USA PATRIOT Act

The USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001)#Note (United States United States House of Representatives 3162, S. 1510, Public Law 107-56) is an act of federal legislation in the United States. Enacted by the Congress of the United States after the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, it was primarily intended to enhance the authority of U.S. law enforcement to preempt and investigate potential terrorism. Expanding on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the USA Act defines terrorism as an activity that meets all of the following three criteria: # It intimidates or coerces the government or civil population # It breaks criminal laws # It endangers human life. This definition is adopted in the USA PATRIOT Act. Critics claim the Act is unnecessary and enables U.S. law enforcement to infringe upon free-speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy. The bill (proposed law) passed 98–1 in the United States Senate, and 357–66 in the United States House of Representatives; Senator Russ Feingold (United States Democratic Party, Wisconsin) cast the Senate's lone dissenting vote. President of the United States George W. Bush signed the bill into law on October 26, 2001. Assistant attorney general Viet D. Dinh was the chief architect of the act. There is some confusion about the number of charges and convictions based on the USA PATRIOT Act. John Ashcroft in his 2004 statement ''The Department of Justice: Working to Keep America Safer'' reported that there have been 368 individuals criminally charged in terrorism investigations, and later used the numbers 372 and 375. Of these he stated that 194 (later 195) resulted in convictions or guilty pleas. (The original statement [http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/usdojgov/www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2004/ag_successes_110904.htm Working to Keep America Safer]; the statement is reduced to a bullet list in [http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/CRMAnnualReport2004.pdf 2004 Criminal Division Annual Report] on page 9.). In June 2005, President Bush stated terrorism investigations yielded more than 400 charges, more than half of which resulted in convictions or guilty pleas. In some of these cases, federal prosecutors chose to charge suspects with non-terror related crimes for immigration, fraud and conspiracy. ==History of the USA PATRIOT Act== ===FISA=== This history of the USA PATRIOT Act begins with the perceived abuse of power by the CIA and FBI from McCarthy's Red Scare to Nixon's Watergate scandal. In 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed to produce legal guidelines for federal investigations. Among the rules put in place were regulations governing: *Electronic Surveillance *Physical Searches *Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes *Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes Apart of defining how investigations could be performed, FISA also defined who could be investigated. A person had to be suspected of crimes against the government, primarily espionage and international terrorism. Other crimes were arguably against the government as an attack on society in general, such as illegal drug trade and money laundering. A highly controversial provision of FISA was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The reason behind the FISC was that of public record. All warrants given by a sitting judge in a normal court are a matter of public record. They must be attained and shown to a suspect before a search is made. FISC is not bound by public record. Therefore, a federal investigator can get a warrant that will not become public record. Also, the FISC allows for delayed notice of a warrant in special situations. This became known as the ''sneak and peek'' search. The suspect must be shown the warrant, but not necessarily before the search. ===September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks=== After the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, the CIA and FBI were blamed for failure in their investigations. Though it was considered to be a technicality, the FISA did not allow the CIA or FBI to investigate any of the terrorists actively involved in the attacks because the definition of terrorism in the FISA was too narrow. In order to investigate the terrorists, the investigators had to prove that the terrorists were receiving aid from a foreign country. Al Queda, the organization that planned and funded the attacks, is not a country, and therefore does not fall under the strict guidelines of terrorism. The USA Act was passed on the heels of 9/11 to correct this oversight. Terrorism was redefined to cover the broader concepts of terrorism. By the USA Act, terrorism is an "illegal" act that is intended to "intimidate or coerce the government or civil population" and is an "endangerment to human life". It has been argued that this definition of terrorism is too broad because it can theoretically be applied to common dissidents involved in illegal and violent demonstrations. While most demonstrations obtain proper permits and are peaceful, a few are not and can endanger life - either by the demonstrators, opposing groups, bystanders, or police. Coupled with the circumstance that most demonstrations are intended to intimidate or coerce the government or civil population, some worry that demonstrators may theoretically be considered terrorists under the USA PATRIOT Act. A counter-argument is that the demonstrators are properly characterized as domestic terrorism under the USA PATRIOT Act here because the actions are (1)illegal, (2)threaten human life, and are (3)attempting to intimidate the government or civil population. Another counter-argument is that the USA PATRIOT Act has never been needed to manage demonstrators because the situation is usually handled by local police departments, and on rare occasion by the federal government using non-USA PATRIOT Act federal statutes. ===The USA PATRIOT Act=== As the USA Act was passed, there was also focus on securing the funds for terrorism. By taking away the money that the terrorists used, they would be unable to continue their activities in an organized manner. This led to the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act. With the USA Act (amending the FISA), the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, and multiple bills to provide benefits to victims of 9/11, Congress decided to wrap them all up in the USA PATRIOT Act. While the purpose of amending the FISA and the benefits for victims were based on terrorism, the overall scope of the USA PATRIOT Act was still rooted in the FISA, a bill designed to limit the abuse of power of the CIA and FBI. ==Provisions== The USA PATRIOT Act mostly incorporates the provisions of the earlier anti-terrorism USA Act (H.R. 2975 and S. 1510). The House passed the USA Act on October 12, 2001. The Senate passed it on October 11, 2001. The primary differences between the USA Act and the USA PATRIOT Act are: * The inclusion of the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act (H.R. 3004), which expands money laundering abatement to international terrorism. * Immunity against prosecution for the providers of wiretaps in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. * Request for a report on integrating automated fingerprint identification for ports of entry into the United States. * Start of a foreign student monitoring program. * Request for machine readable passports. * Prevention of consulate shopping. * Expansion of the Biological Weapons Statute. * Clearer definition of "Electronic Surveillance" * Miscellaneous benefits for victims of the September 11 attack and extra penalties for those who illegally file for such benefits. Most issues considered to be unique to the USA PATRIOT Act are actually part of the USA Act. The USA Act is in itself mostly comprised of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As such, it is commonly referred to as the "And Terrorism Too" act because it expands the definition of terrorism to include terrorist activities that are not backed by a foreign power. ===Sneak-and-Peek searches=== Much of the backlash against the USA PATRIOT Act has been directed at the provisions for Sneak-and-Peek searches. Critics[http://talkleft.com/new_archives/000279.html] argue that Provision 213 authorizes "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of ''reasonable necessity'' and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided." In special cases covered by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (incorporated in the USA PATRIOT Act), the warrants may come from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) instead of a common Federal or State Court. FISC warrants are not public record and therefore are not required to be released. Other warrants must be released, especially to the person under investigation. A second complaint against Sneak-and-Peek searches is that the owner of the property (or person identified in business/library records) does not have to be told about the search. There is a special clause that allows the Director of the FBI to request phone records for a person without ever notifying the person. For all other searches, the person must be notified, but not necessarily before the search. The judge providing the warrant may allow a delay in notification when there is risk of: * endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; * flight from prosecution; * destruction of or tampering with evidence; * intimidation of potential witnesses; or * otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. The delays are on average 7 days, but have been as long as 90 days. [http://www.factcheck.org/article259.html] Section 213, which federal agencies report they have used 155 times since 2001, does not expire later this year like other Patriot Act provisions. The American Civil Liberties Union argues that the term "serious jeopardy" is too broad "and must be narrowly curtailed."[http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1776] ''See also'': Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ==Challenges to limit the USA PATRIOT Act== ===U.S. Congress=== On July 31, 2003, Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), introduced the "Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act" (S. 1552) [http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s1552.html]. This bill would revise several provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act to increase judicial review. For example, instead of PEN/Trap warrants to track Internet usage being based on the claims of law-enforcement, they would be based on "specific and articulable facts that reasonably indicate that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed, and that information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to the investigation of that crime." However, the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act doesn't address the portion of Sec. 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act which allows unnamed persons to be subject to a PEN/Trap warrant based on law-enforcement certifying that those individuals should have been named. On September 24, 2003, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, introduced legislation into the US House of Representatives to repeal more than ten sections of the Act. The bill, titled the "Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act", looks to review certain sections of the USA PATRIOT Act, including those that authorize sneak and peek searches, library, medical, and financial record searches, and the detention and deportation of non-citizens without meaningful judicial review. Beyond the USA PATRIOT Act, the bill cements the right of Attorney/Client Privilege and attempts to restore transparency in the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security by revoking Freedom of Information Act secrecy orders, along with other important provisions. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) with Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), C. L. Otter (R-Idaho), and Ron Paul (R-Texas) proposed an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Bill of 2005 which would cut off funding to the Department of Justice for searches conducted under Section 215. The amendment initially failed to pass the House with a tie vote, 210–210. Although the original vote came down in favor of the amendment, the vote was held open and several House members were persuaded to change their votes. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37480-2004Jul8.html] On June 15, 2005, a second attempt to limit Section 215 was successful in the House of Representatives. The House voted 238-187 in favor of the Sanders amendment to an appropriations bill. The Sanders amendment prevents the funds provided by the bill from being used by the FBI and the Justice Department to search library and book store records as authorized by Section 215 of FISA. This vote was misreported in many media outlets as a vote against Section 215. [http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html?day=20050615] === American Civil Liberties Union === ''Main article:'' ACLU v. Ashcroft On April 9, 2004 the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the national security letter (NSL)[http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002709----000-.html] provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which allows the Director of the FBI (or a designee not below Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI) to obtain customer records from phone and Internet companies in terrorism investigations. The ACLU successfully argued that phone companies and Internet Service Providers should be able to disclose receiving a subpoena from the Director of the FBI, and that doing so outweighs the Director's need for secrecy in counter-terrorism investigations. No part of the USA PATRIOT Act was impacted. On August 30, 2004, the ACLU ran a $1.52 million ad campaign against the USA PATRIOT Act. The ad claimed, "So the government can search your house... My house... Our house... Without notifying us. Treating us all like suspects. It's part of the PATRIOT Act." Initial criticism of the ad pointed out that the phrase "without notifying us" implies that a person will never be notified of a search. There is a provision in the USA PATRIOT Act that allows for delayed notification of warrants in special cases. ===Section 805 ruled vague=== On January 23, 2004, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins [http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=421#_edn15 ruled] that Section 805 (which classifies "expert advice or assistance" as material support to terrorism) was vague and in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Amendments, marking the first legal decision to set a part of the Act aside. The lawsuit against the act was brought by the Humanitarian Law Project, representing five organizations and two U.S. citizens who wanted to provide expert advice to Kurdish refugees in Turkey. Groups providing aid to these organizations had suspended their activities for fear of violating the USA PATRIOT Act, and they filed a lawsuit against the Departments of Justice and State to challenge the law, claiming the phrase "expert advice or assistance" was too vague. [http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/27/patriot.act/] Collins granted the plaintiff's motion that "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, but denied a nationwide injunction against the provision. The plaintiffs were granted "enjoinment" from enforcement of the provision. ===Section 505 ruled unconstitutional=== On September 29, 2004, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down Section 505—which allowed the government to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight—was in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Amendment. The court also found the broad gag provision in the law to be an "unconstitutional prior restraint" on free speech. [http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/04CV2614_Opinion_092904.pdf] ===Security and Freedom Ensured Act=== The Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE) is legislation proposed by Senators Larry Craig (R-ID), John Sununu (R-NH) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) which would add checks and balances to the Patriot Act. This legislation, which is scheduled to be introduced in mid-June 2005, would curtail some powers of the Patriot Act by requiring court reviews and reporting requirements. ==Public opinion== According to The Gallup Organization, the public is wary but ignorant about the USA PATRIOT Act. In January 2002, 47% of Americans wanted their government to stop terrorism even if it reduced civil liberties. By November 2003 this number had dropped to 31%, indicating either increasing concern about expanding government powers or reduced fear of terrorism. From 2003 to 2004, nearly a quarter of all Americans felt that the USA PATRIOT Act went too far, while most felt that it was either just right or did not go far enough. By 2005, the people polled were statistically divided half and half for and against the USA PATRIOT Act. At the same time, only half of the people polled claimed to know some of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. After the 2004 elections, the number of people claiming to know some of the provisions fell sharply. Gallup Poll statistics from [http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2004-02-25-patriot-act-poll.htm] and [http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm]:

