to start an investigation and file charges for just about any offense than it is for the Feds. The Patriot Act expanded some of those subpoena powers for the Feds that the locals have already had for decades, and allowed them to use them a little more often. All of those local subpoena powers have been upheld for decades by courts, and are far from unconstitutional. Anymore, most companies have such strict privacy requirements, that even if you are the victim of a fraud, theft or forgery case, your financial institution often will not release your account information and history to LE investigators, EVEN WITH YOUR PERMISSION, without a subpoena.

Try again.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 4:34:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 4:35:11 AM EST by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
<snip>
These Leftists "tell" you that the Act is UnConstitutional, and HOPE that you don't read it.



Here is the actual law itself. I am including the faster loading HTML version if you want to review a section quickly, and the much slower loading PDF version, if you want to save to your hard drive for more detailed later review.
Patriot Act HTML
Patriot Act PDF version

Warning: The Patriot Act is very long. However, do not use that as an excuse to take the word of people with an agenda. Exercise your brain, read the law, then you will be able to argue using FACTS, not second-hand information. Independent thought is a wonderful thing.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 4:47:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By natez:
An "Administrative Subpoena" or "Grand Jury Subpoena" for financical, medical or other personal records, could be issued, by a magistrate (judge) based on reasonable suspicion before the Patriot Act was enacted. It still required a finding by a judge. We have been routinely getting these under state law for the following types of information (a brief and by no means inclusive list):
-Bank and pay records for drug dealers (for "forensic accounting" to prove that they could not be living their lifestyle based on their legal, reported income only);
-Toxicology screeening results from DWI suspects transported to the hospital;
-Medical records for deceased persons, to help determine cause of death;
-ISP records and user information from internet fraud cases;
-Telephone records in Harassment and Stalking cases;
-ATM records that place a suspect near the scene of a major crime;
-Credit card transactions that show who paid for a hotel room where a major crime occurred;
-Cell phone records for the victim in Missing Person cases.

These were routine investigative tools in use before 9-11 by LOCAL law enforcement. The Feds actually have far stricter standards before they can get those kinds of information, even though they are routinely used by their local counterparts, even for relatively minor, even misdemeanor, non-violent cases. As a local cop, it is easier (even with the Patriot Act) for me to start an investigation and file charges for just about any offense than it is for the Feds. The Patriot Act expanded some of those subpoena powers for the Feds that the locals have already had for decades, and allowed them to use them a little more often. All of those local subpoena powers have been upheld for decades by courts, and are far from unconstitutional. Anymore, most companies have such strict privacy requirements, that even if you are the victim of a fraud, theft or forgery case, your financial institution often will not release your account information and history to LE investigators, EVEN WITH YOUR PERMISSION, without a subpoena.

Try again.



Exactly...besides, administrative subpoenas are generally used with the cooperation of the person or company subpoenaed...it's just something to justify the release of private financial records, etc. to the government.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 5:02:37 AM EST
It isnt unconstitutional, but it is Orwelian.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 5:12:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By x5060:
It isnt unconstitutional, but it is Orwelian.


That's the spirit!
Don't let pesky facts or analysis get in your way.
Just trot out some slogans. Reading is boring.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 6:54:05 AM EST
This has been a very informative thread so far. Anyone else?
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 7:51:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 7:53:06 AM EST by Grunteled]
It's interesting but a little contrived.

So any legal analysis by a third party is verboten, only first hand study of all the existing US code and then first hand placing of the "strike XXXXX insert YYYYY" in the details and then contrasting that with text of the constitution is acceptable evidence? Yes, I'm sure you'll succeed in shooting many people down by challenging the way they come by the information or who the info comes from. It's doubtful many people understand all the relevant US code by which the FBI and Justice Department run. So it's equally unlikely that they will by themselves be able to accomplish what you are asking for. If we have some folks who's job involves constitutional law they may have more insight. I'd be highly interested in hearing from them.

I'm not on the PATRIOT act is pure evil bandwagon either. However, based on some accounts I have read I have my concerns (no I'm not digging out lexus/nexus to provide the cites). My main concern came from stories of enhanced penalties from the act being applied to domestic crime. If those are really valid concerns only time will tell. I doubt this thread will too instructive in the debate.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:07:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By _Ugly_:
This has been a very informative thread so far. Anyone else?

+1

Very interesting thread Dave.

Hoppy8420
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:14:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 8:15:52 AM EST by cck]

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:


You are citing an article by Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turner?? Give me a break. Lithwick is Canadian with a HUGE anti-American, anti-Bush agenda and Turner seems to write mostly "hit pieces" about the Bush Daughters.

My Ass!!

Re-read this "Guide", it is full of assumptions, half-truths and outright innacuracies (read lies). It uses lines like, "What it does: Section 505 authorizes the use of what's essentially an administrative subpoena of personal records" Essentially?? WTF does that mean? It either is or it isn't. You can get better anaylasis on DU.



Great way to refute their arguments, ad hominem attacks. Way to be a knee jerk liberal yourself.

I was trying to give an answer to a challenge, not endorsing anything one way or the other.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:20:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 8:21:32 AM EST by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
It's interesting but a little contrived.

So any legal analysis by a third party is verboten, only first hand study of all the existing US code and then first hand placing of the "strike XXXXX insert YYYYY" in the details and then contrasting that with text of the constitution is acceptable evidence? Yes, I'm sure you'll succeed in shooting many people down by challenging the way they come by the information or who the info comes from. It's doubtful many people understand all the relevant US code by which the FBI and Justice Department run. So it's equally unlikely that they will by themselves be able to accomplish what you are asking for. If we have some folks who's job involves constitutional law they may have more insight. I'd be highly interested in hearing from them.

I'm not on the PATRIOT act is pure evil bandwagon either. However, based on some accounts I have read I have my concerns (no I'm not digging out lexus/nexus to provide the cites). My main concern came from stories of enhanced penalties from the act being applied to domestic crime. If those are really valid concerns only time will tell. I doubt this thread will too instructive in the debate.



No one said you cannot use second hand sources. What we are asking is that you check the claims of these sources AGAINST THE ACTUAL LAW! In all the panic stricken "evidence" cited, a simple look at the law reveals these dangers to be at best greatly exagerated, at worst outright fabrications. That is whiy Dave_A asked for people to back up their assertions with EVIDENCE. The main source of evidence on the unconstitutionality of the law would be to show where the text of the law conflicts with the Constitution. So far, not a SINGLE example has been raise.

While my current "job" does not involve constitutional law, it is what I did my Doctoral studies in. I have read the Patriot Act, every word of it, several times. There are simply no violations of the Constitution, unless you wish to overturn the past century of constitutional jurisprudence and start over from scratch on what defines "unreasonable" search and seizure, how we define "persons, houses, papers, and effects" and what constitutes "probable cause," "due process," and "equal protection."
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:32:48 AM EST
Overturning the last century of constitutional jurisprudence sounds like a good start to me.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:38:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By twl:
Overturning the last century of constitutional jurisprudence sounds like a good start to me.



me too.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top