Talk:USA PATRIOT Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
USA PATRIOT Act was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 16 October 2006
Completion status of articles on Patriot Act titles
Note that this does not mean that they are totally completed, they can still be improved. It just means that all the sections of the title have been explained.
Completed = 9 1


Info This is a talk page for discussion of the article about the USA PATRIOT Act. It is not for discussion about the act itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not the USA PATRIOT Act is a "good" or "bad" act; or finding out what unnecessary information this does not help in improving Wikipedia.
Please see "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "wikiquette" for information about the proper use of talk pages.

Contents

[edit] Silly

you guys honestly can't compare the Reichstag Fire Decree to the PATRIOT act. That's just silly. - the preceding was unsigned by an anonymous editor. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are many historical similarities between the two documents (i. e. national calamity leads to restrictive law). - Squids We B 2:21 EST, December 10, 2006

OK - that is one similarity that applies to literally thousands of laws throughout history. Where's the "many" that you refer to? How many are unique to the Patriot Act and teh Reichstag Fire Decree? Or - are you just another person trying (idiotically) to find ways to claim Bush is exactly the same as Hitler? Why can't he just be a bad President? Why does he have to be Hitler? --Kainaw (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Both the Patriot Act and Article 48 (what Hitler invoked after the Reichstag fire) both fall under what Carl Shmidt called the "exception." Under certain political circumstances the Soverign (i.e. Bush, Hitler, who ever is in charge) can decide that in order to maintain the system the ordinary terms of the system must be (temporarily) suspended. How long is "temporary" and at what point the norm can be reinstated is, by definition, up to the Soverign. This was indeed identical with what happened with the Reichstag fire in Nazi Germany. To what extent Bush has exaggerated the effects of 9/11 in order to implement the "exception"-- as Hitler certainly did with the Reichstag-- is debatable. Other recent examples include Trudeau's invoking of the "War Measures Act" during the FLQ crisis in Quebec. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.104.35.92 (talk • contribs).

It is painfully obvious that you have no clue what is in the Patriot Act. Nowhere does it give the President the option of suspending Congress and the Supreme Court, regardless of national threat. Just implying that it does demonstrates a complete ignorance of the subject. --Kainaw (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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? --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. 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. --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 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. Kainaw 18:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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? 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. --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 . --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 <a href="/wiki/noodle" class='internal' title="noodle">noodle</a>

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! 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? --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. 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. 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. --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. 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. --Numerousfalx 11:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's basically an argument for the abolishment of privacy. — JIP | Talk 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." --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". 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. 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). 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.

--Michael 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: Evercat 02:45 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I suppose a Skinnerian behaviorist would say that Pizza Puzzle's edit did indeed cause me to post here. So maybe Pizza's right--who am I to say what causes what? :-) --Michael Geary 06:45 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
yep - you understand perfectly. 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 9/11 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? --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,

Michael 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.

Michael Geary 05:03, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, friends, having made a tiny edit to the page, I started to feel bold 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. --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,

Michael Geary 06:49, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Marijuana is no longer legal in any state as a medicine! Potheads beware!!--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.

Michael 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. -- Finlay McWalter 11:23, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

My name is Patty

[edit] The USA PATRIOT Act and citizens who are not security threats.

the second paragraph needs to reflect this newstory: [1]

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. 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? 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...? -- Finlay McWalter 01:25, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If anyone has a spare moment today, this story absolutely needs to be incorporated. You can find more hubub on google news search, here. 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"... ugen64 02:32, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

The very name is not NPOV, as it implies a "patriot" supports the Act. Jor 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.

--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. -- 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.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. 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. 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. 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.--Bcrowell 04:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel

The following three paragraphs, in my opinion, do not 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 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? 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?
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?

Exile 15:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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. - Brian Kendig 13:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] 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.

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".

128.119.174.201

[edit] 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? 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.


[edit] Gallup poll and "Village Voice" link

Where are the "Apr 13-16 2005" figures in the first table from? This site only shows data for the other three dates.

Also, shouldn't the table show the full results of the poll, instead of condensing them into two categories (Too Far and Not Too Far)? I think this would be clearer and less biased.