Does the USA PATRIOT Act go too far?
Date	Too Far	Not Too Far^*
Aug 25-26 2003	22%	69%
Nov 10-12 2003	25%	65%
Feb 16-17 2004	26%	64%
Apr 13-16 2005	45%	49%
^*Responded as it is a Necessary Tool, About Right, or Not Far Enough

What do you know about the USA PATRIOT Act?
Date	A Lot	Some	Not Much	Nothing
Aug 25-26 2003	10%	40%	25%	25%
Nov 10-12 2003	12%	41%	25%	22%
Feb 16-17 2004	13%	46%	27%	14%
Apr 13-16 2005	13%	28%	28%	29%

Another poll indicates that 52% of Americans are concerned that their civil liberties are being infringed by the administration's war on terrorism. [http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0422/hentoff.php] == Alleged abuses under the USA PATRIOT Act== === Allegedly outside the Act's scope === Critics of the law often believe that all provisions of the law were intended to focus solely on terrorism. This is not the case at all. The USA PATRIOT Act is an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) from 1978, which is primarily, but not wholly, concerned with espionage and terrorism. The changes from FISA, to the USA Act and finally the USA PATRIOT Act are intended to increase the power of the government to fight terrorism, but not limit other provisions. ==== Using the Act against money-laundering activities ==== In Las Vegas, Nevada, police used the USA PATRIOT Act to subpoena two stockbrokers for evidence in a public official corruption case against a strip club owner (who ultimately pled guilty). The USA PATRIOT Act, Section 314 is a provision to investigate money-laundering activities. Accordingly, the federal investigators' actions did not exceed the authority of the Act. [http://yconservatives.com/Carmack-62.html] ==== Using the Act against computer fraud ==== Adam McGaughey, the webmaster of a fan site for the television show Stargate SG-1, was charged with copyright infringement and computer fraud. During the investigation, the FBI invoked a provision of the Act to obtain records from the site's Internet Service Provider. [http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/07/27/129219.shtml?tid=153&tid=214&tid=129] The USA PATRIOT Act amended the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to include search and seizure of records from Internet Service Providers. === Using the Act against child pornography === In 2004, Terry and Jane Adkins of Nicholasville Kentucky were accused of possessing and receiving child pornography on their home computer. [http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/9158087.htm] The fact that the Act was used was not widely known, and in fact unknown to the defense, until it was published in the Justice Department's "Report from the Field: The US Patriot Act at Work." However, because the act was used against a non-terrorist case is irrelevant. ==== Continued misunderstandings of the USA PATRIOT Act ==== In September 2003, the ''New York Times'' reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate drug traffickers. In the article is mention of a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist crimes.[http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0,1854,567051,00.html] The USA PATRIOT Act is not limited to "terrorist crimes." ===Wrongfully accused under the Act=== In May 2004, Professor Steve Kurtz of the University of Buffalo reported his wife's death of cardiac arrest. The associate art professor, who was working on a project designed to warn the public about the dangers of biotechnology, was using bacterial cultures and biological equipment in his work. Police arriving at the scene found the equipment suspicious and notified the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. The FBI cordoned off the block surrounding his house and impounded computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment for further analysis; the Buffalo Health Department temporarily condemned the house as a health risk while the cultures were analyzed. Kurtz was charged with violations under the Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act—a law which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. A grand jury rejected these charges, but he is still charged with mail and wire fraud. [http://www.caedefensefund.org/] [http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0611-05.htm] FBI agents used a USA PATRIOT Act "sneak and peek" search to secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. Agents seized three hard drives, 10 DNA samples preserved on cotton swabs and took 335 photos of personal items. Mayfield has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, contending that his rights were violated by his arrest and by the investigation against him. He also contends the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. [http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/03/30/d3.or.spainbombings.0330.html] === Distasteful prosecutions === The FBI ordered a handful of journalists that had written about computer hacker Adrian Lamo to turn over their notes and other information under the auspices of the PATRIOT Act.[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/29/fbi_bypasses_first_amendment/] Supporters of the PATRIOT Act reply that journalists—like all other citizens—are not privileged from being subjected to subpoenas when they possess information relevant to a criminal investigation. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a countersuit on April 6, 2004 claiming that a section of the USA PATRIOT Act was unconstitutional because it allowed the FBI to demand financial records and other documents from small businesses without a warrant or judicial approval. The specific action in question was the request of the FBI for the account information for users of an Internet service provider. Citing possible secrecy provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Department of Justice barred the ACLU from releasing the text of a countersuit for three weeks. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51423-2004Apr28.html] After judicial and congressional oversight, sections of the countersuit that did not violate secrecy rules of the USA PATRIOT Act were released. === Other cases === In April 2003, Sami Omar Al-Hussayen was arrested on charges of supporting terrorism by maintaining several web sites that supported violent activities. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13072-2004Apr14.html] This crime was created by a 1996 act signed by Bill Clinton, but was further expanded under the USA PATRIOT Act. Supporters of the Act respond that prosecutors did not try Mr. Al-Hussayen because of his association with the website, but because he actively participated in raising money for terrorist organizations, recruiting terrorists, and disseminating inflammatory rhetoric via his website. Prosecutors said the sites included religious edicts justifying suicide bombings and an invitation to contribute financially to the militant Palestinian organization Hamas. On the other hand, sometimes critics of the law mistake unrelated prosecution as being under the USA PATRIOT Act. Sherman Austin, anarchist and webmaster of Raise the Fist, plead guilty to violating [http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000842----000-.html 18 U.S.C. 842(p)], a 1997 statute authored by California United States Democratic Party Senator Dianne Feinstein which prohibits the distribution of bombmaking information knowing or intending that the information will be used in a violent federal crime. Despite claims to the contrary, the USA PATRIOT Act was not invoked in this case. ==Expiration and possible renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act== === Sunset provision === Under PAT §224, several of the surveillance portions (200 level sections) of the PATRIOT Act will expire on December 31, 2005. In a June 9, 2005 speech, President George W. Bush called upon Congress to permanently renew these sections. The sunset provision excludes investigations that began before the expiration date. Those investigations may continue with the original PATRIOT Act's full powers. ====USA PATRIOT Act testimony==== On June 10, 2005, during testimony at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, Chairman James Sensenbrenner (one of the Act's authors) abruptly gaveled the proceedings to a close after Congressional Democrats and their witnesses launched into a broad denunciations of President Bush's war on terror and the condition of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In frustration, Sensenbrenner declared "We ought to stick to the subject. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with Guantanamo Bay. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with enemy combatants. