What specific provisions of the Patriot Act do you object to?

[A18]

Discuss.

[John Dibble]

Well, this isn't a specific provision, but the lack of the words 'probable cause' disturbs me.

I would also like it if they would cut apart the bill, and have Congress vote on each specific power that the act gives. As it is, hardly any of the Congressmen read it, or any legislation for that matter, because they are all so complicated that they are summed up and not given proper consideration.

[Lunar]

The secret judge hearings as the only check disturbs me.

I value privacy over security too, so I object to the whole premise behidn the bill.

[Redefeatbush04]

Section 903 ....it is not specific enough. The way they put it, anyone could be considered a terrorist

"It is the sense of Congress that officers and employees of the intelligence community of the Federal Government, acting within the course of their official duties, should be encouraged, and should make every effort, to establish and maintain intelligence relationships with any person, entity, or group for the purpose of engaging in lawful intelligence activities, including the acquisition of information on the identity, location, finances, affiliations, capabilities, plans, or intentions of a terrorist or terrorist organization, or information on any other person"

[??????????]

The secret judge hearings as the only check disturbs me.

I value privacy over security too, so I object to the whole premise behidn the bill.

So you would get blown up over before you gave in a LITTLE of your privacy.

[Lunar]

The secret judge hearings as the only check disturbs me.

I value privacy over security too, so I object to the whole premise behidn the bill.

So you would get blown up over before you gave in a LITTLE of your privacy.

Not talking about absolutes but rather what I value.

[Nym90]

The secret judge hearings as the only check disturbs me.

I value privacy over security too, so I object to the whole premise behidn the bill.

I agree here; "security" is somewhat of a false notion to begin with. There will always be threats, it's just a matter of whether we let fear run our life or rather live our life to its fullest and not worry about it so much.

All of life is a risk; we obviously want to reduce the risk if we can do so without reasonably infringing on freedom, but we can never truly be secure unless we give up our fears and learn to take things as they come.

The greatest weapon that terrorists will ever have is fear.

[zachman]

I'm fine with phone taps and such, but my objections have to do with the power of the AG to declare an enemy combatant. I also object to the dismissal of the warrant system. I think that there should be provisions however that allow/reward law enforcement officers who catch suspects who have malicous intent.

[The Duke]

Lunar,

I'm pretty sure the secret tribunals were not part of the Patriot Act but were set up seperately by the Justice Department.


John Dibble,

The check and balance is the  fact that you still need a judge to issue a warrant to search someone.

Nym90,

Security, more or less, can be achieved.  All we'd have to do is turn the country into a police state.  That's probably a bit extreme though.  The real goal is to attain a respectable level of security that may not be perfect but in fact saves at least a good number of lives.  Take Britain, which busted a terror plot this week.  They have attained adequate security without shredding civil liberties and we have done the same.  I think its wrong to say we should treat security as a false concept, because it is not, and that terrorism is akin to toher threats in daily life like traffic accidents, because it is not.

[John Dibble]

John Dibble,

The check and balance is the  fact that you still need a judge to issue a warrant to search someone.

So? My complaint about probable cause still stands. The act should still require the judge to only be able to issue the warrant if probable cause is present.

Just because a check exists doesn't mean it is sufficient. Even in a dictatorship the people check the dictator to an extent, but the check is not normally good enough to stop oppression.

[John Dibble]

Something I think everyone needs to keep in mind:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin

[Platypus]

I've always felt it vaguely odd that someone in smalltown Wyoming thinks that at anyn time they could have a plane crash into their house, flown by terrorists.

[A18]

I find it vaguely odd that you actually think people in Wyoming are affected by the Patriot Act.

[Alcon]

I find it vaguely odd that you actually think people in Wyoming are affected by the Patriot Act.

Why wouldn't it be?

Terrorists aren't just in the big cities. They're also in the suburbs and small towns, I'm sure.

[Lunar]

I find it vaguely odd that you actually think people in Wyoming are affected by the Patriot Act.

The loss of privacy is arbitrary and thus universal.

[Lunar]

Lunar,

I'm pretty sure the secret tribunals were not part of the Patriot Act but were set up seperately by the Justice Department.

My mistake then.

Honestly, with all of the ACLU propaganda running around it's tough to figure out what's what.  I still object to the Act of course.

[Nym90]

Lunar,

I'm pretty sure the secret tribunals were not part of the Patriot Act but were set up seperately by the Justice Department.


John Dibble,

The check and balance is the  fact that you still need a judge to issue a warrant to search someone.

Nym90,

Security, more or less, can be achieved.  All we'd have to do is turn the country into a police state.  That's probably a bit extreme though.  The real goal is to attain a respectable level of security that may not be perfect but in fact saves at least a good number of lives.  Take Britain, which busted a terror plot this week.  They have attained adequate security without shredding civil liberties and we have done the same.  I think its wrong to say we should treat security as a false concept, because it is not, and that terrorism is akin to toher threats in daily life like traffic accidents, because it is not.

If we had a police state, we wouldn't have security, because there would be no one to protect us from the police. Although the vast majority of police officers are good, honest people, having that much power would corrupt.

The message that I was trying to convey is that insecurity comes from fear more than anything else. I did not mean that we should ignore terrorism, but fear is the greatest weapon of terrorists. Overcoming our fear of terrorism is the biggest single thing that we can do to combat it. Our civil liberties are a big part of what make us a great country; that's a big part of what seperates us from the terrorists, we give our people freedom and they don't. If we compromise freedom for security, it won't work; we are giving up a part of what makes our own country great.

I believe that terrorists' main objective is to try to take away our civil liberties through fear, hoping that the government will restrict freedom, and also that we will be afraid to conduct our lives normally any longer. This is, in the long run, far more damaging to America than the actual number of deaths that terrorism causes.

So my point being that the only way we can truly achieve security is to refuse to be afraid.

[opebo]

Mainly the name.  Any act or bill with the name 'patriot' attached should be rejected out of hand.  What a cheap peice of political chicanery.

[The Duke]

I've always felt it vaguely odd that someone in smalltown Wyoming thinks that at anyn time they could have a plane crash into their house, flown by terrorists.

Its not so odd, after all, they might have compassion for their urban brethren and a desire not to see their countrymen killed even if thy themselves are not in particular harm.

[Redefeatbush04]

I've always felt it vaguely odd that someone in smalltown Wyoming thinks that at anyn time they could have a plane crash into their house, flown by terrorists.

Its not so odd, after all, they might have compassion for their urban brethren and a desire not to see their countrymen killed even if thy themselves are not in particular harm.

Yes but why is so much of the security money spent on wyoming. I believe if I recall correctly wyoming spends more per person than any other state. their isn't much urban wyoming

[phk]

Republican pork-barreling?