NationStates Jolt Archive

i think that the patriot act and everybody who agrees with it is hypocritical of what it means to be an american and a patriot. see the patriots sacraficed their lives for freedom. the patriot act is intended to sacrafice freedom "to save lives". therefore the patriot act is the total opposite of what it means to be a patriot. therefore if you agree with the patriot act you disagree with the basic principle on which america was founded.

yeah it's something thats been on my mind lately. i figured i'd see what other people have to say about it.

i think that the patriot act and everybody who agrees with it is hypocritical of what it means to be an american and a patriot. see the patriots sacraficed their lives for freedom. the patriot act is intended to sacrafice freedom "to save lives". therefore the patriot act is the total opposite of what it means to be a patriot. therefore if you agree with the patriot act you disagree with the basic principle on which america was founded.

yeah it's something thats been on my mind lately. i figured i'd see what other people have to say about it.

I too am opposed to the current Patriot Act. I say current because I think it's a good idea, but they missed the mark.

It's a little bit unfair to say that it's sacrificing freedoms. It's really not. In my opinion, if the federal government wants to look at my porn, whatever. All for the good of the country, right?

Kidding. Not that I don't like porn, but moving on...

Whenever national security has ever been threatened, people have had to sacrifice personal freedoms. It's a lot better today than before.

The original American patriots fought against oppressive British rule.

The Patriot Act is meant to fight against terrorism in the American homeland.

Thus, both are an attempt to protect the people of America against a pervasive enemy. By this logic, to oppose the Patriot Act is to go against what the founders of this country believed in.

But that's really stretching the argument too far, I don't think the two cases really have much to do with each other.

Don't even get me started...

The Patriot Act is why i supported Kerry over Bush. The Patriot Act is the most evil law ever written in America. It should have been burned the moment it was written! I don't mind if there is surveillence in public. Howeve,r the Patriot Act can (and has) been skewed to arrest people and hold them without charges, a lawyer, or a jury trial, just because they criticized Bush. This is the reason why America is a dictatorship. I didn't mind Bush before the Patriot Act (even though his English is horrible). Nowadays, I "dislike" Bush, for this singular purpose.

Sacrificing personal freesoms is one thing. Example: "There is a national crisis with assault weapons in this country, so therefore the Second Amendment is hereby repealed". That would make going after armed terrorists in America easier. However, the Patriot Act wants to sacrifice the First (Free expression), Fourth (Your Private property cannot be searched without a warrant), Fifth (Due process), Sixth (Jury Trial), and Ninth (Just because it isnt stated in the Constitution doesnt mean you dont have that right)Amendment rights. That's 1/2 of the Bill of Rights, being shitted on by ONE executive Act.

EDIT:
The original American patriots fought against oppressive British rule.
And now we must fight the oppessive Patriot Act rule.

Can anyone name a specific incident where the Patriot act was misused???

I'm still waiting for the Muslim round up. It's only been 3 1/2 years now.

The Patriot Act is one of the most misunderstood pieces of legislation in US History.

If Bush had done the Muslim round-up, he wouldn't have won re-election. (Practically everyone who hates Muslims already voted Bush. The Muslim Round-up would have set so many civil-rights activists against Bush that skewing wouldn't be enough for Bush to win.

In addition, Rove is probably telling Bush not to because doing so would still damage the republican reputation. They would most likely lose in 2008 if they went on an Islam-hunt

I find a distinct and very dark irony that an executive act that shits all over half of the Constitution should be named "the Patriot Act".

What I don't like about it. And why I believe it is anti-American is:
It gives the US government the "right" to examine all my private information, arrest me, keep me without a lawyer or trial, and suspend or seize my financhal assets.
And I'm NOT an American, not do I live in that country.

This is why I hate it.

It's one thing to do this in your own nation in the name of "national security", it's another to do it outside your nation under the same name.

Can anyone name a specific incident where the Patriot act was misused???

I'm still waiting for the Muslim round up. It's only been 3 1/2 years now.

The Patriot Act is one of the most misunderstood pieces of legislation in US History.

Hahaha.
You're funny.
It's been misused plenty of times.
For some not so serious ones, see Fahrenheit 9/11.

The original American patriots fought against oppressive British rule.

The Patriot Act is meant to fight against terrorism in the American homeland.

Thus, both are an attempt to protect the people of America against a pervasive enemy. By this logic, to oppose the Patriot Act is to go against what the founders of this country believed in.

But that's really stretching the argument too far, I don't think the two cases really have much to do with each other.

You've heard of Benjamin Franklin, I assume. You know, one of the FOUNDING FATHERS?
Well....look at this quote of his:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Hahaha.
You're funny.
It's been misused plenty of times.
For some not so serious ones, see Fahrenheit 9/11.

But can you name one that Michael Moore didn't make up or present way, way out of context?

And I agree that although the Partiot Act opens doors that are best left closed, I must, in the interest of fairness, point out that it has not as of yet abused anyone's freedoms or rights.

But can you name one that Michael Moore didn't make up or present way, way out of context?

How about the many people now being held with no trial or chance to prove their innocence?

How about the many people now being held with no trial or chance to prove their innocence?

Are you referring to the terrorists and POWs at Guantanamo?

Don't even get me started...

The Patriot Act is why i supported Kerry over Bush. The Patriot Act is the most evil law ever written in America. It should have been burned the moment it was written! I don't mind if there is surveillence in public. Howeve,r the Patriot Act can (and has) been skewed to arrest people and hold them without charges, a lawyer, or a jury trial, just because they criticized Bush. This is the reason why America is a dictatorship. I didn't mind Bush before the Patriot Act (even though his English is horrible). Nowadays, I "dislike" Bush, for this singular purpose.

Sacrificing personal freesoms is one thing. Example: "There is a national crisis with assault weapons in this country, so therefore the Second Amendment is hereby repealed". That would make going after armed terrorists in America easier. However, the Patriot Act wants to sacrifice the First (Free expression), Fourth (Your Private property cannot be searched without a warrant), Fifth (Due process), Sixth (Jury Trial), and Ninth (Just because it isnt stated in the Constitution doesnt mean you dont have that right)Amendment rights. That's 1/2 of the Bill of Rights, being shitted on by ONE executive Act.

EDIT:

And now we must fight the oppessive Patriot Act rule.

The patriot act is prety bad but to call it the most evil... I would put it right up there with the DMCA though.

Sacrificing personal freesoms is one thing. Example: "There is a national crisis with assault weapons in this country, so therefore the Second Amendment is hereby repealed". That would make going after armed terrorists in America easier. However, the Patriot Act wants to sacrifice the First (Free expression), Fourth (Your Private property cannot be searched without a warrant), Fifth (Due process), Sixth (Jury Trial), and Ninth (Just because it isnt stated in the Constitution doesnt mean you dont have that right)Amendment rights. That's 1/2 of the Bill of Rights, being shitted on by ONE executive Act.

So, you said it's alright to sacrifice personal freedoms, and you cited the Second Amendment. And then you say the Patriot Act is wrong because it supposedly takes away half our Constitutional rights...which are personal freedoms. You contradicted yourself there, buddy.

The patriot act is prety bad but to call it the most evil... I would put it right up there with the DMCA though.

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't call in the most evil. For me, the Alien and Sedition Acts(1798) are much higher up on that list. They basically made it legal for the government to arrest anyone that criticized them, and arrest or deport foreigners.

You've heard of Benjamin Franklin, I assume. You know, one of the FOUNDING FATHERS?
Well....look at this quote of his:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Of course, that quote was from a couple centuries ago, and doesn't leave much of a defense against modern terrorism. The other option is what? To try to secure the entire US border? Somehow pinpoint terrorists and keep them all from entering the country?

Then again, that's not to say that I support all of what's in the Patriot Act either.

If anyone agrees with the patriot act, they are part of the fascist regime, just like bush and condoleezza and Dick cheney. These people are effing nazis and amerika is the 4th riech. The patriot act 2 was passed by congress on Dec 7. 2004 an hour after it was brought to notice (The patriot act 2 was 3003 pages long, they read that in one whole hour?)

Some of the things that the patriot act 2 does:

ECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration’s “enemy combatant” definition to all American citizens who “may” have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. (Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is “any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.”) Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn’t broad enough and that a new, unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.

SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights across the board.

SECTION 101 will designate individual terrorists as foreign powers and again strip them of all rights under the “enemy combatant” designation.

SECTION 102 states clearly that any information gathering, regardless of whether or not those activities are illegal, can be considered to be clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign power. This makes news gathering illegal.

SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use wartime martial law powers domestically and internationally without Congress declaring that a state of war exists.

SECTION 106 is bone-chilling in its straightforwardness. It states that broad general warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes in an undisclosed location) granted under the first Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

SECTION 123 restates that the government no longer needs warrants and that the investigations can be a giant dragnet-style sweep described in press reports about the Total Information Awareness Network. One passage reads, “thus the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime.”

SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered a terrorist.

SECTION 321 authorizes foreign governments to spy on the American people and to share information with foreign governments.

SECTION 411 expands crimes that are punishable by death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first Patriot Act and state that any terrorist act or support of terrorist act can result in the death penalty.

SECTION 421 increases penalties for terrorist financing. This section states that any type of financial activity connected to terrorism will result to time in prison and $10-50,000 fines per violation.

SECTIONS 427 sets up asset forfeiture provisions for anyone engaging in terrorist activities.


These are just some of the sections, to read more about it go to:
http://www.infowars.com/print/patriot_act/alexs_analysis.htm

Also here is a link to download the actual patriot act 2:
http://www.infowars.com/pdfs/patriot2-hi.pdf

So, you said it's alright to sacrifice personal freedoms, and you cited the Second Amendment. And then you say the Patriot Act is wrong because it supposedly takes away half our Constitutional rights...which are personal freedoms. You contradicted yourself there, buddy.

Let me reiterate.

The Second Amendment isnt so important, so long as the police, military, and government are all on OUR side, and not on the side of huge corporations or corrupt dictatorships. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, in particular, are designed to PROTECT us from corrupt governments.

Let me reiterate.

The Second Amendment isnt so important, so long as the police, military, and government are all on OUR side, and not on the side of huge corporations or corrupt dictatorships. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, in particular, are designed to PROTECT us from corrupt governments.


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." — Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

The Second Amendment means we don't have to worry about the military and police siding with corporations and corrupt dictatorships. Though I doubt that's likely.

Are you referring to the terrorists and POWs at Guantanamo?

If they were in fact POWs, they would have many more rights than the US is according them now. It seems the Geneva Convention was a bit inconvenient, so your government made up a classification of "enemy combatants", which they decided means that they can do what they like with them.

If they were in fact terrorists, the government might be able to bring them to trial on the evidence. In all the reports I've seen, the prisoners can't get a fair trial - so much so that several of the lawyers (military lawyers, no less) have quit in protest at the process.

They are, according to your government, prisoners with no rights at all. The "crime" for most of them, as far as I can tell, is to have fought for a government that the US supported until a few months before it was deemed appropriate to remove them. There's not even a great deal of suggestion that most of them were involved in the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

I don't have a reference at the moment but I will find it when I ask my teacher where he found it... but I do remember hearing of two specific cases as to where the Patriot Act was abused on people who weren't in any way involved in "terrorist" activities:

There was a case of a Swedish man being held captive for 6-9 months I believe without being told what the charge was against him, they held him without jury or reason, was tortured and eventually the american government went "oops, we got the wrong guy" and let him out of prison without ever telling him what he did.

There was also the case of holding an elderly man with mental issues because they believed him to be a terrorist for several years before they realized he didn't even have the mental capacity to talk to the guards coherently.

It's that stuff that makes people so dislike this "patriot" act.

I don't have a reference at the moment but I will find it when I ask my teacher where he found it... but I do remember hearing of two specific cases as to where the Patriot Act was abused on people who weren't in any way involved in "terrorist" activities:

There was a case of a Swedish man being held captive for 6-9 months I believe without being told what the charge was against him, they held him without jury or reason, was tortured and eventually the american government went "oops, we got the wrong guy" and let him out of prison without ever telling him what he did.

There was also the case of holding an elderly man with mental issues because they believed him to be a terrorist for several years before they realized he didn't even have the mental capacity to talk to the guards coherently.

It's that stuff that makes people so dislike this "patriot" act.

I'd like to see this source.

As for the prisoners not having rights or trials...when was the last time prisoners of war had trials? They don't have any rights, aside from basic human rights, and they are treated well. I'll find an article that lists specifics, as I can't remember any details off the top of my head.

As for the prisoners not having rights or trials...when was the last time prisoners of war had trials? They don't have any rights, aside from basic human rights, and they are treated well. I'll find an article that lists specifics, as I can't remember any details off the top of my head.

POWs don't have trials - you are correct. Why are the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay being tried? Why can they not get fair trials?

Regarding rights - POWs have a very long list of rights - they are described in 143 articles and 5 annexes in the Geneva Convention. Why does this not apply to the people in Guantanamo Bay? Why were people there held in countries that are well known to routinely use torture? Why did they not have access to the outside world for years?

Can anyone name a specific incident where the Patriot act was misused???

I'm still waiting for the Muslim round up. It's only been 3 1/2 years now.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11813&c=207
- 8,000 Arab and South Asian immigrants have been
interrogated because of their religion or ethnic background,
not because of actual wrongdoing.

- The press and the public have been barred from immigration
court hearings of those detained after September 11th and
the courts are ordered to keep secret even the hearings
that are taking place.

- Thousands of men, mostly of Arab and South Asian origin,
have been held in secretive federal custody for weeks and
months, sometimes without any charges filed against them.
The government has refused to publish their names and
whereabouts, even when ordered to do so by the courts.

(These are not from above source.)
- In addition, the FBI has conducted over 4,000 criminal investigations on people without probable cause.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540572/

- The Patriot Act tools, which were intended to fight terrorism, have recently been used in an investigation launched against a strip club owner in Las Vegas, Nevada. Nevada Representative Shelley Berkley complained of the investigation to the local FBI.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540572/

- Right after September 11, over 1200 people were arrested and jailed. The Government refused to release information about them such as their names, their lawyers, their reasons for arrest, among other things, despite constant demands from members of Congress and civil liberties groups. Some were jailed as long as seven months without being charged of anything, and without being allowed to see their families.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Aug2003/cornehls0803.html

"The FBI paid a call on a North Carolina college student for displaying an “un-American poster” in her own home. The poster in question was critical of President Bush’s stand on capital punishment while serving as governor of Texas. While there the FBI agents asked the student if she had any pro-Taliban materials.
...
In San Francisco, a 60-year-old retiree remarked at his local gym that he thought any war with Iraq was not just about fighting terrorists, but about corporate profits and oil. He promptly received a visit at home from the FBI with questions about his political beliefs.
...
Recently, in a shopping mall in Guilderland, New York, a 61-year-old lawyer and his son were wearing T-shirts that read “Peace On Earth” and “Give Peace A Chance.” They were ordered by mall security guards to remove the offending shirts or leave the mall. "
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Aug2003/cornehls0803.html

- A report on the Justice Department showed 34 claims- of the over 1000 submitted, which were said to be credible cases of violations of civil liberties. Among them were "alleged beatings of immigration detainees," "[enduring] lock-down conditions 23 hours each day", "[sleeping] under bright lights," and verbal abuse to name a few.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/21/justice.civil.liberties/

- According to an 11/22/03 article in the New York Times, the FBI has gathered "extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators" and encouraged local police to "report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads" although, as stated in a leaked 10/15/03 memo, they "[possess] no information indicating that violent or terrorist activities are being planned as part of these protests"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1122-09.htm

Toledo Blade editorial: "Without notification to foreign media outlets, the immigration and customs people are arresting, detaining, and deporting journalists arriving here without special visas...members of the press arriving without the visas, which no one told them they needed, are treated like criminals, handcuffed as they’re marched through airports, photographed, fingerprinted, and their DNA taken."
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2003112130159

The Patriot Act is one of the most misunderstood pieces of legislation in US History.
Yeah, if you are any evidence.

Ok, how many people have actually READ the Patriot Act?

I've read part of it and I cannot find anything that is biased towards Muslims (just the opposite; a part condemns the hate crimes against them that followed 9/11) or circumvents our civil liberties

Let me reiterate.

The Second Amendment isnt so important, so long as the police, military, and government are all on OUR side, and not on the side of huge corporations or corrupt dictatorships. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, in particular, are designed to PROTECT us from corrupt governments.

When the second amendment falls, the rest will be done shortly thereafter. I just can't understand the logic of those that think they can just do without the second amendment, and not worry that the rest will go away. Trusting government sponsored organizations to protect you from the government is insane. Government sponsored organizations will OBEY THE GOVERNMENT. Police and the FBI are already supposed to be watching out for "those that would police the police". They already think they are above the citizens.

ALL the amendments apply to individuals, as the US is a republic.

The Patriot Act IS evil. It is an affront to EVERYTHING the US Constitution stands for. It's about control over the masses. The security smokescreen is working on several, however.

Freedom first.

I support the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin_True_Patriot_Act

Effects Upon the USA PATRIOT Act

IF the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act had been passed, it would have REPEALED the following portions of the USA PATRIOT Act:

* Section 213 - Authorizes property to be searched and seized in secret by government law enforcement officials, without notifying the subject of a warrant.
* Section 214 & Section 216 - Pen registers for foreign intelligence purposes and criminal cases. (Pen registers record all phone numbers dialed from a person's telephone).
* Section 215 - Authorizes searches of library, bookstore, medical, financial, religious and travel records without a judicial warrant.
* Section 218 - This section of the PATRIOT Act eliminated the Fourth Amendment's requirement for "probable cause" when obtaining a search warrant.
* Section 411 & 412 - Grants new grounds for the deportation and/or the mandatory detention of aliens.
* Section 505 - Authorizes FBI field agents to issue national security letters to obtain financial, bank and credit records of individuals - all without a court order or judicial oversight.
* Section 507 & 508 - Seizure of educational records and the disclosure of individually identifiable information under the National Education Statistics Act of 1994.
* Section 802 - Repeal the Patriot's Definition of "Domestic Terrorism". The definition is so broad that political protests that unaccountably become violent could be classified as domestic terrorism.