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with indefinite detentions", then gaveled the meeting to a close and walked out with the gavel.[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UNCIVIL_HEARING?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT] Witnesses continued testifying despite Sensenbrenner's departure, while C-SPAN cameras continued to roll after microphones and lights were promptly turned off by House Judiciary Majority Councel, Robert Tracci. ====Provisions that will expire==== * §201. Authority To Intercept Wire, Oral, And Electronic Communications Relating To Terrorism. * §202. Authority To Intercept Wire, Oral, And Electronic Communications Relating To Computer Fraud And Abuse Offenses. * §203(b), (d). Authority To Share Criminal Investigative Information. * §206. Roving Surveillance Authority Under The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Of 1978. * §207. Duration Of FISA Surveillance Of Non-United States Persons Who Are Agents Of A Foreign Power. * §209. Seizure Of voicemail Messages Pursuant To Warrants. * §212. Emergency Disclosure Of Electronic Communications To Protect Life And Limb. * §214. Pen Register And Trap And Trace Authority Under FISA. * §215. Access To Records And Other Items Under FISA. * §217. Interception Of Computer Trespasser Communications. * §218. Foreign Intelligence Information. (Lowers standard of evidence for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants.) * §220. Nationwide Service Of Search Warrants For Electronic Evidence. * §223. Civil Liability For Certain Unauthorized Disclosures. * §224. sunset provision. (self-cancelling) * §225. immunity (legal) For Compliance With FISA Wiretap. ====Permanent/non-expiring provisions==== *§203(a),(c). Authority To Share Criminal Investigative Information. *§205. Employment of Translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. *§208. Designation Of Judges. *§210. Scope Of Subpoenas For Records Of Electronic Communications. *§211. Clarification Of Scope (privacy provisions of Cable Act overridden for communication services offered by Internet service providers, but not for records relating to cable television viewing.) *§213. Authority For Delaying Notice Of The Execution Of A Warrant—"Sneak and Peek" *§216. Modification Of Authorities Relating To Use Of Pen Registers And Trap And Trace Devices. *§219. Single-Jurisdiction Search warrant For Terrorism. *§221. Trade sanctions. *§222. Assistance To L.E.A.. == Analysis of comparisons to historical laws == *Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 passed in 1996 :AEDPA is similar to the USA PATRIOT Act in that it was passed quickly following the terrorist attack on the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Apart from that, the AEDPA is concerned with application of the death penalty and limitations on appeals in the death penalty process. Neither of those issues are part of the USA PATRIOT Act. *Reichstag Fire Decree, Germany, enacted February 28, 1933 after the Reichstag fire :The Reichstag Fire Decree is often used as an example of similarities to the USA PATRIOT Act. The similarities are that the Reichstag Fire Decree was passed after an act of terrorism, the decree was passed quickly, and the decree limited civil liberties with the expressed purpose of protecting the people of Germany. :However, the Reichstag Fire Decree went far beyond the USA PATRIOT Act. The USA PATRIOT Act does not remove all civil liberties of all citizens. It does not seize states rights. It does not introduce the death penalty for crimes against the government. It does have a date of expiration (the Reichstag Fire Decree is in effect ''until further notice''). :Regardless of the differences, the Reichstag Fire Decree is an extremely popular example used by detractors of the USA PATRIOT Act because it led to the empowerment of Nazi Germany. *The Sedition Act of 1918 is sometimes compared to the USA PATRIOT Act, because of the latter's perceived chilling effect on free speech. However, the Sedition Act had the explicit and specific purpose of quelling anti-government speech while the nation was at war. The Sedition Act was repealed in 1921. ==See also== * US governmental response to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks * Homeland security * Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, also known as PATRIOT II. * ACLU v. Ashcroft - the court opinion mentions PATRIOT Act three times but provisions of the PATRIOT Act were not adjudicated. [http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_ws-taking_dictation.htm] * Summary of Sec. 411 of the USA PATRIOT Act * Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act * Red Squad * Security_and_Freedom_Ensured_Act == External links and references == ===Governmental=== *[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR: H.R. 3162, full text] *[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: H.R. 3162, Bill Summary and Status] *[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313 H.R. 3162 Vote Summary (Senate)] *[http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/index.html Department of Justice's "The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty"] ===Supportive views=== *[http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/wm612.cfm The Patriot Act and Related Provisions: The Heritage Foundation's Research] *[http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry082803.asp Patriot Hysteria] - The Zacarias Moussaoui Protection Act, article by Rich Lowry, National Review *[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7805 In Defense of the Patriot Act] by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) *[http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12801 Patriot Act 101] by Jon Thibault, FrontPageMag *[http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19661,filter./pub_detail.asp The Patriot Act under Fire] by law professor's John Yoo and Eric Posner, December 23, 2003 ===Critical views=== *[http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11294&c=207 ACLU: 4 State Governments and over 350 Local Governments Pass Resolutions Denouncing The USA Patriot Act] *[http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/ Should you be scared of the Patriot Act?] — analysis by Dahlia Lithwic, Slate.com *[http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php Electronic Frontier Foundation's analysis of the Act], October 27, 2003 *[http://bordc.org The Bill of Rights Defense Committee]: community-level initiatives opposing the Act *[http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/01/10/102501at.html Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism Bill], October 25, 2001 *[http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15770 Patriot Raid], by Jason Halperin, AlterNet, April 29, 2003 — alleged account of raid and detention under auspices of the Act *[http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s1552.html Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act 2003]: Proposed Senate bill to limit USA PATRIOT Act *[http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/09/17/1758231&mode=nocomment Thousands dead, millions deprived of civil liberties?], by Richard Stallman, September 17, 2001 *[http://reclaimdemocracy.org/civil_rights/govpower_enhancement_act.html Beware of the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act"] by activist group ReclaimDemocracy.org *[http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php Electronic Frontier Foundation's Detailed Analysis of the PATRIOT Act] *American Library Association's Resolution on the PATRIOT Act [http://www.ala.org/cfapps/archive.cfm?path=washoff/Patriotres.html] *Moveon.org: [http://www.bushin30seconds.org/150/view.html?ad_id=2236 Video contest entry criticizing the Patriot Act] ===Other=== *Video Debate: [http://www.cspan.org/Search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=dean+owens+terrorism Howard Dean and Governor Bill Owens (R-CO), debate the USA PATRIOT Act, August 9, 2004] (Real Player required) *[http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_10_14.shtml#1098119066 More on Wikipedia and its PATRIOT Act overview]; Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr ==Note== The USA PATRIOT Act is commonly referred to by its acronym, as the USA PATRIOT Act, or as the PATRIOT Act or even the Patriot Act; although most Americans know that it is an acronym (even if they do not know the expanded version), that fact is not as well known outside the United States. United States law Terrorism laws Law enforcement in the United States 2001 in law

