The Patriot Act

The Patriot Act is a pathetic excuse to defend “national security.”  No amount of neocon propaganda can cause me to think otherwise.  It infringes on the 4th and 5th amendments, and countless civil rights.  We either believe in our Constitution, or we don’t.

If you want to allow the Feds to step over the U.S. Constitution, then fine.  No one can possibly argue that the Patriot Act from its original version to its latest is constitutional.  If there is even a shred of doubt that this infringes on our civil liberties, then the entire system should be revisited and expired.

It is so easy to support something called the Patriot Act.  After all, who wants to be labeled unpatriotic?  Unfortunately, the stupid acronym aside, people who blindly accept it, accept it at the expense of their freedom.  Freedom that is slowly being sucked away by the feds, a process which has been going on since the Civil War.

Are Americans so scared now that we need the government to babysit us?  Are we so weak that we have no qualms with wire tapping, spying, and unwarranted searches because some terrorist may decide to bomb us at anytime?  The continuing trend of government infringement on our rights is that this will eventually come to a brick wall.  Either Americans will get smart and tell the government to MYOB, or we’ll slip into the socialist state of government control.

Unfortunately, the last few years have proven the sheer stupidity of many Americans.  Instead of questioning authority, they simply say that National Security is the main issue without going into reasons how the Patriot Act actually protects us.  It serves merely to take rights away from the citizens, and hand more power to the bloated government.

Go ahead Americans, let the government serve what you desire.  You’ll seriously regret it when it might be too late.  History has always proven that.

Patriots?  No, you are more like Tories.  Well, this Yankee is not going to take this sitting down.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “The Patriot Act”

  1. Hatemonger Says:

    Didn’t realize that terrorist wannbees from other countries have United States Constitutional Rights. I must have missed that Amendment. Its amazing how much one can learn from from a blogger. What Constitutional Law school did you attend?

  2. Hatemonger Says:

    The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens — 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

  3. metaljaybird Says:

    Glad you can use google and wikipedia. Try going to CATO.org and read what some constitutional lawyers say.

    Do I need to be a constitutional law student to qualify? I thought most Americans knew the US Constitution.

    Except for liberals and neocons, I guess.

  4. Hatemonger Says:

    NEWSFLASH Meta
    George Bush doesnt care what you are doing. Take of the tinfoil hat. Didnt use Wikopedia, its full of lies.

  5. Hatemonger Says:

    Here is what Professors of Law and Constitutional Scholors say.
    We write to express our strong support for the USA Patriot Act and concern about misinformation about the necessary legal tools it provides to battle al-Qaeda and our other terrorist enemies. Vital sections of the Patriot Act, such as information-sharing provisions, will expire in 2005. For the security and safety of the American people, no provision of the Patriot Act should expire. Moreover, the temporary provisions should be made permanent.

    Since its nearly unanimous passage in October 2001, the Patriot Act has played a key—and often the leading—role in successful operations to thwart terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our culture. In passing the Act, Congress extensively debated the commonsense updates in the law and provided safeguards for civil liberties.

    For example, the Patriot Act allows investigators to use tools that had been available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking. As Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) explained during floor debate, “[T]he FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What’s good for the mob should be good for terrorists.”

    The Patriot Act also removed major legal barriers that prevented the law enforcement, intelligence, and national defense communities from coordinating information. Now police officers, FBI agents, federal prosecutors and intelligence officials can protect our communities by “connecting the dots” to uncover terrorist plots before they are completed. Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) declared when he voted for the Act, “[W]e simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing.”

    The Act made the law current with modern technology. We no longer have to fight a digital-age battle with antique legal weapons left over from the era of rotary telephones. When investigating the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, for example, law enforcement used one of the Act’s new high-tech authorities to identify and locate some of the killers.

    Before September 11, 2001, law enforcement, intelligence, and national security officials were prevented by legal and bureaucratic restrictions from sharing critical information with each other, and with state and local police.

    Before September 11, law enforcement could more easily obtain business and financial records of white-collar criminals, such as nursing home scammers, than of suspected terrorists. It was easier to chase a money trail involving a white-collar criminal than one involving a terrorist. The Act ended this double-standard. Importantly, the Patriot Act still requires the government to ask a judge for a court order to do so.

    Before September 11, federal judges could impose tougher prison terms on drug traffickers than on terrorists. The Act strengthened penalties for crimes committed by terrorists, such as arson or attacks on power plants and mass transit systems.

    After the Act was passed, terrorist cells were dismantled in Oregon, New York, North Carolina and Virginia. Terrorists were prosecuted in California, Ohio, Texas and Florida. In other words, the Patriot Act’s tools are protecting us. Terrorist funds—$200,000,000—have been frozen or seized. We’re cutting off their money. We’re following the money.

    Further, Congress built into the Act strict and structured oversight of the Executive Branch. Every six months, the Justice Department must report to Congress about its activities under the Act. Justice Department officials have testified on the Patriot Act and other homeland security issues scores of times.

    The government’s success to date in preventing another catastrophic attack on the American homeland since September 11, 2001, would have been much more difficult, if not impossible, without the USA Patriot Act. The authorities Congress provided have substantially enhanced the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence officials to prevent, investigate, and prosecute acts of terror. It is an essential law that provides for checks and balances while enabling the government to fight what will, no doubt, be a challenging and prolonged war against terrorists determined to kill us and destroy our society.

    It has been our experience that when people understand the specific provisions of the USA Patriot Act, as opposed to the inaccurate rhetoric, the most frequent reaction is surprise that most of what is in the Act was not already law. That is why, for the safety of the American people, we ask that no provision of the Patriot Act be allowed to expire and the temporary provisions be made permanent.

  6. metaljaybird Says:

    Most democrats support anything that gives more power to the government. They hate Bush, but love his government expansion, including wiretapping, use of the Patriot Act, and on and on.

    The supporters of this are neocons, not constitutional lawyers. There is a big difference. Neocons strive to invade the world for oil.

    I’m no conspiracy theorist, I just have the perspective that the Constitution should be strictly followed. Expanding the power to the federal government is unconstitutional.

    Invading countries without congress declaring war is unconstitutional.

    Spying on citizens with weak search warrants is borderline, therefore it needs to be expired.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: