What is conservative about a Patriot Act that reduces liberties of citizens?
929278
It is conservative in the sense that it prevents certain actions which some consider risky, and requires behaviors and conformity that many consider important for security.\n\nThe Patriot Act is a messy piece of legislation in some areas, but it doesn't actually reduce any civil liberties. It just reduces privacy in areas where people interact with businesses and other organizations. That's not friendly, but it's not unconstitutional.\n\nThere are plenty of laws passed in the past year or three that are unconstitutional, including the Military Commissions Act. Those are the threats to civil liberties, because those deliberately and systematically say the constitution can be ignored at will.\n\n{EDIT} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \n\nAnd for those who keep asking what civil liberties we've lost, here are the most recent. Denial of right to counsel. Denial of due process. Abrogation of the confrontation clause. Denial of the right against self-incrimination. Denial of the right to assemble. Denial of the right to petition for redress of grievances. Loss of habeas corpus. \n\nThose were MY rights that were taken. Just because I've never had a need to invoke them doesn't make them any less mine. And just because you haven't needed them yet doesn't make them any less yours.\n\nAs a society, we only have those rights we choose to defend. Only those rights we can defend. And if we do not defend them, we lose them. Once, and for all of us.
883159
This from the Cato Institute: \n\nWhat are the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act? One of the most serious threats to liberty comes from Section 215. According to the Department of Justice, that section allows investigators to obtain ‘‘business records’’ for terrorism investigations pursuant to a federal ‘‘court order.’’ In fact, the provision is not limited to business records. Federal\nagents can use that section of the Patriot Act to seize any tangible item (correspondence, film, personal belongings) directly from a person’s home.The ‘‘court order’’ is nothing but a fac¸ade because the Patriot Act says the judge ‘‘shall’’ issue such orders whenever the executive branch claims\nit is conducting a terrorism investigation.\nMost shocking of all, Section 215 makes it a crime for anyone to speak out about its use. Any person who speaks to a relative, a neighbor, or a reporter about the government’s demand can be jailed. Defenders of the Patriot Act demand specific examples of ‘‘abuses’’ of the law, but they fail to mention that the Section 215 gag provision keeps anyone affected from coming forward. That will obviously make it very difficult for Congress to assess how the orders are actually being used.\nThe second threat to civil liberties comes from Section 505 of the Patriot Act. Under that provision, federal agents can use so-called national security letters to seize transactional records, such as bank and rental car receipts.That Patriot Act provision bypasses the Constitution’s search warrant procedure by vesting a secret subpoena power directly within the executive\nbranch. Instead of having to apply for judicially approved warrants, federal agents can unilaterally threaten businesspeople with jail if they do not surrender employee and customer records. This represents an enormous\nchange in American law. Congress has steadfastly denied subpoena powers to the FBI and the CIA because it was deemed to be too much power for the executive branch. Now that both agencies have acquired the power,they will not surrender it easily. These subpoenas also contain ‘‘gag’’\nprovisions for Americans who receive them.\nThe third threat to liberty comes from the Patriot Act’s expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)—a law that created a special federal court to approve electronic surveillance of citizens and resident aliens alleged to be acting on behalf of a foreign power. Previously,the FISA court granted surveillance authority if foreign intelligence was the primary purpose of an investigation. But Section 218 of the Patriot Act allows the government to conduct surveillance if foreign intelligence\nis only a ‘‘significant’’ purpose of an investigation. That may seem like a trivial change, but it is not. Because the standard for FISA approval is lower than ‘‘probable cause,’’ and because FISA now applies to ordinary criminal matters if they are characterized as ‘‘national security’’ inquiries, the new rules offer federal agents another avenue to bypass the Constitution’s search warrant requirements. The result: rubber-stamp judicial consent\nto phone and Internet surveillance, even in regular criminal cases.\nLimit Power, Restore Privacy The sunset provisions do not apply to all of the Patriot Act’s problematic sections. This means that Congress must affirmatively act to repeal police power sections that threaten liberty in America. Three sections stand out\nabove all the others.\nThe first section is the so-called sneak and peek power. Section 213 of the Patriot Act empowers agents to conduct covert entries into homes and businesses. Agents still apply for a judicial search warrant, but the homeowner does not know about the entry until days or weeks later. This section of the Patriot Act is defended as an important ‘‘tool to fight terrorism,’’ but it can be used for any federal criminal investigation. Such\n
676757
Well, they're somewhat less likely to trash your civil liberties or invasively crawl into your private life.  They're more likely to implement tax laws that will balance the budget yet still be reasonable from a business perspective -- no more "welfare for the wealthy".\n\nOn balance, they're all politicians so they're worthy of only minimal trust as such.
846976
Homeland security is intended to protect the country from terrorism.  However, the fight against terrorism entails an intrusion into private records and bank accounts in order to identify terrorists and their supporters which is a tradeoff for civil liberties considering that innocent persons might be breached.
925753
I agree.  The government has gotten too big and intrusive.  They have manipulated many into thinking that questioning the government is "unamerican."  \n\nTaking away the right of habeus corpus goes against centuries of democratic law.  The absolute worst argument in support of removing our privacy rights is that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care.  This makes no sense.  Many innocent conversations and behaviors can be taken out of context and subhect an innocent person to a trial.   Anyone that has ever been falsely accused of a crime can tell you how hard it is to prove that you are innocent.  \n\nHopefully, we are going to see a backlash against this and a return of the power to the people.
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.
