Talk:Patriot Act I

Part of the "spin" on this issue is the sleight of hand by which the acronym title has been modified in popular use from U.S.A._P.A.T.R.I.O.T to PATRIOT ACT to Patriot Act, rendering the illusion that the Act itself is patriotic or about patriotism.

Does it endorse or contribute to the farse when it is referred to in mixed or lower case? --Maynard 11:53 8 May 2003 (EDT) --- Uniting and Strengthening [of] America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act .... hmmm ... wonder how long somebody worked to come up with those words!

The Interception and Obstruction part I get ... biometrics, surveillance, yada yada yada .. but to call them Appropriate Tools .. and to insinuate that the Act will in any way Unite and/or Strengthen America .... hmmm ... doubtful.

The use of the phrase "Patriot Act" has, however, caught the cautious eye of many a Patriot group, though ... perhaps an article on the reaction to the Act would be equally interesting ...

I like Patriot Act II even more (not really!) ... stealthful, stealthy ... but not very healthful, healthy ...

So, Maynard ... go for it my friend!

AI 5/8/03 13:25 (EST)

go for what ? ? Re: wonder how long somebody worked to come up with the words which fit the acronym: You've identified the perspective which sees that the ACT was named USA PATRIOT ACT first, and subsequently some team of folks had to come up with a way to "make it happen" (reverse acronym). --Maynard 17:38 8 May 2003 (EDT) Addendum: there's an anti-missle system which uses this name ('patriot') which doesn't work so well either. and --- the what referred to was just to continue the discussion, that's all ... just a turn of the mind at the time .. AI

Where were the opponents of this act before?
Supposedly most of the provisions in this act were already available to law enforcement in the war on drugs, this just extended those to terrorism and provided for some procedural streamlining, although this streamlining probably removes some procedural protections. My question is why weren't these provisions opposed in the "War on Drugs" and why, as part of the patriot act, wasn't their use in the war on drugs banned, in order to increase the focus on terrorism. That would have been a good time to negotiate some extra freedom and focus.

Frankly, I opposed the patriot act, not because it is unreasonable, but rather because the government has not done a good job staying within the legal constraints it already was supposed to abide by. All these new provisions can do is increase their hubris.--Lawlesslaw 01:50, 5 Jan 2005 (EST)


 * People have been complaining about the erosion of 4th Amendment rights for years, and as many people note, the war on drugs is often time a very good excuse to completely dodge procedure.


 * That said, the scope of the Patriot Act is far beyond even the most dangerous erosions of the 4th Amendment. It allows almost unprecedented tracking of your personal files (health, financial, etc) with very slim judicial oversight. It allows wire tapping basically at reckless abandon. it allows the government to arrest non citizens, without charges, and detain them for months on end without meaningful judicial review.


 * Whats even worse, is Patriot Act II, the sequel, just codified what the Bush administration has been doing anyways. Such things like:
 * no notification of detainment of ANY person, citizen or non citizen, in regards to a terrorist investigation, regardless of whether or not a charge has been filed.
 * no warrant necessary for wiretaps anymore
 * extradition of american citizens at the request of foreign governments, regardless of treat status.
 * civil disobedience, and basically any form of direct action, would constitute a person and any organizationa ffiliated, a "terrorist".


 * All in all the government is essentially grabbing for the 1984 Big Brother award here with exceptional speed.


 * SiberioS

Renewal & "Enemies List"

 * "A return to the good old days of J. Edgar Hoover: FBI monitoring Lefty groups," PamSpaulding.com, July 17, 2005.


 * "Here we have it, the cover of 9/11 is being used, as tool to intimidate and infiltrate groups participating in Constitutionally-protected activities. The power-grab by this corrupt, immoral administration knows no boundaries.


 * "It makes you wonder who else is being watched -- journalists...bloggers? Anyone this administration perceives to be a threat has to take a deep breath and demand the release of this information. What is happening to this country?"


 * Mark Sherman, "FBI Says It Has Files on Rights Groups," Associated Press, July 18, 2005.

Is SourceWatch on the "enemies list"?? Artificial Intelligence 09:35, 18 Jul 2005 (EDT)