Can anyone explain exactly what the Patriot Act is supposed to do? I am really not clear on this one. Ideas?
359345
I work in the banking and finance world, and the long and short of it is this:  It's an extenstion of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1972 (1974?), which states that large dollar amounts are higer risks for money laundering, terrorism and the like. It's another way for the government to monitor the flow of cash.  Below, are some things I found online.\n\nAN ACT\nTo deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,\n \na) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001'\n\nHope this helps!
206739
Ok seriously, take the time to read the Patriot act. It's scary. You have no idea how far, how deep, and how broad the Patriot act is. Do a google search, and take a deep breath. How bad is it? Put it this way, just talking negatively about it gives the government just cause to arrest you as a terrorist. That happens, you have NO constitutional rights. They can hold you indefinitely, no lawyer, no family, no due process of law. Educate yourselves people, because it's going to get worse.
442911
Myth: The Patriot Act simply updated the tools of law enforcement to match the technology used by the terrorists and criminals today.\nReality: The Patriot Act “updated” surveillance powers but failed to “update” the checks and balances needed to ensure those surveillance powers include proper judicial oversight. \n\nSection 206 of the Patriot Act allows the government to obtain “roving wiretaps” without empowering the court to make sure that the government ascertain that the conversations being intercepted actually involve a target of the investigation.  \n\n“Pen registers” and “trap and trace” devices are also allowed and track detailed information about Internet use, like specific web pages viewed or search terms entered into a search engine read more:http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/facts.html#two\nMyth: The Patriot Act is “mostly taking what we can do to track drug dealers and thugs and give those tools to people tracking spies and terrorists.”\nReality: Before the Patriot Act, the government could use the same tools, like wiretapping or using grand jury subpoenas, to investigate drug dealers and terrorists. The government simply had to be investigating a crime of terrorism.  \nMyth: The codification of delayed notice warrants in the Patriot Act “brought national uniformity to a court-approved law enforcement tool that had been in existence for decades.”\nReality: The Patriot Act’s “sneak and peek” provision is about lowering standards for sneak and peek warrants, not imposing uniformity. Section 213 of the Patriot Act allows notice of search warrants to be delayed for an indefinite “reasonable time.” \nMyth: The primary effect of the Patriot Act was to “bring down this ‘wall’ separating intelligence officers from law enforcement agents” in coordination and information sharing.\nReality: Information sharing between criminal and intelligence investigations occurred before Sept. 11, 2001 and the Patriot Act. The primary effect of the Patriot Act was to remove necessary checks and balances in foreign intelligence investigations\nMyth: The Patriot Act’s “new powers have allowed authorities to charge more than 400 people in terrorism investigations since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and convict more than half.”\nReality: The government attributes convictions it says are terrorism-related that have nothing to do with the Patriot Act. The “400 convictions” claim overstates actual number of convictions and omits a number of key facts related to these numbers. Only 39 of these individuals were convicted of crimes related to terrorism. The median sentence for these crimes was 11 months, which indicates the crime the government equated with terrorism was not serious\nMyth: The Patriot Act does not contain a provision that allows the government to obtain library records, and “[t]he reading habits of ordinary Americans are of no interest to those investigating terrorists or spies.”\nReality: Section215 of Patriot Act does cover library records. It authorizes the government to more easily obtain a court order requiring a person or business to turn over documents or things “sought for” an investigation to protect against international terrorism. Business records include library records.\n\nYour medical records, records and lists of individuals who belong to political organizations are also fair game for the government to seize\nMyth: “[The] Patriot Act is chock-full of oversight in a lot of ways that regular criminal procedure is not:  full of the involvement of federal judges…”\nReality: The statute authorizing the use of “national security letters” as amended by the Patriot Act 505(a) contains no judicial oversight. The statute allows the government to compel the production of financial records, credit reports, telephone, Internet, and other communications or transactional records. \nSection 215 requires the FBI to apply to a Foreign Intelligence Sur
599108
How about:\nUSA PATRIOT Act, that was certainly controversial.\nH. R. 3162\n\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR:\n\nFor research tips:\n\nTHE BEST WAY to research legislative history is to go the Library of Congress. They keep the record of ALL hearings on the bill(both committee and floor) and any statements made by congressmen and any other people that Congress has questioned regarding the bill etc etc etc.\n\nThe website given by previous answerer will help:\nIt is the website of the library of congress:\n\nhttp://thomas.loc.gov\n\nI would also suggest reading this site(it is very helpful):\nhttp://www.llsdc.org/sourcebook/fed-leg-hist.htm\n\nSome trivia:\nSupreme Court Justice Scalia hates legislative history, and considers it not useful.\nHe once was quoted to say something to the tone of:\n"I had to exile my clerk to the dungeon to dig through useless pile of legislative junk"\nSo you are not alone in being frustrated with legislative history.\n\nP.S. I hope you are paid for this thankless task.
