Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Uninformed dissent
The Patriot Act is back in the news (again). More of the same misunderstanding and blind rhetoric about the what is and is not in The Patriot Act. Any more shouting about a knock in the night and you'd think it was actually happening. There is little surprise as to who is chiming in:
What is surprising is the support of the American Conservative Union, which is calling for similiar changes. Both are specifically targeting the two flashy provisions of the act: the so called "Libarary" and "Sneak-and-Peak" sections (215 and 213 respectivelly).
First, let me urge you all, especially the liberals, to READ THE PATRIOT ACT before deciding how or if to argue. These two provisions of the Patriot Act are among the MOST talked about and LEAST understood provisions of the Patriot Act. First of all, and here's a zinger for all the Civil Liberty activist who oppose these provisions on such grounds, both of these are already permisable, legal tools used against US citizens. Thats right, check the justice department memo (check out the legal precedents, pretty damn straight forward), or use your head for a moment. Of course law enforcement can, and should, delay notification of some warrants. It would be difficult to apprehend a child molester if he were informed pre facto that a warrant had been issued for his arrest. Even a search warrant can, WHEN DEEMED NECESARY BY A JUDGE, be delayed, since it takes fairly little time to flush Cocaine down a toilet when you know you need to.
And thats the other thing that critics love to forget about seemingly odious portions of the patriot act: any prying into personal lives, phone bills, library records or septic tanks still requires consent of a Judge or grand jury. Let me quote directly from the section in question (the infamous 215):
If the ACLU is truly concerned over civil liberties, I wish they would devote some of their vast treasury to actual civil liberty violations.
"Cooler heads can now see that the Patriot Act went too far, too fast and that it must be brought back in line with the Constitution," said Gregory Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office.
What is surprising is the support of the American Conservative Union, which is calling for similiar changes. Both are specifically targeting the two flashy provisions of the act: the so called "Libarary" and "Sneak-and-Peak" sections (215 and 213 respectivelly).
First, let me urge you all, especially the liberals, to READ THE PATRIOT ACT before deciding how or if to argue. These two provisions of the Patriot Act are among the MOST talked about and LEAST understood provisions of the Patriot Act. First of all, and here's a zinger for all the Civil Liberty activist who oppose these provisions on such grounds, both of these are already permisable, legal tools used against US citizens. Thats right, check the justice department memo (check out the legal precedents, pretty damn straight forward), or use your head for a moment. Of course law enforcement can, and should, delay notification of some warrants. It would be difficult to apprehend a child molester if he were informed pre facto that a warrant had been issued for his arrest. Even a search warrant can, WHEN DEEMED NECESARY BY A JUDGE, be delayed, since it takes fairly little time to flush Cocaine down a toilet when you know you need to.
And thats the other thing that critics love to forget about seemingly odious portions of the patriot act: any prying into personal lives, phone bills, library records or septic tanks still requires consent of a Judge or grand jury. Let me quote directly from the section in question (the infamous 215):
(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--
`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
If the ACLU is truly concerned over civil liberties, I wish they would devote some of their vast treasury to actual civil liberty violations.
Comments:
you're one to talk about "blind rhetoric." keep up the arrogance, it's the best way to get people to listen to your opinions!
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 7:15 PM
: 7:15 PM