USA PATRIOT Act

Please add new topics in a new section at the end of this page. It makes life easier for people who keep following this page. ==MOVE THIS BACK!== Except this: WHO MOVED THIS. It was in a place where it was named correctly, and now it is not. Please, someone move it back? --User:Baylink 23:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC) : Yeah, someone with admin-type powers, move this back to USA PATRIOT Act, where it belongs. There's no such animal as "U.S. PATRIOT Act", as the article clearly indicates. User:Graft 23:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :: I see that someone appears to so have done. AGAIN, PEOPLE: PLEASE DO *NOT* MOVE THIS PAGE. EVER. --User:Baylink 00:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ::: Shouldn't this be USAPATRIOT Act instead, because USAPATRIOT is the acronym for the act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) USAPATRIOT User:Alfrin 17:59, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) ::::It is USA[space]PATRIOT Act because it is the USA Act and the additional PATRIOT Act as the USA PATRIOT Act. Just because 99.99% of the human race has no clue what the USA Act is does not mean that it doesn't exist. User:Kainaw 18:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Older stuff (to 14th August 2003)== Could this be rewritten in nonbulleted form? Just because bulleting is easy in wiki doesn't mean it's the proper way to start a paragraph... I'd do it but, well--it's a Sunday (i.e., a day off). :-) --:LMS :and does it JUST HAVE to be in capital letters? User:Wetman 03:20, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC) That last link to the statement by Thomas Udall links to a search page that they don't keep, so it doesn't work. I've been looking on his site for a statement on the bill, but all I've found so far is the text of several different revisions of it, no commentary. --User:JohnOwens 07:55 Oct 13, 2002 (UTC) Note: I think I've found what it's supposed to link to, in the Congressional Record, article 2 of 5, 107th Congress, page H6772 from the House. Don't know how to link to it yet, but at least we can find it. Oh, site I'm using for Congressional Record: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r107query.html . --User:JohnOwens 08:36 Oct 13, 2002 (UTC) The link for "wiretap" leads to an edit page; instead IMO it should lead to http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping or be changed to "wire tap", which would then lead to http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wire_tap&redirect=no
no flames please I am a newbie noodle :Thanks, I made wiretap redirect to telephone tapping. You know, you can make links simply by putting brackets around a term like so. Anyway, welcome to wikipedia! User:Koyaanis Qatsi 16:43 26 Jun 2003 (UTC) ---- I question why it was inserted that the PATRIOT Act violates the Fourth Amendment "according to the ACLU". Can anyone tell me an argument as to why the PATRIOT Act does not facially violate the Fourth Amendment? --User:Daniel C. Boyer 22:29 22 Jul 2003 (UTC) :We'd have to talk to John Ashcroft for that. Also, Howard Dean said (if we need attributions for who thinks what about it) that in his opinion it clearly violates the 4th and 1st amendments. User:Koyaanis Qatsi 23:01 22 Jul 2003 (UTC) Ohh dear, did they really create the name of this so that it would spell out USA PATRIOT. I'm reminded of Samuel Johnson and Kirk Douglas. User:Mintguy The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Dear Daniel Boyer, The PATRIOT Act still requires warrants. It just allows the FBI to search without immediately notifying the owner of the place...but they still have to be notified. :I'm perfectly well aware of that. It is the issuing of warrants on a lesser standard than probable cause, and the lack of necessity for the particularity of the warrants, that is unconstitutional. Interestingly, the issuing of general warrants, very similar to those now permitted by the PATRIOT Act, was one of the complaints for which the revolutionaries launched the American Revolution. --User:Daniel C. Boyer 18:10 25 Jul 2003 (UTC) ::If there are people here who are aware that the USA PATRIOT Act requires warrants for searches, why am I still seeing the phrase "warrantless searches" in the article? I just removed yet another mention of warrantless searches. I understand well that many people hate the USA PATRIOT Act, but that is no excuse for allowing false information in the article. User:Kainaw 13:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC) "The Innocent hide nothing," Thomas Jefferson. The only people who complain are the ones who are worried about it. --User:Numerousfalx 11:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) :That's basically an argument for the abolishment of privacy. User:JIP — JIP | User talk:JIP 04:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :It's not much of an argument, since its only evidence is from a supposed quote from Thomas Jefferson that he never actually said or wrote. He did, however, say this, and I hope it to be true in our modern age as well as it was when it was written: "A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake." --User:Kuronekoyama 02:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) :: Thomas Jefferson is also known for quoting the famous "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both". User:Rama 08:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::I found that quote on a list of mis-quotes a couple years ago. It claimed that Benjamin Franklin said it. Jefferson later repeated it as a snide remark to make Franklin look bad, but it then stuck to Jefferson as a quote. I don't know (or really care) who said it. I don't much like quotes because they imply that dead people have more authority than live people. I've always wanted a quote from a caveman to trump history on all other quotes. User:Kainaw 13:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::: Not necessarly dead people, one can quote live people too. The purpose if this one is mainly to use an especially efficient formulation of the point (I didn't mention Franklin for the reason above). User:Rama 14:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) ---- Greetings Pizza Puzzle, I am puzzled by your use of the term "cause and effect". In your edit notes, you said, "if this is a response, then there must be a cause and effect relationship". But surely that is not true, is it? For example, what I am writing right now is a response to your latest edit of this page. Does that mean that your edit ''caused'' me to write this? Of course not. I had many options. I could have ignored the edit and just let it be. I could have gotten into an editing war with you, taking out the "causality" link once again. :-) I could have left a message on your home page or sent you an email. Instead of any of those, I thought about it a bit, and for whatever reasons of my own, decided to post my thoughts here. Similarly, the US Government had many ways they could have possibly responded to 9/11. Their response happened to include the USA PATRIOT act, but they could have chosen differently. It's certainly reasonable to say that 9/11 "triggered" or "precipitated" the USA PATRIOT act. But "caused"? Sorry, it just ain't so. I think it's mistaken and misleading to link "direct response" to Causality, but I don't care enough about it to edit the page yet again. I'll just leave this as a suggestion to other editors. --User:Geary (how do you do that date thing??) : I actually disagree with you about the metaphysics, but by all means de-link causality|direct response. It's a bit excessive. : Oh, and the dates appear when you sign your name with ~~~~ which I am about to do: User:Evercat 02:45 26 Jul 2003 (UTC) :: I suppose a B. F. Skinner Radical_behaviorism would say that user:Pizza Puzzle edit did indeed Causality me to post here. So maybe Pizza's right--who am I to say what causes what? :-) --User:Geary 06:45 26 Jul 2003 (UTC) :::yep - you understand perfectly. User:Pizza Puzzle ---- Hey there Pizza Puzzle, let's see if we can get this question resolved to everyone's satisfaction. If you believe that "was a response to" implies "was caused by", you must be aware that many people do not hold the same opinion. Linking "direct response" to Causality seems to promote your particular point of view on the matter. If you do want to discuss your ideas about cause and effect here, wouldn't you need to provide room for other viewpoints as well? It could be something like this: :The USA PATRIOT Act was a direct response to the 9/11 terrorist attack. Some say that the attack literally ''caused'' the Act to be passed. Others counter that, while the attack provoked Congress to take action, that does not establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship. (See Causality, Free will, and Determinism.) That could be an interesting discussion, but we could throw the same debate into just about any article, couldn't we? Free will or determinism: which is it? Whichever, it just isn't relevant to the topic of ''this'' article. So let's stick to what we can all agree on: :The law was a direct response to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack. ::But I don't know that I'm 100% on this. Some (I am not doing so here, but) have argued that its length and complexity suggests at least some preparation before this. Should this be mentioned? --User:Daniel C. Boyer 23:53, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC) You'll notice two other changes in that sentence. I took out the wishy-washy "is generally viewed as", because the very first sentence of the Act begins: "To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States..." That was written in October 2001, so there is no doubt about what "terrorist acts in the United States" it is referring to. Finally, I changed "September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack" to "9/11 terrorist attack" for brevity and clarity. Everyone calls it "9/11", so spelling it out doesn't make it any more clear--just more wordy. Pizza, may I have your permission to make this edit? Or would you like to do the honors? Then we can clear this discussion out of the talk page. :-) Thanks, User:Geary 20:15, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- It looks like Pizza Puzzle has flown the coop, and no one else has objected, so I'll go ahead and make the little change described above. I'll clean up the discussion out of this talk page after a few days. User:Geary 05:03, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- OK, friends, having made a tiny edit to the page, I started to feel Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages and made a rather major edit. Regardless of your opinion on this controversial law, you have to admit that the article was a bit disorganized and needed some tidying up. I suppose that is inevitable with a topic like this. So I've tried to reorganize it a bit to make it more clear. I think the article could still use a lot more cleaning up, but I tried to make a dent in it at least. Many of my edits consisted of moving related comments together and combining some duplicate comments, tightening up the writing, and correcting some grammar. I did make a few changes of more substance: * I took out some scare quotes, especially around "national security". I think scare quotes almost always cheapen an argument. * I moved the paragraph about Jose Padilla and Yaser Kemal closer to the end of the article. Does this paragraph belong in the article at all? It certainly didn't belong near the beginning. Perhaps the topic deserves its own article instead of being part of this one--it really seems out of place. :Agreed. --User:Daniel C. Boyer 23:53, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC) * I took out the sentence "This is why the Attorney General can prosecute people, for example, who possess medical marijuana even in states (such as California) where it is legal." This seemed like a distraction rather than a helpful clarification of the supremacy clause. I hope I haven't offended anyone with these changes! :-) Best wishes to all, User:Geary 06:49, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC) Marijuana is no longer legal in any state as a medicine! Potheads beware!!