718908
A never ending war to keep peoples attention off the corruption of their governement at home. Example, the war on terror. Its a war on an emotion! When is that going to end? Never. Thats the idea. Do you think the Patriot Act would ever have passed without 9-11 or Iraq? Just some stuff to think about.\n\n\npeace
170557
The Patriot Act helps law enforcement officers find and arrest terrorists more easily. It also helps in more common crimes too.\n\nUnfortunately, its liberal use of bugging is considered a violation of privacy, since it makes bugging people easy for law enforcement. On the other hand, though, the government should have no need to bug you unless you need bugging. And besides, they don't have the manpower to bug everyone.\n\nThe government can spy on people anyway, or bug them, so it makes little difference. Now it's just easier, faster, and safer for cops. Privacy is nice, but I prefer to be alive and have a tiny bit less privacy.\n\nTo the person below me: it is not at all a false sense of security, because the Patriot Act's greatest impact is on law enforcement, not crime prevention. Putting NYPD officer at every large building and subway station is false security. But making it easier for FBI agents to collect evidence to convict criminals is not false at all.
383683
The reason is that more people are affected and those rights affect more individuals.  It is not necessarily true.  The Patriot act can be viewed as supporting community rights, though I don't agree that it does.
949
Many aspects of the Patriot Act are uncontested; in fact, Nadine Strossen of the ACLU has stated that she agrees with over 90% of the provisions of the Patriot Act.  It's only a few provisions that are hotly contested\n\nIt largely tries to unify communication among several departments and provide easier access for law enforcement officers.  Online information was difficult to obtain before 9/11; access to judges was slower and required more paperwork; and more hoops were required before action could be taken.\n\nThe Patriot Act doesn't remove the safeguards, but streamlines and simplifies them.  For the most part, the same sorts of safeguards are in place, just with different requirements that are less burdensome on government.\n\nMany provisions are loudly decried in public, but few people ever discuss specific provisions of the Patriot Act they disapprove of.  Most of it seems to be mass hysteria without any specific citation of violations.  When the biggest complaint is that someone may look at your library record, it doesn't seem to be THAT violative of privacy.\n\nI've included links to the Department of Justice's defense of the Act, as well as the ACLU's criticism.  I hope that balances the views.
160779
The American Civil Liberties Union Wednesday, July 30, 2003, filed the first lawsuit against the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law passed after the attacks of September 11, 2001. \n\nThe lawsuit claims one section of the law authorizing searches of records, including those of businesses, libraries and bookstores, is unconstitutional. \n\n"This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, which vastly expands the power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to obtain records and other 'tangible things' of people not suspected of criminal activity," the lawsuit states. \n\nThe ACLU filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of six mostly Arab and Muslim-American groups. \n\nThe groups claim the provisions of the law allowing the searches violates the Constitution's First, Fourth and Fifth amendments. \n\nThey include the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor, Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services and the Islamic Center of Portland, Masjed As-Saber.
532009
It is just a small part of a big problem. Since 9-11 the govt has been taking more and more of our freedoms from us,(the American People). We have the patriot act, warrentless spying on the American people, no more habeas corpus, it is called FACISM. Very scary.