* The Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act would repeal sections of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, so that the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security are no longer exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
* The federal government would no longer be able to monitor conversations between attorneys and their clients, violating the fundamental right of attorney-client privilege.
* The proposed act reinstates tough guidelines instituted in 1989 by former Attorney General Dick Thornburg to rein in a runaway FBI, which had been conducting unlawful surveillance of protesters, peace demonstrators and religious groups. Spying on religious institutions - allowed by Ashcroft's rules - would be put under strict limits.

I find a distinct and very dark irony that an executive act that shits all over half of the Constitution should be named "the Patriot Act".

And just what did it violate?

How about the many people now being held with no trial or chance to prove their innocence?

Terrorists shouldn't get lawyers.

POWs don't have trials - you are correct. Why are the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay being tried? Why can they not get fair trials?

To answer your first question is because they are terrorists and NOT POWs. For your 2nd question, They are getting fair trails.

Its amazing how people dont understand this.

Regarding rights - POWs have a very long list of rights - they are described in 143 articles and 5 annexes in the Geneva Convention. Why does this not apply to the people in Guantanamo Bay? Why were people there held in countries that are well known to routinely use torture? Why did they not have access to the outside world for years?

1)Because the people down in Guantanamo Bay are NOT POWs but, to borrow a phrase, "illegal combatants" aka terrorists. If your caught in arms without a proper insignia, the Geneva Convention will not apply. The Geneva Convention only covers those in Militias with PROPER MARKERS somewhere and to members of the Opposite Army. The people in Gitmo did not have these markings or were part of a national army. Therefore, under international law, they do not have to be accorded Geneva Convention rights.

2) Because of an executive order (forget which president) that gives them permission to send terrorists to said countries to extract needed information.

3) Why should Terrorists have contact with the outside world?

Ok, how many people have actually READ the Patriot Act?

I've read part of it and I cannot find anything that is biased towards Muslims (just the opposite; a part condemns the hate crimes against them that followed 9/11) or circumvents our civil liberties

I have read parts of it myself and so far, I've seen nothing in there that circumvents our civil liberties OR our civil rights.

The original American patriots fought against oppressive British rule.

So they were a terrorist group fighting against the legitimate government?

The Patriot Act is meant to fight against terrorism in the American homeland.

Isn't that what the oppressive British rule was for? :D

So they were a terrorist group fighting against the legitimate government?

At first, you could make a case but not for a very long. We had proper uniforms and flags that depicted who we are.

Isn't that what the oppressive British rule was for? :D

and the reason why we tossed out the oppressive British rule with force of arms?

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." — Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

The Second Amendment means we don't have to worry about the military and police siding with corporations and corrupt dictatorships. Though I doubt that's likely.

This statement is outdated. It was written in an era that the military weapons were not different from civilian weapons. (except for the cannon, which blacksmiths could still make when needed). In the present, the US army is capable of doing this if they are united and prepared to use every method to opress the people. Thereby the second amandement does no longer 'protect us from the government'.

1)Because the people down in Guantanamo Bay are NOT POWs but, to borrow a phrase, "illegal combatants" aka terrorists. If your caught in arms without a proper insignia, the Geneva Convention will not apply. The Geneva Convention only covers those in Militias with PROPER MARKERS somewhere and to members of the Opposite Army. The people in Gitmo did not have these markings or were part of a national army. Therefore, under international law, they do not have to be accorded Geneva Convention rights.

Yes, but the people in Gitmo haven't had a trial that proves they ARE terrorists. They are being held unconstitutionally. The people were not part of a national army. This may also be termed as 'civilians'.

2) Because of an executive order (forget which president) that gives them permission to send terrorists to said countries to extract needed information.

Which, it must be said, is actually more vile than unconstitutional, but it is legal. Got to love America, home of truth and justice. To remain home of truth and justice, they export the dirty bit of both.

3) Why should Terrorists have contact with the outside world?

Because they're innocent until proven guilty, like evryone else.

At first, you could make a case but not for a very long. We had proper uniforms and flags that depicted who we are.

Not at first. Washington was in the British army, so he was a tratior as well. And no-one at the Boston tea party had a uniform. The covered their faces (like terrorists)), and they destroyed property to register protest (like terrorists). Just because they later started wearing uniforms doesn't mean they didn't start as terrorists, but then you'd probably call them freedom fighters, wouldn't you? Do you honestly believe there's a difference?

and the reason why we tossed out the oppressive British rule with force of arms?

Um... yes. Think about what my POINT was. You got rid of the oppressive British rule, because they were akin to the patriot act. Are you getting it yet? Can you see how you've supported my point, in your poor misguided attempt at ridicule?

Yes, but the people in Gitmo haven't had a trial that proves they ARE terrorists. They are being held unconstitutionally. The people were not part of a national army. This may also be termed as 'civilians'.

They are getting trials. I guess you have't heard that they are receiving military tribunals. Here they will see if they are innocent or guilty so your comment about not having a trial is 100% false. As for the constitutionality of it, they are NOT US citizens and therefore they should not be accorded Constitutional Protection. As for being called civilians, if they are caught in arms without markings of a militia or part in the national army, then they are illegal combatents and therefore, deserve what they get.

Which, it must be said, is actually more vile than unconstitutional, but it is legal. Got to love America, home of truth and justice. To remain home of truth and justice, they export the dirty bit of both.

No government is perfect.

Because they're innocent until proven guilty, like evryone else.

True but that is why they are getting trials by military court since this is a military matter and not a civilian matter. Therefore, its up to the military if they have contact or not since it is in their jurisdiction.

Not at first. Washington was in the British army, so he was a tratior as well. And no-one at the Boston tea party had a uniform. The covered their faces (like terrorists)), and they destroyed property to register protest (like terrorists). Just because they later started wearing uniforms doesn't mean they didn't start as terrorists, but then you'd probably call them freedom fighters, wouldn't you? Do you honestly believe there's a difference?

actually, did we go out of our way to harm civilians? Did we hit civilian targets on purpose? That makes or breaks them of being terrorists.

Um... yes. Think about what my POINT was. You got rid of the oppressive British rule, because they were akin to the patriot act. Are you getting it yet? Can you see how you've supported my point, in your poor misguided attempt at ridicule?

They were oppressing our civil rights as human beings so we tossed them right off our shores. What does the Patriot Act have to do with the Revolutionary War?

If anyone agrees with the patriot act, they are part of the fascist regime, just like bush and condoleezza and Dick cheney. These people are effing nazis and amerika is the 4th riech. The patriot act 2 was passed by congress on Dec 7. 2004 an hour after it was brought to notice (The patriot act 2 was 3003 pages long, they read that in one whole hour?)

Some of the things that the patriot act 2 does:

ECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration’s “enemy combatant” definition to all American citizens who “may” have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. (Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is “any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.”) Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn’t broad enough and that a new, unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.

SECTION 312 gives immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people and would place substantial restrictions on court injunctions against Federal violations of civil rights across the board.

SECTION 101 will designate individual terrorists as foreign powers and again strip them of all rights under the “enemy combatant” designation.

SECTION 102 states clearly that any information gathering, regardless of whether or not those activities are illegal, can be considered to be clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign power. This makes news gathering illegal.

SECTION 103 allows the Federal government to use wartime martial law powers domestically and internationally without Congress declaring that a state of war exists.

SECTION 106 is bone-chilling in its straightforwardness. It states that broad general warrants by the secret FSIA court (a panel of secret judges set up in a star chamber system that convenes in an undisclosed location) granted under the first Patriot Act are not good enough. It states that government agents must be given immunity for carrying out searches with no prior court approval. This section throws out the entire Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

SECTION 123 restates that the government no longer needs warrants and that the investigations can be a giant dragnet-style sweep described in press reports about the Total Information Awareness Network. One passage reads, “thus the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime.”

SECTION 205 allows top Federal officials to keep all their financial dealings secret, and anyone investigating them can be considered a terrorist.

SECTION 321 authorizes foreign governments to spy on the American people and to share information with foreign governments.

SECTION 411 expands crimes that are punishable by death. Again, they point to Section 802 of the first Patriot Act and state that any terrorist act or support of terrorist act can result in the death penalty.

SECTION 421 increases penalties for terrorist financing. This section states that any type of financial activity connected to terrorism will result to time in prison and $10-50,000 fines per violation.

SECTIONS 427 sets up asset forfeiture provisions for anyone engaging in terrorist activities.