This is a common Wikipedia effect. Initially there was just the Villiage Voice article claiming that everyone with a brain hates the USA PATRIOT Act. I searched Gallup and they wanted me to pay for the data. So, I did a Google news search and found the USA Today article. I included the data from USA Today, but I didn't delete the information from the Villiage Voice. Since the questions in the polls were not the same, I had to normalize the questions to be similar. If I had just abandoned the Villiage Voice article, I could have just used the Gallup Poll data - which goes against the claim that everyone hates the USA PATRIOT Act. Since this is clearly an anti-PATRIOT Act article, an edit like that would quickly be reverted. Kainaw 13:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


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)

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. 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"?
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. Kainaw 19:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 vandalism. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 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. --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. [2] "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."[3]--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

[edit] 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. --Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 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. older≠wiser 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).
--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib
You left off a crucial parenthetical phrase. Look at the text of the bill [4] 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. older≠wiser 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.)
--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 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. older≠wiser 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. abomination 18:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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. --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 Patriot Act and just under 950,000 for 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. 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. --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..." ^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. -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. skimaxpower
Excellent point. I missed that. Thanks.--Planetary 08:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Wha?! How is that an excellent point?!? That's just someone having a go at the title of the Act! Sheesh. How come I never see anyone discussing the content of the Act? Has anyone here actually read the darn thing?!?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it would help if we confined this talk page to discussions of the article, not the law itself or surrounding issues. 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I would encourage that. Considering I've been writing the most about what the Act actually says, I do more than encourage it: I'm begging for it! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) Short <<NOTE: 18 USC 1 note.>> 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. The actual act seems to spell the short hand name with ACT capitalized. ~ UBeR 03:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --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. 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 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. Kainaw 16:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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. 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. 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. Kainaw 13:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

No, she's part of the Legislative Branch of the US government. The term "Bush Administration" is generally understood to relate to the Executive Branch of the government under Bush.
Septegram 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It is common practice to reply below an entry, not in the middle of it. However, you apparently missed the point of this comment. When it was made, the article was full of references to "The Bush Administration", as in: The Bush Administration passed the act. The Bush Administration investigated innocent Americans. The Bush Administration falsified reports on their use of the act. I was pointing out that the Bush Administration is not the entire government and every act of each member of the government is not an act of the Bush Administration. Since I made this comment, there has been less use of the phrase "The Bush Administration" to refer to Congress, the Supreme Court, and Federal investigators. --Kainaw (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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. Kainaw 15:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.[5] And, yes, the BS is coming from the "Bush administration".[6] 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. Kainaw 17:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Kainaw 17:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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 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. 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. Kainaw 03:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The USA PATRIOT Act is 'Bad for Americans'

Since I first read this article, there has been a non-stop attempt to turn this article into one sentence: The USA PATRIOT Act is bad for Americans. This is a matter of opinion. It has no place in Wikipedia. Please feel free to state all the facts that you like. The more facts there are, the better the article becomes. Just a note about opinions - please feel free to disagree with me. Since at least the time of the early Greeks, there has been a saying that I've grudgingly learned to embrace: No matter what your opinion is on any matter, at least half the world disagrees with you. Kainaw 29 June 2005 23:47 (UTC)