--User:Numerousfalx 11:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) I just remembered one other change I made. I removed this sentence: "Supporters of the law argue that the classic goal of law enforcement has always been to punish criminals, not prevent crime." because it seems quite untrue--any police officer would tell you that preventing crime is one of their goals. User:Geary 16:56, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- The wording of the page, as it is now, isn't very clear about the status of the Kucinich legislation. It says the bill was "introduced", but it doesn't say whether it was voted on, passed, amended, rejected, adopted, whatever. Someone could infer from the current text that the bill was adopted, but it doesn't contain a link to the relevant HR page. -- User:Finlay McWalter 11:23, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC) == The USA PATRIOT Act and citizens who are not security threats. == the second paragraph needs to reflect this newstory: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1079833,00.html] The USA PATRIOT Act is not limited to non-citizens, nor is it limited to security threats. Please, one of you who works on this article, incorporate the information of this newstory into this article...and adjust the 2nd paragraph of the article accordingly. User:Kingturtle 07:59, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC) :I don't see how it doesn't already incorporate the information. It says that they don't need to obtain a warrant before seizing or searching. (Jeez, is that unconstitutional or what?) What else do we need to say? User:Graft 16:00, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC) ---- I'm looking at an ACLU newsletter here that says on July 30 they sued in US District court to have section 215 declared unconstitutional. Perhaps this should be checked out and mentioned in the article. ---- User:68.121.101.41 added a line containing ''such as the seizing of journalist records from a Wired News reporter about Adrian Lamo''. I know this is in the "opponents say" line, but is this particular example strictly accurate? I know the feds said they wanted Declan McCulloch's records, but I don't believe they've actually siezed them (yet). So shouldn't this line read ''threatening to seize...''? -- User:Finlay McWalter 01:25, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC) ---- If anyone has a spare moment today, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1079833,00.html this story] absolutely needs to be incorporated. You can find more hubub on google news search, [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&edition=us&q=patriot+act+galardi&btnG=Search+News here]. User:Graft 16:22, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC) ---- That latest link goes to a page that opposes the PATRIOT Act, calling it the "PAT RIOT Act", so technically that link name is fine, but... is it really NPOV? I mean, you're getting both sides of the argument, but... that's like referring to abortion as "infanticide"... User:Ugen64 02:32, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC) :The very name is not NPOV, as it implies a "patriot" supports the Act. User:DarkelfUser talk:Darkelf 12:26, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- Removed from article at section === Public Opinion ===: :To what extent these statistics are the result of the act's ''name'', which many feel is deceptive, is not known. Its editorial comment on the survey is irrelevant, obvious, and an effort to think for the reader; it does not belong in the same graph. The section, but not the paragraph, could use a sentence that starts along the lines of : Some commentators regard the name of the act as inaccurate in implying its purpose or effect is ____. "Many" is irrelevant, bcz 100 al-Qaida sympathizers qualify as "many". If you want to say more than "some", come up with a verifiable number. --User:Jerzy 22:27, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC) ---- I think that naming the bill PATRIOT is a bullshit way of making the bill sound patriotic while it in fact is not. It violates the Bill of Rights, and is based of a foolish, narrow-minded conservative, fundamentalist agenda. - thealexfish : While I'm inclined to agree with you for the most part, how does this relate to the discussion of the article? The bill is thusly identified; we cannot change the article name simply because the name itself is biased. At best, the irony of the name could be mentioned in the article, but such mention could be construed as POV. -- User:Erik Carson 21:04, 2004 May 12 (UTC) Medical Marijuana is not legal in any state, to include California or any other place on the Left Coast. The Constitution is still the law of the land as is the Controlled Substances Act, no matter what certain individuals would like to think, all referendums in Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico have failed by wide margins, and it is my understanding that when given the choice by the USP and DEA to be able to take THC for glucoma it was refused. Additionally, the feds have recently seized the medical records of doctors in California who prescribed MJ to their "patients" and therby prosecuted said doctors and patients and suppliers for that matter. It also has not been proven beyond the point of wishful thinking that MJ/THC was benificial in any way to glucoma patients. Thank you and good day.User:Tomtom 1325EST, 15 july 2004 There are so many POV's in this article that it needs a major re-edit to properly compartmentalize the appropriate subtopics. The jist of the article , to me, was one of blatant negativism. How can it be call NPOV when it isn't? I understand that all the articles possess a certain bias but try to point out other views, "There. are two sides and the edge to every coin." FDR Howbout talking about the intent of the act and why it became necessary? It wasn't just a tool for the implentation of fascist policy by a scared people and their elected representatives. How bout quoting more reliable sources than the NY Times and the ACLU? Sources who are not mainstream except in their own minds. How bout talking about the positive aspects of the Patriot Act? Is this article perpetrated by the ACLU? Like everything else this act is a tool to do a job andallows for other angles to be placed on investigations such as the RICO act and others. User:Tomtom 1345 est 15 July 2004 :This is one of the most controversial laws passed in recent years, and the article should reflect that controversy. I agree it is poorly organized; if you feel it underemphasizes the positive aspects of the act, please include them: quoting John Ashcroft or other justice department sources might be appropriate. User:Graft 18:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) ----- While I don't necessarily think the table is a bad idea, it does need at least some sort of context - is this changes in domestic and foreign surveillance procedures as a result of USAPATRIOT? Is it comparison of the two? I don't know - an introduction would be nice. User:Graft 16:26, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) :I agree. I'm utterly bewildered by the beginning of the article. What in the world is FISA? It really needs to start off with some more explanation.--User:Bcrowell 04:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) ==Weasel== The following three paragraphs, in my opinion, do not Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms: :''There has been strong criticism of the act on the grounds that parts of it violate the Constitution and endanger civil liberties. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) alleges that its search and detention provisions violate the Fourth Amendment. Some say that the act's secret warrants resemble the general warrants which were one reason the colonists fought the American Revolutionary War.'' :''Critics also say the law was passed without serious review in a climate of fear, and that it represents a reactionary agenda that has little to do with the 9/11 attacks. They note that there were unsuccessful attempts to pass similar laws, such as the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000, long before 9/11.'' :''Supporters of the law argue that terrorist acts may result in the loss of thousands or millions of lives, so waiting until after the fact to hunt the perpetrators down would be a deadly mistake. They admit that the law may result in some rights abuses, but argue that the most basic civil right is the right to live without perpetual fear. They further argue that, unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the law is constitutional. However, since the Supreme Court does not seek out laws to countermand, the constitutionality of the Patriot Act must remain a question until someone brings the dispute before the court.'' The first of these paragraphs begins well, in that it follows up the claim of "strong criticism" with the fact that the ACLU challenges its constitutionality. And this group of paragraphs ends well, too, mentioning that it must be formally challenged for it to be ruled unconsitutional. Everything between those two sentences seems really weak. *''"...the law was passed without serious review."'' This would be a great place to reference quotes from congresspeople who did not read the bill, or the stat that it was 342 pages long and was printed out a few hours before it was voted on. (See [http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=21 Michael Moore's citations] for this.) *''"They note that there were unsuccessful attempts to pass similar laws, such as the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act..."'' In what ways is the MAPA act similar? Lumping that together is unlear. *''"Supporters of the law argue..."'' Is that what all supporters argue? If it was changed to "Some supporters...", then we see why sentences like these are not very informational. Does John Ashcroft admit that ''"the law may result in some rights abuses"''? This would be huge, if he actually did. I'd be glad to take care of this problem, but wanted to have a discussion here first, because I sense that editing out these paragraphs without discussion here would probably lead to a revert. What do you all think? User:Jimaltieri 15:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) :I agree with what you've said. Is there any way to fix the sections in question instead of removing them? :User:Acegikmo1 03:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) IMO the Act generally falls into two sorts of measure 1. allowing communications using modern technology to be monitored in the same way phone and mail have been previously 2. allowing non-citizens to be detained on suspicion rather than after due process Now even as a card-carrying liberal I can actually see the point of these IN AN EMERGENCY (similar measures were applied in WW2). Particularly - the constitution has never protected the rights of non-citizens, who always have the choice of going "back home", which is not open to citizens. Is there anything in the Act which doesn't fall into these two categories? User:Exile 15:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Slashdot quote== The last bullet point under "Alleged Abuses Under The Patriot Act" directly quotes a Slashdot story without making it clear that a direct quote is being used. The last sentence in that bullet point, "Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?", seems really out-of-place in a Wikipedia article. Someone ought to rewrite this bullet point to be more NPOV and to avoid quoting Slashdot word-for-word. - User:Brian Kendig 13:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Story Structure== I'd prefer to see an article such as this one begin with a factual account of how it began and what it intends to be, rather than initially presenting the obvious POV it holds. I doubt many editing the Wiki in question believe the USA PATRIOT act to be genuine in its intent, but its intent should nonetheless be presented before obvious criticisms thereof. Perhaps the content and timeline of the act should be contained in this article and a USA Patriot Act Criticisms article begun instead? Although I might eventually just do it myself, I'm not directly knowledgable enough to do so. That is in fact why I point this out -- I came to the page specifically to check when it was inacted (more or less a month from Sep 11 2001?) and by whom. The Patriot Act increases the government�s surveillance powers in four areas: 1. Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by third parties. (Section 215) 2. Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213) 3. Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information. (Section 218) 4. "Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214) The Federal Bureau of Investigation just needs to state that the search protects against terrorism. The court can in no way, shape, or form, interfere. User:Moreau021 I would like to concentrate on section 213. There it states that the government can search private property without notice to the owner. I believe this means that at no point in time does the government have to inform the owner of their search. This can also be referred to as "sneak and peak". User:128.119.174.201 ==Odd sentence== I just reverted someone who completed a sentence with "a wild orgy on Thursdays." However, that sentence does abruptly end - can someone loook at it and fix it? User:Ugen64 02:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) Response: Hey, I'm the one who did that and I want to apologize as I did not realize there was a discussion page...I'm quite new to wiki. I just wanted to draw attention to the problem. Thanks for fixing it. ==Gallup poll and "Village Voice" link== According to a September 9, 2003 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, 75% of Americans are not worried about the USA PATRIOT Act violating their civil rights.[1] (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030909.asp#rm) Just 22% say the legislation goes "too far," while about the same number, 21%, say "not far enough." A plurality, 48%, says the Act is "about right." Any other source for this? The links do not work. Also, I am confused by a link to the Village Voice in order to quote a poll. First off, the Village Voice page is out and out unashamed bias against the act and the poll mentioned is merely linked from THEIR site to ANOTHER site, which, by the way, also is broken (not a broken link not here, but on the Village Voice). �The USA PATRIOT Act amended over 15 federal statutes, including the laws governing criminal procedure, computer fraud and abuse, foreign intelligence, wiretapping, immigration, and the laws governing the privacy of student records. These amendments expanded the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and law enforcement to gain access to business records, medical records, educational records and library records, including stored electronic data and communications.� (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/usapatriotact.htm) User:Moreau021 :That is not correct. The USA PATRIOT ACT added 'International Terrorism' as a reason to gain access to business, medical, educational, and library records. Access to electronic records was already available as of the USA ACT. :The section on provisions really needs a lot of work. It doesn't begin to imply what the purpose of the USA ACT, or the following USA PATRIOT ACT, are about. I would expect the Wikipedia community to come up with a timeline of the acts that compromise the USA PATRIOT ACT and what each contained. User:Kainaw 20:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::In response: I left that quote from ala.org for a basic synopsis of the USA Patriot Act. I just wanted to show what exactly it did. I realize that the threat of terrorism is mainly international, but there have been instances of domestic terrorism. After reading the last post am I wrong to say that the USA Patriot ACT is solely based on "international terrorism"? ::User:128.119.174.201 :::(Excuse me for indenting your comment - I think it looks better) :::In my opinion, claiming that the USA PATRIOT Act is a Terrorism act/law is incorrect. It ignores the history. I will over-simplify it for brevity, but I hope it makes my point. In the mid-70s, the cold war was in full swing. We lacked the Constitutional ability to detain and investigate suspected spies without going to a judge and proving that person had already committed a crime. So, the FISA was passed to allow the feds to do wire tapping, steal documents, and all that spy stuff without going to a judge first. Of course, this was limited to things like espionage and domestic terrorism backed by a foreign country. It is important to note that the FISA limited the definition of a terrorist to someone backed by a foreign country because we were worried about Russian and Chinese spies, not Al Queda. :::Through the 80s and 90s, the law was ammended, but nothing very important was added. The only real weird thing is an ammendment to protect the feds from lawsuits if they make a mistake and spy on someone that they should have known wasn't a spy. :::After Sep 11, the question came up: Why weren't the feds watching those terrorists? Simple. They were not officially backed by a foreign government. That damn FISA didn't allow us to track suspected terrorists who were backed by terrorist organizations. So, the USA Act came about. Nobody remembers the USA Act. When you mention it, they think you are talking about the USA PATRIOT Act. It added international terrorists who are NOT backed by any government to the list of people we can track without asking a judge for permission. :::At the same time that the USA Act was coming about, another act was prepared to allow us to secure funds from terrorist organizations - even if those funds are overseas. Is that legal? Some people claim that when the funds pass through our domestic banking system, we can trap it. Others say that if it is just passing through from one international back to another, we are not allowed to touch it. But, with this act, it is Constitutional. :::So, you have three acts running around looking for support. That's too much for the American public, so the USA PATRIOT Act is born. It is the three previous acts with a few benefits for the Sept 11 victims added on. :::That's a very brief history of the USA PATRIOT Act. Don't crucify me for skipping over too much. I just want to make my point why I don't think the USA PATRIOT Act is not a "Terrorism Act". It still includes all the spy stuff from the FISA. User:Kainaw 19:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC) == Is this plagiarism? == The table under the Domestic vs foreign law enforcement and surveillance section seems to be pretty directly lifted the Electronic Frontier Foundation's analysis of the PATRIOT Act (http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php), but I don't see that any credit is given to them. Yes, it's linked to in the "Other" section, but no credit is given to them for writing this. I could be wrong, and if I am, I apologize. But I'm doing a research paper on the PATRIOT Act and happened to come across this. Just thought I'd bring it up. == Changes in the Patriot Act == The current version of this entry has a section on changes brought about by the Patriot Act that purports to be from an Associated Press story. However, that story was about changes to the law post-9/11 generally, not the Patriot Act specifically; only one of those even attempts to relate to the Patriot Act; and the one that attempts to relate to the Patriot Act (the one about library subpoenas) is simply incorrect. To be blunt, none of the information in the section on Patriot Act changes is actually true; the Patriot Act does none of the things that the section says it does. Given that, I recommend it be deleted. (posted by Orin Kerr, Associate Professor, George Washington University Law School) :I have restored your edit to USA PATRIOT Act. Please include edit summaries when you are deleting text in articles because otherwise it looks like WP:-(. Thanks. User:Rfl 02:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) I think there must be a section in this article stating the controversy of the deciphering of the provisions and their effect on existing law - where two people can see two different things. --User:The lorax 07:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) Lorax, I don't quite know what you mean by this. But your addition stating that a court invalidated Section 505 seems inaccurate to me. The judge struck down a 1986 law amended by Section 505, but for reasons unrelated to Section 505. Your change makes it seem as if the unconstitutionality was related to the Patriot Act, which it wasn't. -- Orin Kerr :The 1986 law gave the FBI power to use National Security Letters only for securing the records of suspected terrorists or spies. Section 505 of the Patriot Act greatly expanded its power to obtain confidential data about ''anyone'' - just as long as the FBI believed the information could be relevant to a terrorism or espionage investigation. [http://www.wired.com/news/print/0%2C1294%2C65136%2C00.html] "Before PATRIOT, the FBI could use National Security Letters only for securing the records of suspected terrorists or spies," says EFF attorney and Equal Justice Works Fellow Kevin Bankston said recently. "Now the FBI can use them to get private records about anybody it thinks could be relevant to a terrorism or espionage investigation, without ever having to show probable cause to a judge."[http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_05.php]--User:The lorax 21:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) Lorax, but so what? That doesn't change the fact that the unconstitutionality of Section 2709 has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, right? -- Orin kerr == Move == I moved the article to USAPATRIOT Act from USA PATRIOT Act to make it less POV. IMO the creator of this article was trying to express a POV—that the act is patriotic and supported by patriots of the USA—by using a space in that position (or else made a typo by accidentally inserting a space). I didn't move it to the full name because I thought it was a bit long. --User:Joeblakesley user_talk:joeblakesley Special:Contributions/joeblakesley 17:52, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC) :The Act's official name is "USA PATRIOT Act". While I personally think the Act is horrible legislation, there is no POV in using what is both it's official name and how it is most commonly referred to. "USAPATRIOT Act" is simply an abberent spelling. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 18:03, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC) ::There is no clear division at that point in the phrase, "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". The fact that you think it is a spelling at all, indicates you are being POV. I'm not reverting it back as you'll simply revert it again (and it is only one character). ::--User:Joeblakesley user_talk:joeblakesley Special:Contributions/joeblakesley :::You left off a crucial parenthetical phrase. Look at the text of the bill [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:1:./temp/~c107fhHblg:e674:] where it says "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'" Look at that--right there in the official name--"USA PATRIOT ACT"--how about that? Well, discounting the official sources, let's check Google. 