These are just some of the sections, to read more about it go to:
http://www.infowars.com/print/patriot_act/alexs_analysis.htm

Also here is a link to download the actual patriot act 2:
http://www.infowars.com/pdfs/patriot2-hi.pdf

Wait, wait...
You're telling me they passed this already!?! This is the bill that classifies certain types of protesting terrorism!

God damnit, I still thought we had some time left...

They are getting trials. I guess you have't heard that they are receiving military tribunals. Here they will see if they are innocent or guilty so your comment about not having a trial is 100% false. As for the constitutionality of it, they are NOT US citizens and therefore they should not be accorded Constitutional Protection. As for being called civilians, if they are caught in arms without markings of a militia or part in the national army, then they are illegal combatents and therefore, deserve what they get.

I know they're getting trials now. But since they've been there for over two years without them, my comment can't really be described as 100% false, can it? They were held without trial. They are STILL being held, without having had a trial.

And as they are NOT US citizens, why is the US holding them? And why is it holding them in CUBA, a country which has had nothing to do with any of it? And why, when accused of human rights violations in thier prison camp, did they US military claim it wasn't their fault as it wasn't on US soil?

No government is perfect.

No arguments here.

True but that is why they are getting trials by military court since this is a military matter and not a civilian matter. Therefore, its up to the military if they have contact or not since it is in their jurisdiction.

Not really cutting it, though. If the military arrested you tomorrow and held you without trial for over two years without contact with the outside world, would you really turn around and say 'fair cop, it's a military matter, not my business really?'

Wasn't the Patriot Act all passed during the night without anyone seeing it ?

actually, did we go out of our way to harm civilians? Did we hit civilian targets on purpose? That makes or breaks them of being terrorists.

You're implying that a shipment of tea was somehow a legitimate military target? Or that the party was an accident?

They were oppressing our civil rights as human beings so we tossed them right off our shores. What does the Patriot Act have to do with the Revolutionary War?

It oppresses your civil rights as human beings. It does the same thing that the British rulers were doing. It's the kind of law they used to oppress you. Savvy?

I know they're getting trials now. But since they've been there for over two years without them, my comment can't really be described as 100% false, can it? They were held without trial. They are STILL being held, without having had a trial.

If you knew they were getting trials then why were you saying that they weren't?

And as they are NOT US citizens, why is the US holding them? And why is it holding them in CUBA, a country which has had nothing to do with any of it? And why, when accused of human rights violations in thier prison camp, did they US military claim it wasn't their fault as it wasn't on US soil?

Because we captured them and therefore they became our prisoners. Its like capturing enemy soldiers in war. They aren't our citizens but then why did we hold them? As for holding them in Cuba, they are being held on US Territory so in reality, they are not being held on Cuba, just on the Cuban Island but not on Cuban Soil. For that, that is the intelligence of the Army for ya! Besides, maybe it wasn't their fault and the Fault of the CIA who also interagates them as well as the FBI. Don't be quick to judge one party.

No arguments here.

We agree on something oh and the president that signed that executive order was Bill Clinton.

Not really cutting it, though. If the military arrested you tomorrow and held you without trial for over two years without contact with the outside world, would you really turn around and say 'fair cop, it's a military matter, not my business really?'

Problem is the military can't arrest me since I am not in the US military. The only people that can arrest me is the FBI and they better have the evidence otherwise, I'll sue them for false arrest. But sense I haven't done anything wrong, I have nothing to fear from the FBI and frankly, I think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion.

"Howeve,r the Patriot Act can (and has) been skewed to arrest people and hold them without charges, a lawyer, or a jury trial, just because they criticized Bush."

Nookyooller Strategy (pardon my spelling),

Really? Where did you read this, moveon.org or another super-left site?

Hmmmm

I doubt highly that anyone has been arrested for simply criticizing the president.

Now if you become a public nuisance while doing so, like the animals who broke into the republican national convention...

You're implying that a shipment of tea was somehow a legitimate military target? Or that the party was an accident?

Not saying it was an accident but were any civilians killed? That is what I'm asking you. Did we go out of our way to harm civilians? Not saying anything about the Boston Tea Party. We're talking about the Revolutionary War. The Boston Tea Party took place before then. Now did we target innocent civilians on purpose? Did we hit civilian targets on purpose?

It oppresses your civil rights as human beings. It does the same thing that the British rulers were doing. It's the kind of law they used to oppress you. Savvy?

How is the Patriot act surpressing our civil Rights? I still have the right to protest, still have the right to assemble, still have the right to pray where I want too, still have the right to bear guns, still have the right to speak what I want to speak!So I will ask you again! How is my civil rights being surpressed by the USAPATRIOT ACT?

Is that what they're teaching in schools these days? Boy someone has NO knowledge as to the Revolutionary War. The King disbanded Assemblies, Disbanded Free Press, disbaned Trial By Jury. Everything is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence on why we seperated from Great Britain. What the Patriot Act is doing is NONE of this. As for being Savvy? no it wasn't.

If you knew they were getting trials then why were you saying that they weren't?

Because of the ludicrous amount of time and political pressure it's taken to get it that far. They weren't going to get trials, it's just that through the amount of press Gitmo's had the government has been forced to.

Because we captured them and therefore they became our prisoners. Its like capturing enemy soldiers in war. They aren't our citizens but then why did we hold them?

Not being cynical or sarcastic here (for once). I just don't quite understand this question. It seems to be arguing on my side. :confused:

As for holding them in Cuba, they are being held on US Territory so in reality, they are not being held on Cuba, just on the Cuban Island but not on Cuban Soil. For that, that is the intelligence of the Army for ya! Besides, maybe it wasn't their fault and the Fault of the CIA who also interagates them as well as the FBI. Don't be quick to judge one party.

true enough. I've seen the CIA interrogation manual, too. Nasty stuff.

We agree on something oh and the president that signed that executive order was Bill Clinton.

Hey, he was good for your economy, but I'm British. I can't stand ANY of your presidents, and your political parties are almost as bad as ours.

Problem is the military can't arrest me since I am not in the US military. The only people that can arrest me is the FBI and they better have the evidence otherwise, I'll sue them for false arrest. But sense I haven't done anything wrong, I have nothing to fear from the FBI and frankly, I think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion.

Probably :D

But the terrorists weren't in the US military. They weren't in ANY military, as you've already pointed out, and some of them weren't even in the US. So their trials should be run by civil authorities, either in the US or in their home countries.

Because of the ludicrous amount of time and political pressure it's taken to get it that far. They weren't going to get trials, it's just that through the amount of press Gitmo's had the government has been forced to.

They were going to get them but we needed to get the information from them before they went to trial. What do you think is more important? Getting information about pending terror attacks against Americans or giving these people trials? I know which one I deem more important.

Not being cynical or sarcastic here (for once). I just don't quite understand this question. It seems to be arguing on my side. :confused:

Actually it turns the question around. Your stating that if they are not US Citizens why hold them and I turned it around to the question then why are we holding Soldiers when they aren't US Citizens.

true enough. I've seen the CIA interrogation manual, too. Nasty stuff.

Yea.

Hey, he was good for your economy, but I'm British. I can't stand ANY of your presidents, and your political parties are almost as bad as ours.

LOL!! Ironic that I do like the British Prime Minister as well as the one before him. Your telling me though that you couldn't stand Clinton? If that is the case, your my hero! LOL

Probably :D

:D

But the terrorists weren't in the US military. They weren't in ANY military, as you've already pointed out, and some of them weren't even in the US. So their trials should be run by civil authorities, either in the US or in their home countries.

But they were caught in arms against the US and other nations handed others over to us so what does that tell you?

I have read parts of it myself and so far, I've seen nothing in there that circumvents our civil liberties OR our civil rights.

Then you've read very selective parts. Might I direct your attention towards:

Section 213, which makes it easier for law enforcement officers to perform "sneak and peek" searches (meaning no "knock and announce" and that the warrant does not have to be presented at time of search).

Section 215, regarding increased access to private records.

Section 216, which applies pen/trap surveillance rules to internet communications.

Section 218, which expands FISA, making it easier to install wiretaps.

Section 505, which makes it substantially easier for enforcement officers to obtain bank and credit records.

Also, see Sections 411, 412, and 802 for new restrictions on immigration, indefinite detention of non-citizens, and an over-broad definition of "domestic terrorism."

The original poster should note that because USA PATRIOT is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, it is merely a happy coincidence that the acronym is such a loaded word. One of those Orwellian titles, like No Child Left Behind, that is almost directly opposed to the function of the act.

But can you name one that Michael Moore didn't make up or present way, way out of context?

And I agree that although the Partiot Act opens doors that are best left closed, I must, in the interest of fairness, point out that it has not as of yet abused anyone's freedoms or rights.