901523
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001' (Public Law 107-56), known as USA PATRIOT Act or simply the 'Patriot Act', is an American act which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The Act passed in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1, and in the House by a vote of 357 to 66. Although the bill enjoyed widespread Congressional and Presidential support it is a very controversial federal legislation.\n\nOriginally passed after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Act (full text) was formed in response to the terrorist attacks against the United States, and dramatically expanded the authority of American law enforcement for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. It has also been used to detect and prosecute other alleged potential crimes, such as providing false information on terrorism. Federal courts declared some sections unconstitutional because they interfere with civil liberties. It was renewed on March 2, 2006 with a vote of 89 to 11 in the Senate and on March 7 280 to 138 in the House. The renewal was signed into law by President Bush on March 9, 2006.\nSome of the more controversial provisions of USA PATRIOT act were largely inspired by the RICO act, which restricted due process for individuals involved in organized crime, racketeering, and drug trafficking. The USA PATRIOT act essentially extended the qualifications to those involved in terrorism.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Patriot_Act
1007066
The Patriot Act.. even the title is divisive
370171
Of course.\n I think it is a terrible idea to trade off civil rights for an ILLUSION of security... no one in this country is even a tiny bit safer than we were before the so called Patriot Act, just more fearful.\n\nBesides that, if we surrender our freedom in an effort to thwart terrorists, they win without even trying.
1067831
The generally accepted definition is that liberals expect government to provide services to all of the citizens, and expect government to protect the freedoms and rights of all citizens.\n\nConservatives generally want less government, which means less government services, less government protection for citizens, and expect citizens to rely only on themselves for their needs and not government.\n\nLook at how the conservative point of view has been corrupted over the past 20 years -- even the Republican platform still states that they believe in less government, yet W has enlarged the government (through the creation of new departments, hiring of employees, etc.) more than any other president since FDR.  Conservatives officially believe in less government spending, yet W has spent more than any president in history, while cutting taxes for the rich so that there is no way to pay for all that spending without borrowing money to run up the biggest deficit in US history.  At the same time he cuts government's services for the needy, he spends our money on defense contractors, needless wars, and incompetent agencies that do nothing to provide any real protection.  "Conservative" has moved away from its original meaning, being taken over by religious fanatics (who want government to do MORE to enforce their own religious rules on all Americans) and by big-money defense/oil companies who want all the government's money but don't want to pay any taxes.\n\nLiberalism has changed as well, though not as dramatically.  Many "visible" liberals today are for everyone's rights except the fundamentalist religions, which they would like to squash.  True liberalism is hard, you need to accept and protect the rights of everyone, even those you don't agree with.  Many current so-called liberals don't live up to that ideal.
51221
Unfortunately, the current administration is adept at using labels to disguise the real intent of laws and other actions. For example, the "Clean Air Act" actually encouraged more pollution that before. The Patriot Act encourages violations of our constitution and a strengthening of the executive branch. Some aspects are worthwhile, but the name makes it difficult to object to its details without being called unpatriotic. Sad to see the stifling of legitimate criticism. \nAs far as a better title, perhaps the Surveillance Act?
226920
Yes. I'm very upset at how the Bush administration has perverted the English language. "Patriot Act" takes away civil liberties. "Clean Water Act" allows companies to dump as much crud as they please in the water, and so on. \n\nThe Patriot Act allows the government to know which books you take out of the library. It denies the library the power to tell YOU that they they've been forced to tell the government which books you've checked out. \n\nStand up for your rights, kids. Once they're gone, they're gone.\n\n(And in response to another answer on this page: you don't have to wait until someone files a suit against a stupid law to know that it's wrong).
425684
I speak from across the fence on this matter, but I will let you know what I hear most often. The Patriot Act that has broadened the government's ability to seek information from it's fellow citizens has left some more liberal voters upset. They feel that the government's noose of power has grown a bit tighter, and I assume they foresee a future government domination over the people of this nation. I do not know of any firsthand accounts where someone's privacy rights have been infringed upon, or violated. Not that I wish there was, but there doesn't seem to be anyone personally hurt by the Act. Personally, I've felt that as long as man would uphold his responsibilites to treat his fellow man with love, and respect there would be no need for government at all. But we both know that we fail to do this, therefore creating a need for government. So if the privilages we enjoy so dearly seem in danger, I believe it is because of our own faults. I hope that this has been helpful.
676372
Good point, your now coming out of the fake scare fog aren't you. The Patriot Act was just to spy on Americans wasn't it. George Bush finally admitted to it 3 years later. There never was a threat. Fear tactics to get votes and raise the forced inflation rate to make a few American Corporations filthy rich was the plan. How do you like the Republicans now?
2954
President Bush is a conservative with religious incentives.  \n\nWhile I understand what he is attempting, I do not agree with all of his methods.  He is mandated to protect the United States which justifies entering the war on terrorism as a response to the multiple terrorist attacks which have occurred within the United States.  However, the Patriot act has aspects which are at odds with the Constitution.\n\nAt the same time the economy is doing far better than most people understand.  This is countered by the increasing federal budget deficit.
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...
392065
Obviously this is a tough question. I think that the general policy must be one that favors personal freedoms rather than protections. The case of abortion is a red herring. It is much too complicated by religious and moral issues. Another example might be better. what about the right of habeas corpus? Currently the right of habeas corpus has been suspended in the name of the War on Terrorism. Any individual (united states citizen or not) can be named an 'enemy combatant' and held indefinatly, without charges, without representation, and without a court appearance. I personally think that this is a clear sign of 'protection' over powering 'civil liberties.'