1,020,000 for "USA PATRIOT ACT" vs 3,470 for "USAPATRIOT ACT". Looks like a no-brainer to me. And I'd appreciate it if you apologized for accusing me of pushing a POV with the spelling. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 18:39, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC) ::::I wasn't aware of that. However, just because an act passed by the US congress says something, it doesn't meant it is NPOV. Also, notice it does not say that the short title is `USA PATRIOT ACT'; it says the short title is `Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001' which of course contains `USA PATRIOT Act'. I will, nonetheless, leave the name as is, because it is arguably currently NPOV and it is a minor detail. (Aside: IMO Google says nothing about whether something is POV.) ::::--User:Joeblakesley user_talk:joeblakesley Special:Contributions/joeblakesley 19:05, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC) :::::What Google can give is an indication of the name by which something is most commonly known. In a case where one name is overwhelmingly more common than another, it is rather perverse, if not POV in itself, to argue that the less well-known name should be used simply because of theoretical concerns about possible bias in the more well-known name. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 19:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC) ::::::Maybe I am missing something, but how the heck is leaving a space out POV? USA PATRIOT Act works way better anyhow, no doubt about it, never seen it spelled USAPATRIOT Act. Just wondering how in the world you got the idea that it somehow showed POV. Don't go overboard with the whole POV thing, you changing it because you thought it showed a POV was done from your POV anyhow. User:Abomination 18:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Naming convention: it is NOT the Patriot Act == What bugs me most about this name is that otherwise reasonable and educated people regularly take the official Short Title acronym (USA PATRIOT Act) and simply leave off the USA portion, as if the title somehow refers to American (USA) "patriots"! You might correctly call it "the Act" in this context, but any references to "The Patriot Act" or even "The PATRIOT Act" are simply wrong and evidence a complete disregard for the meaning of the short title as an acronym. It is also a not-very-subtle dig at dissenters who would be "anti-PATRIOT-ic." In any case, such obvious misspelling of the short title does not belong in an article here any more than would usage of other popular slang. User:Lupinelawyer 20:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Yes, please, let us not play to the people who named this anti-constutional abomination, by referring to it in a fashion that advances their desire that people opposing it seem unpatriotic. --User:Baylink 22:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) : I disagree. Everyone over here (in the UK) does just call it the Patriot Act. Every reference to the US press that I've read refers to it as the Patriot Act, not the USA PATRIOT Act. I'm sure those of us (including myself) who think the Act is A Bad Thing™ can ignore claims that our opinions make us unpatriotic or anti-American. : The naming conventions of Wikipedia are to use the most common English language name. Google gives just over 1.5 million results for [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Patriot+Act%22+-%22USA+PATRIOT+Act%22 Patriot Act] and just under 950,000 for [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22USA+PATRIOT+Act%22 USA PATRIOT Act]. I say we should got for the more "natural language" version. Surely the only way to avoid the supporters' manipulation of language would be to use the full name, and I doubt most people even know all of it — I'm pretty involved with politics and civil liberties, but I couldn't tell you the whole name without looking it up. User:OwenBlacker 23:06, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC) : We're a reference work. We should use the full name on the primary article, with redirects from common-usage versions. We should, indeed, use the fully expanded name in the lede -- which I see we do. Personally, I believe that noting the controversy over the misleading choice of name -- a not uncommon tactic these days -- is on point for the article, though I see that that issue is *not* in the main article. --User:Baylink 00:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) :: Agreed. It needs to be listed as its offical name (short name acceptable), which is the USA PATRIOT Act. While I think it took some Congressmen far too long to come up with such a convienent acronym, that is the name. If someone complains about "Common Usage" too much, then add a section about "Other names for it include..." User:^demon 22:20, March 10, 2005 (UTC) ::Yes a simple redirect could deal with Owen's point. Otherwise it should be referred to as what it is, if anything then for NPOV reasons. -User:Christiaan 22:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::The USA PATRIOT Act�s intentions are obscured by its euphemistic, acronym-laden title. Officially known as the �Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001� the �U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act of 2001� is almost never referred to by its full title. Television, newspapers, and government publications simply refer to �the Patriot Act,� eliminating not only the periods to indicate the complex nature of its acronym title, but even the capital letters in PATRIOT. The lowercase version of the Act�s title obscures the fact that the name is an acronym. While the fact that �P.A.T.R.I.O.T.� stands for something is common knowledge among the American public, the fact that even the true name of the bill is cloaked in euphemism indicates the ever-present desire of the Bush Administration to conceal the powers held within. Lastly, it is especially intriguing that in the creation of the acronym, the authors of the USA PATRIOT Act consciously decided to alter what the letters �U.S.A.� stood for � not �United States of America,� but instead the first three words of a lengthy and bureaucratic title. The clear implication to be drawn from the deliberately named USA PATRIOT Act is that support of the Act is, in and of itself, patriotic. Dissent or opposition to the Act is un-patriotic and un-American. Thus, although neither the PATRIOT Act nor any of its legislative brethren in the War on Terror explicitly outlaws peaceful political dissent or even wartime sedition, the title fortifies the understanding that differences of opinion are neither welcomed nor tolerated. In fact, it implies that dissent is illegal. User:skimaxpower == Need for a more objective re-write == The entire article suffers from an obvious bias against the USA Patriot Act. After a cursory factual introduction that does not summarize what its provisions are or why US lawmakers judged that it might be needed, the article shifts to a litany of complaints against the Act. Entire sections appear to be given over to the Act's critics and to interest groups hostile to it. The tone is critical rather than factual. The article is lacking objectivity or balance. Its one-sidedness is more appropriate for a partisan commentary than for a Wikipedia article. A fairer, more balanced rewrite would include a brief discussion of the views of US counter-terrorism experts and US lawmakers on the need for the Act. It would discuss how law enforcement officials judged it necessary to update US anti-terrorism laws to take into account the use of modern IT communications by AQ and other terrorist groups that seek to exploit the legal protections of democratic societies to conceal their activities. It would also note that some of the Act's provisions are already used against organized crime. It is fine to cite widespread criticisms of the Act, but the partisan nature of many (not all) such criticism should be noted. Wikipedia is not the place for political mobilization on controversial issues. :I have set up a mediawiki site to house controversial information that is not welcome here. If you are fustrated by getting edited here, you can find the link on my user page here. As far as bias against Patriot Act, I figure that should probably be a given even here on wikipedia. Anyone who believes the president and his followers mantra that the Patriot Act gives us more freedom is living in la-la land. If you read the legislation it's pretty obvious what side is giving baseless propaganda and what side is giving facts. User:Conwiki April 19, 2005 (Patriots Day) ::Actually, I got the impression that the article was biased toward the act. It spends a lot of time giving the arguments against the act and immediately rebuking them, rather than explaining what the effects of the USA PATRIOT Act are. --User:Jonathan Drain 00:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC) :::I did many rewrites over the past couple weeks. I was not ready to immediately delete what other people have written, so I incorporated it into a more NPOV tone. I had plenty of help. Previous writers added links to articles that they were using. However, it was more a rule than an exception that the article they referenced did not say what they claimed it said. So, I was able to quickly alter the Wikipedia article with clearer and (hopefullly) factual information. :::What I really want to write is a ''History of the USA PATRIOT Act'' section, starting from the abuse claims against the FBI and CIA in the early 70's, through the FISA/FISC, on to AEDP (I think that's the correct acronym) after the Oklahoma bombing, then to 9/11, the USA Act and finally the USA PATRIOT Act. I think that if people understand that 90% of the USA PATRIOT Act was written and passed as law in 1978, they will have a completely different view of it. User:Kainaw 12:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC) ::::Actually, to me, it looks more like the slant of it is pro-USA PATRIOT Act, what with the excessively strong refutations of people's gripes with the act. Given, this is a difficult subject to stay NPOV on, but I think we could have a little more objectivity. Then again, maybe it's just my pinko commie anarcho-libertarian leanings talking, right? :P User:Suntiger 17:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::::I felt that the rebuttals were too strong myself. Then, I realized that the gripes with the USA PATRIOT Act that are mentioned are simply weak. The are so week that a simple statement of facts seems too strong and abusive. It seems to boil down to: "The evil Patriot Act is being used at people who aren't terrorists at all!" "Well, the Patriot Act is not an 'anti-terrorism' bill. It is a set of rules for Federal investigations of many different crimes, terrorism being one of those crimes." :::::If you come into this article expecting to see a bunch of stuff about an anti-terrorism bill, you will feel that the article is all wrong because it has too much non-terrorism content. If you come into this article expecting to see a bunch of stuff about the bill itself (especially the history of how it came to be, starting in the late 60's), you will feel that the article is all wrong because it has too much "the Patriot Act is evil" content. I think the problem is that this article started as a list of reasons why the Bush Administration should not be re-elected due to abuses of the Patriot Act. It is taking a very long time for it to morph into an article about the USA PATRIOT Act itself. User:Kainaw 16:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) == What is the Patriot Act? == The part : "Continued misunderstandings of the USA PATRIOT Act : In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate drug traffickers. In the article is mention of a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist crimes.