Or http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20D15F634580C728EDDAE0894DB404482

Justice Dept's internal investigators cite dozens of recent cases in which department employees are accused of serious civil rights and civil liberties violations involving enforcement of sweeping federal antiterrorism law known a USA Patriot Act; inspector general Glenn A Fine's report, which is awaiting public release, is likely to raise new concern among lawmakers about whether Justice Dept can police itself when its employees are accused of violating rights of Muslim and Arab immigrants and others swept up in terrorism investigations under new law; report cites 34 credible complaints of rights violations, including accusations that Muslim and Arab immigrants in federal detention centers have been beaten; report draws no broad conclusions about extent of abuses by Justice Dept employees but says relatively small staff of inspector general's office has been overwhelmened by abuse accusations;


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/172625_wiretaps10.html

According to government statistics recently released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, federal and state courts approved a total of 1,442 wiretap warrants for criminal cases in 2003. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court statistics show 1,724 wiretap warrants in terrorism and espionage cases within the same time period. Tim Edgar, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office, asserts the statistics are disturbing in that they reveal a trend towards more government secrecy. Edgar notes "That these warrants
[related to terrorism and espionage ]
are becoming the major form of surveillance in this country is very troubling.

So wiretaps are generally now being sought under the Patriot Act as the threshold is lower for cops to get the warrant. Or, you can believe if you like that there are more terrorist investigations underway than criminal ones - which would certainly explain why there have been so many arrests of Al Qaeda in the US....

The question would then be, how many of these warrants would have failed the sniff test under normal rules that were instead obtained by claiming that espionage and terror was afoot?


From: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5131685/site/newsweek/
With the passage of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which required that financial institutions create anti-money-laundering compliance programs, anyone purchasing property must be checked against a list of names of known and suspected terrorists. The list has been around since before the September 11 attacks, but increasingly the ritual closing ceremony has involved writing yet another check to the title company that runs the homebuyer’s name against that list.

So the government is pretty much requiring you to pay for a search to prove that you are not a terrorist laundering money when buying a non-liquid asset such as a house, for no other reason than the fact that you are buying a house. Does that break your right to privacy?


plus a few of the many other links grabbed simply by googling "patriot act abuse"

http://www.ilgreenparty.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=343
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/probe/20031104-0835-nv-corruptionprobe.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1217-04.htm

I can't claim to ahve checked al of the above out. I just grabbed them.



Then, of course, you get people who want to build on Patriot and do things like pass legislation allowing the government to embed the CIA into your local police department. (HR 3439 IH - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3439:)

I thought that the CIA was supposed to be focused externally while the FBI was supposed to take care of things domestically?

Then you've read very selective parts. Might I direct your attention towards:

This should be good

Section 213, which makes it easier for law enforcement officers to perform "sneak and peek" searches (meaning no "knock and announce" and that the warrant does not have to be presented at time of search).

However they still have to get a judge's permission to do so. If they don't, then the evidence can be tossed out on the grounds of an Illegal Search and Seizure. If they did have a judge's permission then its perfectly legal.

Section 215, regarding increased access to private records.

Samething applies. Still need a judge to authorize it. No Judge, no search or it gets tossed out in court.

Section 216, which applies pen/trap surveillance rules to internet communications.

Need a judge to approve of this too. Are you seeing a pattern here?

Section 218, which expands FISA, making it easier to install wiretaps.

FISA? First I've heard of this company. Besides, if its government runned, and it sounds like it is, they still need a court order to install it and that is done by a judge.

Section 505, which makes it substantially easier for enforcement officers to obtain bank and credit records.

Need evidence for proof that something illegal is going on so a judge can give them permission.

Also, see Sections 411, 412, and 802 for new restrictions on immigration, indefinite detention of non-citizens, and an over-broad definition of "domestic terrorism."

Good! We need stricter immigration control. I applaud the indefinite detention of non-citizens because they are non-citizens and therefor shouldn't be protected by the US Constitution, and unless you give a me a def for what they said domestic terrorism is, I won't say one way or the other on your last point.

The original poster should note that because USA PATRIOT is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, it is merely a happy coincidence that the acronym is such a loaded word. One of those Orwellian titles, like No Child Left Behind, that is almost directly opposed to the function of the act.

As long as it is defending the United States of America without eroding my civil rights or liberties, and I assure you it is not, I don't care.

Not saying it was an accident but were any civilians killed? That is what I'm asking you. Did we go out of our way to harm civilians? Not saying anything about the Boston Tea Party. We're talking about the Revolutionary War. The Boston Tea Party took place before then. Now did we target innocent civilians on purpose? Did we hit civilian targets on purpose?

You can't say that the acts performed before the War of Independence don't count. The Partiots were at the Boston Tea Party, so we are talking about it. We're actually talking about it MORE, because that was when your Patriots were acting as terrorists rather than as a military force. So, the Boston tea party, an act of terrorism, was carried out by the patriots who set up your country. Which is why it's strangely fitting that the PATRIOT act contradicts all the stuff the wrote.

How is the Patriot act surpressing our civil Rights? I still have the right to protest, still have the right to assemble, still have the right to pray where I want too, still have the right to bear guns, still have the right to speak what I want to speak!So I will ask you again! How is my civil rights being surpressed by the USAPATRIOT ACT?

See Poland's post.

Is that what they're teaching in schools these days? Boy someone has NO knowledge as to the Revolutionary War. The King disbanded Assemblies, Disbanded Free Press, disbaned Trial By Jury. Everything is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence on why we seperated from Great Britain. What the Patriot Act is doing is NONE of this. As for being Savvy? no it wasn't.

No, you seperated from Britain because the French wouldn't help you win the war otherwise. The entire war was actually about Taxation without Representation (and, incidently, I support exactly what the founding fathers were doing with this). And you needed help to win it, and the French supplied troops and also tied up the Brits in Europe simultaniously, on the condition that the Americans declared independence rather than simply giving the British terms to end the revolution.

The Public Assemblies were banned because of the threat of American terrorists. The free press was banned for the same reason. Trial by Jury was halted so that terrorists could be dealt with without a fair trial (think about that one...). It's the the empowerment of the government to restrict the rights of the people for the sake of National Security. Sound familiar yet?

Actually Corneliu, under the expansions to the PAtriot Act signed by GW on December 13, 2003 the need for a judge to be involved in looking at many records got removed.

The changes granted the FBI the authority to obtain client records from banks by merely requesting the records in a "National Security Letter." To get the records, the FBI doesn't have to appear before a judge, nor demonstrate "probable cause" - reason to believe that the targeted client is involved in criminal or terrorist activity. Moreover, the National Security Letters are attached with a gag order, preventing any financial institution from informing its clients that their records have been surrendered to the FBI. If a financial institution breaches the gag order, it faces criminal penalties. And finally, the FBI will no longer be required to report to Congress how often they have used the National Security Letters.

The Act also included a redefinition of "financial institution," which previously referred to banks, but now includes stockbrokers, car dealerships, casinos, credit card companies, insurance agencies, jewelers, airlines, the U.S. Post Office, and any other business "whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters."

The FBI can, of course, determine that pretty much any transaction could be "usefull"...


These changes were added onto the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, and was signed into law on the Saturday that Saddam got captured so it never made a splash in the press.

The last time before that when GW had signed a bill on a Saturday was over a year before, and that was a spending bill that needed to be signed for the government not to shut down on the Monday.

And I'm not sure, but I don't think that he has signed on on a Saturday since.

But nobody cared about the bill that day. Not when they got to see Saddam checked for head lice instead.....

The original American patriots fought against oppressive British rule.
no... you can't be a patriot if you don't have a country. and since america didn't exist then they can't be patriots. and also, the patriot act is an acronym: Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism

If you knew they were getting trials then why were you saying that they weren't?

Problem is the military can't arrest me since I am not in the US military. The only people that can arrest me is the FBI and they better have the evidence otherwise, I'll sue them for false arrest. But sense I haven't done anything wrong, I have nothing to fear from the FBI and frankly, I think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion.

Ah, but there you've been mislead. Any U.S. citizen is able to attempt an arrest, regardless of rank or status. You know, the Citizen's Arrest thing that so few noncom citizens take advantage of. And I'm sorry to say that if the arresting citizen is military, they are granted authority to make any charges on their prisoner. Not to say the charges will fly with the judge, but the potential grounds which the Patriot Act opened present a chilling possibility of widespread arrests without cause.

Call me a hysteric if you like. I know I don't argue well, but I can see many outcomes of a thing. And even if I'm overestimating my talents by saying that, there remain the national tensions, a feeling of pressure driven by the continuing disturbances of protestors and terrorists, a feeling which may incur local spots to engage in such abuses.

One more thing, regarding trials for the Gitmo prisoners: whatever they may have done, there is no reason for a government to stall this long after determining that trials would be held. Classification of the prisoners became pointless when the U.S. said they would be tried.

They were going to get them but we needed to get the information from them before they went to trial. What do you think is more important? Getting information about pending terror attacks against Americans or giving these people trials? I know which one I deem more important.

Well, given that they probably wouldn't have the slightest clue about any operations in the US due to the structure of most terrorist organisations (Seperate cells, all semi-autonomous, with no one group aware of the plans or even location of most, if not all, others (The IRA is an exception to this)), and also given that now most of the world has been left with the impression that the USA is an out-of-control child throwing a tantrum and throwing it's civil rights out of the pram, I'd have to say the trials, I really would.