983891
The problem with the Patriot Act is that while it does provide a clause allowing judicial oversight, Title IV Section 412 includes provisions for judicial review in detentions, and Title II deals with warrant requirements for electronic surveillance, it does not make this oversight mandatory.\n\nThis means that these provisions are allowed to go unenforced. You see, the Executive Branch is in charge of this enforcement. So what we are seeing now and basically have a wide-open window to is when the laws get in the way of what Bush wants to accomplish, he just chooses not to enforce them.\n\nAlso, the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments are limitations on government action, and apply to anyone under US authority or control. Nowhere does it mention 'citizen'.\n\nAs far as warrantless wiretapping, 50 U.S.C. §1801 et al. Warrantless wiretapping is illegal under FISA if any US citizen or resident alien is a party to the conversation. Also 18 U.S.C. § 2511: Compliance with FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance... may be conducted". The Patriot Act runs head to head into legalities here.
531596
why? because the cia is doing something else right now. when the elitists need to engineer another signifigant event to facilitate and accelerate their agenda then maybe it will be another one. oh by the way when you say "terrorist" what defines that term? read the patriot act- THE WHOLE THING- then your breakfast will taste sh$%ty in the morning when it defines "terrorist" and "terrorism"
829735
I knew they had been doing it all along. Seriously I dont mean that to sound crazy, but I assumed the government monitored everything already. I heard along time ago from someone when I was a kid that they have super computers that filter all telephone conversations and certain words and phrases are flagged for follow up. Honestly they have always gone too far and it will never stop as long as there are people who are like well if I have nothing to hide what does it matter. If you are not willing to stand up and fight for the freedoms our forfathers died for you don't deserve them. If you are willing to give up those rights to keep you safe from a shadowy elusive terrorist you dont deserve them.
227457
national security doesn't just help individuals. people who value privacy more than the sanctity of human life should admit themselves to a f***in insane asylum. at least that way they wouldn't run the chance of withholding valuable information from the government that could help prevent loss of more American citizens, however disgusting some may be. like those self-centered a**holes concerned about their privacy. "oh, the government is trying to spy on us". Oh, grow a f***in spine! the only reason these people are complaining is because they have something to hide. to those people i say, hide your secrets up your a** like all the other drug smugglers or in your shoes like that one bomber sh**head!
56010
To alert people and society about the possible dangers of allowing government too much control and monitoring over citizens.  Orwell would be turning over in his grave today if he could see what is happening.  Current events in the USA echo many of the themes that Orwell wrote about, such as the so-called 'Patriot Act'.  The 'Patriot Act' authorizes a huge range of previously illegal monitoring of U.S. citizens, wiretaps without approval, gag orders and other forms of oppression.  How ironic that we talk so much of freedom but are systematically stripping away those very freedoms.
976731
The responses to this question amaze me! Why does everyone act like The patriot act really changed anything as far as this issue goes? Did not FDR  use surveillance on German and Japanese Americans during WW II? Did not Kennedy and Johnson use the FBI to run surveillance on Martin Luther King and others in the 60's? Did not Nixon authorize  Surveillance of John Lennon and other anti war protesters. Did not the Clinton administration collect dossiers made by private investigators on political enemies?. I am not supporting all these actions some were wrong some were right some were questionable. This blustering over the patriot act is 85% politically motivated is my point. Yes there are some concerns but the One of the governments chief responsibilities is protecting it's people and defending it's borders. In Every war and instance of Civil strife the government has used domestic intelligence to gather information. The major difference today in we live in the age of 24 hr. news and the Internet and much more information is publicly available than ever before. To argue because it is the NSA instead of the FBI doing the spying is arguing semantics spying is spying and sometimes it's justified. At least in this case all but the most hard core bush opponents should agree that the threat is genuine and the intent is to protect the citizenry not politically motivated like the action of LBJ, Nixon etc...
1173224
For the record, we did not get to vote on the so-called Patriot Act.  And as you so correctly point out, there is nothing patriotic about it.\n\nThose who have fought to defend our Constitution must be spinning madly in their graves now, knowing what the American public is currently tolerating in the name of "security."  \n\nThey are in no sense patriots who tamper with our system of justice.  "True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else."  Clarence Darrow