[14] The USA PATRIOT Act is not limited to "terrorist crimes." seems very odd to me on this respect: *the title is really realy weird (shouldn't it read "Application of the USA PATRIOT Act in drug cases" ?). *the last sentence is not well articulated with the rest of the paragraph *the fact that the Congress is studying "referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist crimes" is caually dismissed as if they had absolutely no idea about what is in the text *even though there might be application of the USA PATRIOT Act not exactly related to terrorism, is seems intuitive that drug traffic ahould be relevant of anti-drug laws. For now, I fail to find a clear explanation of what the USA PATRIOT Act is competant about and what is outside its scope; it might well be that it can be invoked in drug cases, but in this case, it should be explained how and why. For now, the intended defence of the USA PATRIOT Act acts like a very sneakily anti-USA PATRIOT Act propaganda, leavinf the reader with the impression that the law is vague and had a nearly unlimited scope depending on the mere fantasy of the way that the authorities will want to read it. In the interest not only of clarification, but also of the very people favourable to the USA PATRIOT Act, these parts should be wroked a little bit. User:Rama 06:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I hope I titled this subsection appropriately. It appears that you are stating that the article needs a clearer definition to the question: What is the USA PATRIOT ACT? :I have proposed and put some work into a section on "the history of the USA PATRIOT Act" in order to answer that question. It is a rather interesting questions. An extremely brief version: *Watergate causes a stir in Congress *FISA is passed to limit CIA/FBI power *9/11 *Why oh why didn't we stop it!? *FISA didn't allow us to investigate the terrorists behind 9/11 *USA ACT ammends FISA to broaden the definition of terrorism *USA PATRIOT ACT brings in provisions to snatch up terrorist funding :So, all in all, it is reasonable to claim that the USA PATRIOT ACT (referring to both the USA ACT and the USA PATRIOT ACT) is an anti-terrorism bill insofar as the purpose of it is to aid in the fight against terrorism. However, it is merely an amendment to FISA, which is not in any way an anti-terrorism act. It is a guidline for federal investigations of all kinds of things: money laundering, drug traffiking, espionage, and terrorism. Because the USA PATRIOT ACT now supersedes FISA, any use of FISA is now a use of the USA PATRIOT ACT. :I still feel that if we had a clear history that explains the early origins of what is now known at the USA PATRIOT ACT, some people will understand that it is not limited in any way to terrorism. It was passed because of terrorism, but it is not limited to terrorism. User:Kainaw 13:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: It would be nice indeed, with references to the previous laws and comments as to what is changing on every step. For instance, the competance of the law, which could appear strange to some (putting money laundring and drug traffic together might make sense, as do espionage with terrorism, but the four of them are not obviously related...). Also, the part about the Congress still puzzles me... I can imagine that the congressmen are not all aware of every detail of all laws, but dismissing them as totally incompetant about the matter remains difficult to accept at first glance. :: Well, thank you for offering a rewrite on this part; being absolutely not competant on the subject, I would look forward to a more understandable article. User:Rama 13:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::OK, I added my rough first draft of the history of the USA PATRIOT ACT. Please don't crucify me. User:Kainaw 13:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==What is the "Bush Administration"== This article repeatedly makes mention of the "Bush Administration". With the broad use made in this article, Hillary Clinton, being in Congress while Bush is President, is a member of the Bush Administration. I think she would highly disagree. The Bush Administration is contained within the group of advisors to the President. Congress, the FBI, and the CIA are not advisors to the White House. They are entities all on their own. The same with the military. So, I think that we should be clear when we can. The Bush Administration did not pass the USA PATRIOT Act. Congress passed it and the Bush Administration signed off on it. The Bush Administration is lobbying Congress to vote to continue the expiring sections. It is up to Congress - outside the Bush Administration to vote on it. The FBI and CIA are implementing the USA PATRIOT Act in their Federal investigations. The Bush Administration does not perform Federal investigations. Congress has paid for reports on the FBI and CIA, which include use the USA PATRIOT Act. The Bush Administration did not pay for the reports. In my mind, there is a difference, but it is ignored in this article with the intention of blaming Bush for a law that was passed back in 1978 while he was partying down in Texas. User:Kainaw 15:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==PATRIOT has been used in very few 'terrorist' cases== I removed "As of November 16, 2004, the USA PATRIOT Act has been used to charge 372 suspected terrorists and convict 194 of them." from the intro because it's BS, parrotting the White House propaganda machine.[http://slate.msn.com/id/2108766/] And, yes, the BS is coming from the "Bush administration".[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002331444_terror12.html] User:Niteowlneils 16:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I do not disagree that the Bush Administration is quoting the 372/194 figures. I disagreed with the phrase "as claimed by the Bush Administration". Backtracking through the muck and grime of the media, those numbers first pop up in an op/ed piece by Deroy Murdock. While he probably voted for Bush, he is not a member of the Bush Administration. When pressed, Murdock claims a Congressional study backs his numbers. I have not been able to find the study. Regardless of the validity of Murdock's claim, I feel it is purposely misleading to write that the numbers are "claimed" by the Bush Administration when the Bush Administration is merely repeating what someone else said. User:Kainaw 17:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Reporting about Congress== When repeating news articles about what Congress has done, there are some things to remember. Neither the Senate or the House comprise Congress all alone. The combination of the two comprises Congress. A vote by one or the other does not pass a law. Even when both agree, it must go to the President. Didn't anyone pay attention to School House Rocks? Also, news media does not like to report news as is. They slant it. So, when you read that Congress voted on something, go to either senate.gov or house.gov. Then, you can see what they voted on. For example, the AP has an article claiming that the House voted down section 215 of the Bush's evil Anti-Terrorism law. Go to house.gov. The vote mentioned was a vote to ammend a funding bill so that it couldn't be used to fund section 215. I know that it is correct in the new media sense to link and repeat the half-truth AP article, but I really want Wikipedia to be more dependable and go straight to the source. So, all I'm asking is that news articles that claim "Congress did ..." be checked against senate.gov and house.gov to remove the pro or con slant. User:Kainaw 17:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Convictions based on Patriot Act== I have added a source from the Washington Post that contradictics the White House's claim,bringing the number of Patriot Act convictions way down from the Bush Administration's figure of 197 to 39. I feel this may be a cause for disagreement so I have added a dispute notice. If the Post is recognized as valuable,feel free to remove dispute tag. User:Cmc0 20:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) :This is something that I do not like about the media. One guy finds an article from a conservative paper with numbers he likes. Another guy finds an article from a liberal paper with number he likes. Both articles get the statistics from a common report. Well, why not use the original report as the base of our factual representation here in Wikipedia? :It took a hell of a lot of digging to turn this up. Nobody wants you to find the source. But, I did find the [http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/CRMAnnualReport2004.pdf USDOJ Criminal Division Annual Report] that they appear to be talking about. On page 9 is a highlighted section that is explained in further detail outside the highlighted section. This is what it says without any editing... :The Attorney General recently described our successes on the war on terror: :*Our intelligence and law enforcement communities, and our partners, both here and abroad, have identified and disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells. :*Worldwide, nearly two-thirds of Al Qaeda's known senior leadership has been captured or killed-including a mastermind of the September 11th attacks; :*Worldwide, more than 3,000 operatives have been incapacitated; :*Terrorist cells across America have been broken up, in cities including Buffalo, Seattle, Tampa, and Portland (Oregon); :*375 individuals have been criminally charged in the United States in terrorism investigations; :*Already, 195 individuals have been convicted or have pled guilty in the United States, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid and "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; and :*Over 515 individuals linked to the September 11 investigation have been removed from the United States. :''Statement of the Attorney General, "The Department of Justice: Working to Keep America Safer," available at www.usdoj.gov; see also, Remarks of Attorney General John Ashcroft: End of Year Address to Department of Justice, December 10, 2004.'' :OK - This is obviously a digest of the Working to Keep America Safer statement, which I couldn't find. But, it is clear in what it says. 375 individuals were charged in terrorism investigations. That does not mean they were charged with terrorism. Then, 195 have been convicted or pled guilty, but not necessarily guilty of terrorism. Also, left out of all of the articles in the papers is the last number: 515 have been removed from the United States - can that mean anything other than being deported? :Personally, I would strongly prefer to leave the whole number game out of the article. This is an article about the USA PATRIOT Act. It isn't about terrorism. It isn't about Ashcroft. It isn't about Bush. All of this terrorism and political talk keeps feeding the false impression that the USA PATRIOT Act is just a Bush/Ashcroft anti-terrorism bill. It takes a whole 2 minutes to read the article and see that terrorism is just a small part of the USA PATRIOT Act. User:Kainaw 02:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::OK. I finally found the damn statement. It isn't anywhere on DOJ's site that I can find. I found it at http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/usdojgov/www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2004/ag_successes_110904.htm instead. I rewrote the paragraph so it should hopefully be NPOV now. User:Kainaw 03:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

USA Patriot Act

#REDIRECT: USA PATRIOT Act

Usa patriot act

#REDIRECT: USA PATRIOT Act

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

U

UA | UB | UC | UD | UE | UF | UG | UH | UI | UJ | UK | UL | UM | UN | UO | UP | UR | US | UT | UW | UX | UY | UZ |

Words begining with USA_PATRIOT_Act:

USA_PATRIOT_Act
USA_PATRIOT_Act
USA_Patriot_Act
Usa_patriot_act