Actually it turns the question around. Your stating that if they are not US Citizens why hold them and I turned it around to the question then why are we holding Soldiers when they aren't US Citizens.

Same question. Don't hold them. Simple answer, really, isn't it? :)

LOL!! Ironic that I do like the British Prime Minister as well as the one before him. Your telling me though that you couldn't stand Clinton? If that is the case, your my hero! LOL

YOU LIKED JOHN MAJOR!?!?!?!?! HOW?!?

But they were caught in arms against the US and other nations handed others over to us so what does that tell you?

That the US demanded them and other governments, as always, did what they were told. I don't like it, but hey! When the US says jump, everyone else says 'how high'. Who was honestly going to refuse, with Bush running around like a bull in a china shop?

If everyone in the USA is a patriot, then why are they attacking other countrys?
In vietnam, they had"patriots" fighting for there country, so why are they called the enemy? :confused:

You can't say that the acts performed before the War of Independence don't count. The Partiots were at the Boston Tea Party, so we are talking about it. We're actually talking about it MORE, because that was when your Patriots were acting as terrorists rather than as a military force. So, the Boston tea party, an act of terrorism, was carried out by the patriots who set up your country. Which is why it's strangely fitting that the PATRIOT act contradicts all the stuff the wrote.

*sighs*

Again! I didn't say the Boston Tea Party was a terror act. I was pointing something out regarding the REVOLUTIONARY WAR. Nothing prior to that because that wasn't what was said.

See Poland's post.

Answer the questions! How is the Patriot act surpressing our civil Rights? I still have the right to protest, still have the right to assemble, still have the right to pray where I want too, still have the right to bear guns, still have the right to speak what I want to speak!So I will ask you again! How is my civil rights being surpressed by the USAPATRIOT ACT?

No, you seperated from Britain because the French wouldn't help you win the war otherwise. The entire war was actually about Taxation without Representation (and, incidently, I support exactly what the founding fathers were doing with this). And you needed help to win it, and the French supplied troops and also tied up the Brits in Europe simultaniously, on the condition that the Americans declared independence rather than simply giving the British terms to end the revolution.

Wrong! The French's only troop contribution was at the Battle of Yorktown where they blockaded the British forces. They didn't join our cause till after the Battle of Saratoga which came AFTER the colonies declaring Independence. The Battle of Saratoga aka Freemans Farm was the turning point in the war and this caused the French to come in on our side. That battle took place on Oct 7, 1777 and our independence was declared on July 4, 1776. The French didn't officially recognize the USA until Dec 17, 1777 AFTER Paris received word of Victory at Saratoga. Shortly there after, two treaties was signed between the two nations on Feb 6, 1778. This was a treaty of commerce and amity and of alliance. April 1779 Spain entered on the side of the French but not as an ally of the US. November 1780, Britain was angered by the sale of supplies to America and sent an ultimatum to The Hague and that brought the Dutch into the War.

The Public Assemblies were banned because of the threat of American terrorists. The free press was banned for the same reason. Trial by Jury was halted so that terrorists could be dealt with without a fair trial (think about that one...). It's the the empowerment of the government to restrict the rights of the people for the sake of National Security. Sound familiar yet?

Is that what they are teaching you in British Schools? It is so false, its not even funny.

Corn,

You claim to have read sections of the act, then ask me how the act defines "Domestic Terrorism"? Not doing a lot for your credibility.

Also, it so happens my old man is a resident alien who's been in the country for thirty years. He's paid his taxes, never been arrested, never been part of some terror scheme. He's done everything American except vote. So when you spew your little screed about how non-citizens don't deserve protection, it kind of rubs me the wrong way. "Sure, they ain't citizens, why treat them as people?" Right. Odds are you won't be travelling abroad anytime soon. But who knows, we might get lucky.

Moving on, most of your refutations (which I earnestly believe are directed at my brief summaries than at the Act itself, because I don't believe you've read any of it) boil down to the line "you still need a judge."

But this constitutes an erosion of civil liberties. It takes civil rights and liberties away (such as the right to privacy or the right against illegal search---by the way, knock and announce goes way back as an established right in English common law--your definition of civil liberties as solely the right to free speech and the right to protest is shallow and incomplete). It leaves fewer rights in the hands of the individual and more under the discretion of the court. By definition, this is an erosion of liberties.

Next, FISA is not a company, it is the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. You are talking out of your ass.

Finally, I mentioned section 802 in passing because of the civil rights complaints that have stemmed from the definition of "domestic terrorism" contained therein. I'm not going to quote it for you because then I'll be doing the legwork so that you can read the single line out of context and fire off some ill-conceived one-liner that you think is a rebuttal.

I'm not going to spoon-feed you a line so you can imagine that you're participating in some dialogue here when in fact you're spreading your own preconceptions about the Act with no knowledge of what it does.

I've cited the section, look it up your own damn self. The link is in this thread.

Again! I didn't say the Boston Tea Party was a terror act. I was pointing something out regarding the REVOLUTIONARY WAR. Nothing prior to that because that wasn't what was said.

Very nice for you. However, the ringleaders of your war were the terrorists from the Boston Tea Party. Doesn't matter about the war, doesn't matter if you're unwilling to include the terrorist part. You didn't do any terrorist acts once you'd stopped doing terrorist acts. Is that what you want to hear?

Incidently, we got onto the topic when I replied to New Jeffhodia, so it's what I was talking about that really matters when you replied. And I was talking about when your founding fathers were terrorists.

Answer the questions! How is the Patriot act surpressing our civil Rights? I still have the right to protest, still have the right to assemble, still have the right to pray where I want too, still have the right to bear guns, still have the right to speak what I want to speak!So I will ask you again! How is my civil rights being surpressed by the USAPATRIOT ACT?

Your privacy has been infringed. You can now be wire-tapped for a mere suggestion of being a terrorist. Just read Poland's replies to this, I'm not typing it all out as well.

Wrong! The French's only troop contribution was at the Battle of Yorktown where they blockaded the British forces. They didn't join our cause till after the Battle of Saratoga which came AFTER the colonies declaring Independence. The Battle of Saratoga aka Freemans Farm was the turning point in the war and this caused the French to come in on our side. That battle took place on Oct 7, 1777 and our independence was declared on July 4, 1776. The French didn't officially recognize the USA until Dec 17, 1777 AFTER Paris received word of Victory at Saratoga. Shortly there after, two treaties was signed between the two nations on Feb 6, 1778. This was a treaty of commerce and amity and of alliance. April 1779 Spain entered on the side of the French but not as an ally of the US. November 1780, Britain was angered by the sale of supplies to America and sent an ultimatum to The Hague and that brought the Dutch into the War.

No. The French were not going to involve themselves in the War until the Colonials declared independence. Hence, the French didn't join in until AFTER you hads done so. Is that understood? That's how it works. The French say 'if you declare independence, then we'll join the war', so you guys dutifully declared independece, and the French joined the war. The French werenn't going to help out until your side of the bargin had been fulfilled.

The agreement was made in early 1776 by Silas Deane, who was sent to gain supplies. He'd been dispatched by your "Committee of Secret Correspondence", set up in 1775 to talk with other European governments in an effort to get help against the British (this, incidently, is treason). France agreed to send supplies for the war, and also would declare war on Britain within six months of the Americans declaring their Independence, and stipulated that they must never again give alliegiance to the British crown. The US agreed. The French declared war on the British in January 1777.

Note the term 'Secret Correspondence'.

Is that what they are teaching you in British Schools? It is so false, its not even funny.

No. Believe it or not, we don't learn about your civil war in school. We have to go and research it in Universities if we want to know about it. So I did.

Very nice for you. However, the ringleaders of your war were the terrorists from the Boston Tea Party. Doesn't matter about the war, doesn't matter if you're unwilling to include the terrorist part. You didn't do any terrorist acts once you'd stopped doing terrorist acts. Is that what you want to hear?

Funny how 2 different schools view the same event. I don't remember Ben Franklin there. I don't remember Thomas Jefferson being there. I don't remember George Washington being there. I don't remember John Adams, Richard Lee, or any other founding fathers there. These were the ring leaders. It was these people that raised the Army and the colonial militia so how were the ringleaders of our country responsible when they didn't do anything to spark it? Ever hear of a people's uprising? That was what it was.

Incidently, we got onto the topic when I replied to New Jeffhodia, so it's what I was talking about that really matters when you replied. And I was talking about when your founding fathers were terrorists.

How? All they did was raise an army and dispatched one of their own to lead it and declared independence. How were they terrorists?

Your privacy has been infringed. You can now be wire-tapped for a mere suggestion of being a terrorist. Just read Poland's replies to this, I'm not typing it all out as well.

My privacy hasn't been infringed on. They still need a warrent for the taps because if they don't the defense can get the evidence tossed right out of court. So again, how is it infringing on our rights?

No. The French were not going to involve themselves in the War until the Colonials declared independence. Hence, the French didn't join in until AFTER you hads done so. Is that understood? That's how it works. The French say 'if you declare independence, then we'll join the war', so you guys dutifully declared independece, and the French joined the war. The French werenn't going to help out until your side of the bargin had been fulfilled.

Actually, the French weren't going to get involved in the war unless there was a chance of American Victory. If they wanted to join the war when we declared indpendence they could've done so in 1776. They waited until December 1777 and that was only after word of our victory at Freemans Farm or Saratoga. As for the french quote, how was it that said it and when so I can research it.

The agreement was made in early 1776 by Silas Deane, who was sent to gain supplies. He'd been dispatched by your "Committee of Secret Correspondence", set up in 1775 to talk with other European governments in an effort to get help against the British (this, incidently, is treason). France agreed to send supplies for the war, and also would declare war on Britain within six months of the Americans declaring their Independence, and stipulated that they must never again give alliegiance to the British crown. The US agreed. The French declared war on the British in January 1777.

I sure hope you have something to back this up buddy. And how is it treason to gain support for your cause when your already in open rebellion to begin with? :confused: Now back to France (gotta love an encyclopedia)! In Sept. 1775 Foreign Minister Vergennes sent an agent to Philly to intimate that French ports might be opened to American ships. In March 1776, Vergennes and the playwright Caron de Beaumarchais set up a fictitious trading company-subsidized by one million livres each from the Bourbon courts in France and Spain-secretly to supply munitions and other materials to the American. Aid from France and from Spain, the latter largely through the services of Don Diego de Gardoqui, began to arrive after the end of 1776 and materially contributed to the American success. So the French have been involved unofficially almost from the beginning. I guess that dispelled that theory huh?

In 1776, the Continental Congress sent Silas Deane, Ben Franlin and Arthur Lee as agents to France to obtain a commercial and military alliance. They pressed the French Court to Recognize American independence and to from an alliance with the struggling states. And that takes me back to what I said earlier.

As for declaring war within six months, the French didn't join the war until Febuary 6, 1778, One year, 7 months and 2 days later but then, they have unofficially been helping us since BEFORE we declared independence.

Note the term 'Secret Correspondence'.

Nothing secret about what I just typed.

No. Believe it or not, we don't learn about your civil war in school. We have to go and research it in Universities if we want to know about it. So I did.

Our Civil War? I thought we were talking about the Revolutionary War which was against Great Britain!

Wait, wait...
You're telling me they passed this already!?! This is the bill that classifies certain types of protesting terrorism!

God damnit, I still thought we had some time left...

No such luck. Everyone got scared and then it passed. This is why sheeple are called sheeple. Too many people are scared, rather than prepared.

Funny how 2 different schools view the same event. I don't remember Ben Franklin there. I don't remember Thomas Jefferson being there. I don't remember George Washington being there. I don't remember John Adams, Richard Lee, or any other founding fathers there. These were the ring leaders. It was these people that raised the Army and the colonial militia so how were the ringleaders of our country responsible when they didn't do anything to spark it? Ever hear of a people's uprising? That was what it was.

You were there? :)

Sam Adams. He was a founding father, the tea party was his idea, and he was there. Patriot.

People's uprisings are riots. The do not involve diguising yourselves as Mohawk indians to perform criminal destruction of property. That is a premeditated terrorist act.

How? All they did was raise an army and dispatched one of their own to lead it and declared independence. How were they terrorists?

See above. Also, you had no flag until 1777.

My privacy hasn't been infringed on. They still need a warrent for the taps because if they don't the defense can get the evidence tossed right out of court. So again, how is it infringing on our rights?

Well, given the example set by gitmo, you probably won't get to court until you've been incarcerated for a few years anyway.

Actually, the French weren't going to get involved in the war unless there was a chance of American Victory. If they wanted to join the war when we declared indpendence they could've done so in 1776. They waited until December 1777 and that was only after word of our victory at Freemans Farm or Saratoga. As for the french quote, how was it that said it and when so I can research it.

Yes, but that's called politics. They could have. They didn't. It's quite clever, really, isn't it?

I sure hope you have something to back this up buddy. And how is it treason to gain support for your cause when your already in open rebellion to begin with? :confused: Now back to France (gotta love an encyclopedia)! In Sept. 1775 Foreign Minister Vergennes sent an agent to Philly to intimate that French ports might be opened to American ships. In March 1776, Vergennes and the playwright Caron de Beaumarchais set up a fictitious trading company-subsidized by one million livres each from the Bourbon courts in France and Spain-secretly to supply munitions and other materials to the American. Aid from France and from Spain, the latter largely through the services of Don Diego de Gardoqui, began to arrive after the end of 1776 and materially contributed to the American success. So the French have been involved unofficially almost from the beginning. I guess that dispelled that theory huh?

Yes, it completely removes any chance of the first half of your post, where France is apparently unwilling to get involved until after independence, being true. Well done. That kind of ability is almost up to Bush standard. Now you've just got to forget how to spell.

In 1776, the Continental Congress sent Silas Deane, Ben Franlin and Arthur Lee as agents to France to obtain a commercial and military alliance. They pressed the French Court to Recognize American independence and to from an alliance with the struggling states. And that takes me back to what I said earlier.

Do you have the notes of the meeting? Given that France had been sending people to the US since the Stamp Act, it seems likely that the question had probably been raised before. Also, the French didn't like the British having their American Colonies, since we pinched most of theirs.

As for declaring war within six months, the French didn't join the war until Febuary 6, 1778, One year, 7 months and 2 days later but then, they have unofficially been helping us since BEFORE we declared independence.

So what was your point earlier when you said they didn't help you until AFTER independence?

What's more, you've openly contradicted yourself in one post. You said, further up, that the french "weren't going to get involved in the war unless there was a chance of American Victory", and yet now your saying they were in it since the beginning?

France had been looking to kick off the revolution since they lost the Americas. If they couldn't have them, they didn't want anyone else too, and particulalry not the bastard British. They were working toward American Independence before the Americans were. And your leaders were played like a deck of cards.

Washington toasted the name of King George every night. Franklin was well aware that the Colonies would not be any major power on their own. Some of your founders, like Paine, wanted independence, but it was never the original aim. It was all to get representation in the Houses of Parliament, and it became about independence because otherwise you would have lost and ended up with NOTHING.

Our Civil War? I thought we were talking about the Revolutionary War which was against Great Britain!

Oops.

Corn, you're talking about me, but you ain't talking to me.

You say you've never been wiretapped so rights aren't being infringed upon. By the same logic, you've never been detained as an enemy combatant, so this practice obviously does not infringe rights either, eh?

The bottom line is that "knock and announce," which dictates that police knock on your door and say "police" before they search your shit, has existed and been respected since the *Magna Carta*.

This is a civil liberty which now may be suspended.

Please, if you can, tell me how this does not represent the curtailing of a civil right/liberty.

I'm not going to list the other instances of infringement contained in the sections above because I don't think you're capable of arguing this single instance. So how about it?

You were there? :)

Sam Adams. He was a founding father, the tea party was his idea, and he was there. Patriot.

Ok, he was a patriot, I'll give you that point.

People's uprisings are riots. The do not involve diguising yourselves as Mohawk indians to perform criminal destruction of property. That is a premeditated terrorist act.

LOL!! But admit it. The colonists were punished for it too. All of them. Anyway, I thought it was funny. Were civilians killed on the ship?

See above. Also, you had no flag until 1777.

And that makes a difference how? We had uniforms. Under International Law, that was all that we needed and yea we did have flags. It was called the colonial flags. The US Flag just united all the colonies under one banner.

Well, given the example set by gitmo, you probably won't get to court until you've been incarcerated for a few years anyway.

Only if I was caught in arms against the government and was a terrorist. Since I'm neither, I doubt I will. LOL!!

Yes, but that's called politics. They could have. They didn't. It's quite clever, really, isn't it?

What, they the French have actually been helping us since before we declared independence? Sounds familiar doesn't it? I wonder when that happened. Oh that's right, Lend-Lease. We were supplying the allies before we officially got involved. Samething applies to that.

Yes, it completely removes any chance of the first half of your post, where France is apparently unwilling to get involved until after independence, being true. Well done. That kind of ability is almost up to Bush standard. Now you've just got to forget how to spell.

But as I just proved, the French HAVE BEEN aiding us BEFORE we declared indpendence. It wasn't till AFTER Saratoga did they recognized us and then decided to sign an alliance and thus officially giving support to our cause to oust you redcoats from our glorious shores.

Do you have the notes of the meeting? Given that France had been sending people to the US since the Stamp Act, it seems likely that the question had probably been raised before. Also, the French didn't like the British having their American Colonies, since we pinched most of theirs.

Do you have notes from the meeting as well? And hence why they wanted to get involved. It wasn't out of love for the American Cause. It was out of Revenge. Samething with the Spanish too when they joined the French. You people sure have a habit of pissing people off don't you? First the French then the Spanish followed by the Dutch. No wonder by 1783 you were diplomatically isolated.

So what was your point earlier when you said they didn't help you until AFTER independence?


That was your point not mine. I pointed out that they did help us before we declared independence.

What's more, you've openly contradicted yourself in one post. You said, further up, that the french "weren't going to get involved in the war unless there was a chance of American Victory", and yet now your saying they were in it since the beginning?

Official help. No one said anything about unofficial help. The French Government wasn't stupid. How would you like to declare official support only to have the war lost! Good way to get yourself steam rolled in revenge for supporting the losing side. Gotta love politics.

France had been looking to kick off the revolution since they lost the Americas. If they couldn't have them, they didn't want anyone else too, and particulalry not the bastard British. They were working toward American Independence before the Americans were. And your leaders were played like a deck of cards.

Do you have proof of this?

Washington toasted the name of King George every night. Franklin was well aware that the Colonies would not be any major power on their own. Some of your founders, like Paine, wanted independence, but it was never the original aim. It was all to get representation in the Houses of Parliament, and it became about independence because otherwise you would have lost and ended up with NOTHING.

WRONG!! We declared independence when we realized that Mad King George was ignoring us. We declared it relunctently. We didn't want to split but King George III forced us too.

Oops.

LOL!!!!

Hey, Corndawg,

I'm sure you've spent a lot of time researching this issue, so I thought I'd give the thread a little bump so it wouldn't vanish away down the forum.

You know, just so all your effort won't go to waste.

No such luck. Everyone got scared and then it passed. This is why sheeple are called sheeple. Too many people are scared, rather than prepared.

Kewl, I love how the country I live in is sodomzing itself. I LOVE IT, YOU HEAR!

Hey, Corndawg,

I'm sure you've spent a lot of time researching this issue, so I thought I'd give the thread a little bump so it wouldn't vanish away down the forum.

You know, just so all your effort won't go to waste.

The thing is, everything still requires a judge.

The thing about our civil liberties being taken away is absolutely false. I still have the freedom to do what I want, when I want, where I want, who I want to do it with, and how to do it. As long as I don't violate the law of the land, the police cannot touch me.

Things maybe relaxed but everything still requires a warrent and a US Citizen is required to have due process. So far, this is still going on as far as I know otherwise, the media would be all over it.

The media right now is not happy that the terrorists are not getting this, and they shouldn't.

Terrorists shouldn't get lawyers.

This is one of the most retarded comments I've read. Not everyone being held captive IS a terrorist, that is why they deserve either FAIR trials or to be released. Without access to fair trial you are moving back to English law prevalent in the 1700s: guilty until proved innocent; not actually being told what 'crime' you had committed; no access to a fair trial; short 'summary conviction' with little/no evidence given; in the existing situation even refusing to allow captives to provide their own defence...etc. etc. In the 1700s, even compacent writers like Blackstone could not regard the rules without indignation..

In Britain the Law Lords, (our equivalent of your Supreme Court), ruled that the few 'terrorists' we were holding should be released as it breached multiple articles of the Human Rights Act.. That said, I'm not entirely against holding suspected terrorists...but to say they "shouldn't get lawyers" is tantamount to, hmm, utter stupidity and ignorance? Retardedness...and hmm. Well, the list goes on. Eventually ALL of these men should be released OR imprisoned but ONLY IF FOUND GUILTY, (with a fair trial etc.)

Terrorists shouldn't get lawyers.

For the 3,000,000th time, a lot of these people are innocent and trials are necessary to seperate the terrorists from the non terrorists. That's what the government isn't doing.

Without access to fair trial you are moving back to English law prevalent in the 1700s: guilty until proved innocent

Is this true? I'm not so sure, whether it was implemented is another story, but I'm pretty sure the right of innocent until proven guilty goes back to Norman times in Britain. Correct me if I'm wrong.

FISA? First I've heard of this company. Besides, if its government runned, and it sounds like it is, they still need a court order to install it and that is done by a judge.

Wow. Actually FISA is short for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which was passed in the 70's. The Patriot Act isn't a document itself, but a series of changes to the FISA act (and other acts) to give the FBI way more power.

The thing is, everything still requires a judge.

The thing about our civil liberties being taken away is absolutely false. I still have the freedom to do what I want, when I want, where I want, who I want to do it with, and how to do it. As long as I don't violate the law of the land, the police cannot touch me.

Things maybe relaxed but everything still requires a warrent and a US Citizen is required to have due process. So far, this is still going on as far as I know otherwise, the media would be all over it.

The media right now is not happy that the terrorists are not getting this, and they shouldn't.

Yes your free to do what you want as long as you are a Republican, support the President, and are for the war, and even then that may not work. There where citizens who were not protesting caught in the street sweeps in NY during the Republican Convention who where detained for days without access to phones, or lawyers.

It was justified by the Patriot Act, like the "Free Speech" zones where Americans are detained when the President comes to town. A Free Speech zone in Orange County Florida is behind a cyclone fence in the middle of nowhere.

The Patriot Act has been used by the President to silence political opposition, which is reason enough for its repeal.

Is this true? I'm not so sure, whether it was implemented is another story, but I'm pretty sure the right of innocent until proven guilty goes back to Norman times in Britain. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I always thought it was a long tradition as well. But it seems it's not the case:

"I gave been unable to discover, however, that the dogma "A man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty", in any form of a brocard, anywhere occurs before the nineteenth century..." --C K Allen

Furthermore, "It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that the prisoner obtained, amid the gravest of doubts of many merciful and intelligent persons, the last privilege of giving evidence on his own behalf...Nor in the cases of felony to be represented by counsel...He had no access to books, no means of knowning the exact charge which was to be brought against him, the manner in which it was to be presented, nor the witnesses who would testify to it...His trial was extraordinarily summary, never extending beyond a day, and execution usually following upon judgement with irreparable celerity". -- C K Allen

I was shocked by this as well, but i think the funniest is this: "His inability to call sworn witnesses in capital cases was perhaps the most remarkable of these handicaps, and nothing shows more clearly the prejudice against the man who stood in conflict with the Crown...for the theory seems to have been that...it was smacked of insubordination that witnesses should be sworn against the Crown".

Ah well. For civil offences I believe the trials may have been somewhat fairer - and much 'more fair' for the aristocracy of course... ;) - but nevertheless it seems that true innocence until proven guilty was a relatively new concept in the 1800s.

Although I do know that Henry II carried out much reform of the law...I guess that wasn't one of them.

The thing is, everything still requires a judge. However they still have to get a judge's permission to do so. If they don't, then the evidence can be tossed out on the grounds of an Illegal Search and Seizure. If they did have a judge's permission then its perfectly legal. Samething applies. Still need a judge to authorize it. No Judge, no search or it gets tossed out in court.Need a judge to approve of this too. Are you seeing a pattern here?

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:J9eN_kjFsKMJ:www.fepproject.org/commentaries/patriotactupdate.html+patriot+act+judicial+review&hl=en
What was disclosed through the FOIA lawsuit, however, was the fact that the FBI has issued scores of "national security letters," a type of administrative subpoena that is issued independently by FBI field offices and is not subject to judicial review unless a case comes to court. Documents also revealed that the Attorney General has personally signed more than 170 "emergency foreign intelligence warrants," three times the number authorized in the preceding 23 years, according to recent congressional testimony.He concluded that because the Patriot Act does not explicitly name judicial review as a process for testing the "reasonableness" of an NSL, and because there are current bills in Congress that address this issue, the current language of ß 2709 as applied violates the Fourth Amendment.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:3fEb6tAOafgJ:slate.msn.com/id/2088239/+patriot+act+judicial+review&hl=en
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.412 gives the attorney general new power to order detentions based on a certification that he has "reasonable grounds to believe" that a noncitizen endangers national security. No judicial review is provided except for habeas corpus—a most basic and unlikely avenue of appeal. And the attorney general may continue to hold the alien indefinitely.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:wruKKy5qiHoJ:www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi%3D20030317%26s%3Dcole+patriot+act+judicial+review&hl=en
One federal court of appeals has already ruled that this standard is not susceptible to judicial review. So this provision would give the Attorney General unreviewable authority to deport any noncitizen he chooses, with no need to prove that the person has engaged in any criminal or harmful conduct.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:_gjLnWfEtOQJ:www.pbs.org/flashpointsusa/20030715/infocus/topic_03/+patriot+act+judicial+review&hl=en
The FBI is authorized to secure and search bookstore and library records without judicial review.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:rb80sQuHCoUJ:federalistpatriot.us/papers/03-41_paper.asp+patriot+act+judicial+review&hl=en
That the Constitution makes such an allowance for the suspension of habeas corpus, hence the suspension of judicial review, indicates that civil rights may be constitutionally suspended. By definition, the suspension of habeas corpus implies a suspension of certain civil rights; namely, the right to (1) judicial review, and (2) a trial that is (3) public, (4) speedy, and (5) by jury.

.