We can demonstrate that the USA Patriot Act subverts the Bill of Rights, so the only question is, "Is the Bill of Rights good for Americans?"
Our two hundred years of prosperity, backed by guaranteed civil rights, is a hard thing to make an argument against. --Zephram Stark 22:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Instead of writing a long narrative, let me just point out that you are most likely referring to the 4th Ammendment - which only applies to U.S. citizens and has been ammended repeatedly long before the USA PATRIOT Act (which did not ammend it in any way unless you count the FISA/FISC ammendments of 1978 as part of the USA PATRIOT Act). Also, the United States has not had 200 years of prosperity. Look at the poverty and starvation periods at the end of the Civil War and during the Great Depression. There are many who would argue that the market slow down in 2000 is not a mark of prosperity. Finally, you must be a white male to consider that we've had 200 years of civil rights. You are ignoring the women's suffrage movment and the 60's civil rights movements.
Tossing all of that asside, it is a poor argument to claim: If the Bill of Rights is good, the USA PATRIOT Act must be bad. The Bill of Rights was a first draft at a fair law of the land - knowingly flawed and intended for ammendment. The USA PATRIOT Act is mostly a set of restrictions for Federal investigations (yes, I said restrictions). Without the USA PATRIOT Act, or the USA Act, or the original FISA, there would be no law government Federal investigations. Then, instead of being required to go to FISC to get an ex parte order to search your library records, the federal investigators could just walk into any library and search any records they like without any oversight. I'm not claiming that the USA PATRIOT Act is great. It is just better than having no restrictions of any kind on Federal investigators. Kainaw 00:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Wow, you're good! If anyone wants a quick answer, without reading the Patriot Act, as to whether or not it subverts the Bill of Rights, they certainly would get the feeling from your statement that it does not. There's only one problem with trying to convince me, however: I've actually read the Patriot Act. --Zephram Stark 19:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
So, what is your claim? I claim that having restrictions on Federal investigators is good and that the USA PATRIOT Act doesn't go far enough. You claim that the USA PATRIOT Act is bad because the Bill of Rights is good and the United States has had 200 years of prosperity and civil rights. I responded that the Bill of Rights is good, but that does not mean that restrictions on Federal investigators is bad. Also, I point out the United States has not had 200 years of prosperity and civil rights. Then, you claim that you've read the USA PATRIOT Act (including the USA Act and the FISA, I assume), so you must know that it is a laundry list of rules that Federal investigators must abide by. I do not claim that all of the rules are good. I do not claim that all of the rules are bad. In fact, I have argued repeatedly for changes to make the rules better. However, I do not feel that is good for Americans to abolish the rules and allow Federal investigators to go back to the practices of the McCarthy and Nixon eras. Kainaw 17:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
My claim is that the USA PATRIOT Act subverts the Bill of Rights (except Amendment Three). I hold that truth to be self-evident to anyone who cares to read the act.
As to the merits of the Bill of Rights, I have only my opinion. My opinion is that the Bill of Rights made America what it is today, and that without it, the United States will fail. I see humanity's past litered with failed societies that support my belief. In every case, from mighty Rome to the Soviet Union, the civilization began its decline when citizens adopted a notion that the good of the community superceeded basic civil liberties. Our quality of life used to double each generation, but my generation saw it plateau, and now the average US quality of life is in decline for the first time ever.
The Bill of Rights is not ambiguous. It's quite evident when it is being subverted. The USA PATRIOT Act puts restrictions on the ways that law enforcement can circumvent the Bill of Rights, but anyone who tries to circumvent the Bill of Rights at all is guilty of treason against our Constitution. "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (U.S. Armed Forces Oath) --Zephram Stark 16:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
It is apparent that we are seeing the absense of the USA PATRIOT Act differently. You apparently believe that if we get rid of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Bill of Rights will be protected. I believe the exact opposite. Again, I have to go back to FISA - the start of this whole thing. I am assuming that you know about FISA, the USA Act, and the USA PATRIOT Act. Before FISA, the Bill of Rigths meant nothing to the FBI, CIA, or many state, county, and city police. It was normal to subvert the Bill of Rights whenever you felt like it because you were the law. FISA restricted the ability of investigators to subvert the Bill of Rights. The USA PATRIOT Act made changes to FISA, but compared to absolutely no restrictions, it is still a set of restrictions. If we were to toss out the restrictions, why wouldn't we return to the 50's, 60's and 70's? I want MORE restrictions placed on federal investigators. I do not want to toss out the restrictions we currently have and hope they'll play nice on their honor. Kainaw 16:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If the FBI did things that were unconstitutional, they broke the law. Given that your claims are true and that the FBI broke the law, they should be indicted. Instead, you seem to be arguing that we should change the Constitution to make their actions legal while hoping that they don't break the lesser restrictions that we are now placing on them. Am I getting this right? --Zephram Stark 19:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I didn't realize this was confusing. The FBI was never restricted by the Constitution. Simple fact. Easy to look up (search for McCarthy or Elliot Ness). In 1978, Congress passed FISA which allowed the FBI some freedom from the Constitution, but put restrictions on what they could and could not do. I want MORE restrictions. You appear to be saying that you want to toss out the restrictions and hope that the FBI will decide to obey the Constitution (which they never did before FISA) just because they are all a bunch of nice guys now. Kainaw 03:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Our country was founded upon the explicit charge that the Constitution is the highest law of the land and that all government agencies are restricted by it. Ultimately, it is up to the people to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have sworn to do exactly that, as have the millions of other American citizens who have joined the United States Armed Forces and/or serve the nation in higher offices. I will fulfill my oath by whatever means required, and I would consider any American citizen who fails in that respect to be unworthy of this great nation.
The USA PATRIOT Act attempts to legally circumvent the United States Bill of Rights. Adding restrictions to that circumvention doesn't change that fact or fool anyone who doesn't want to be fooled. In every case throughout history, when greed and power run up against those of us who are fighting for our most fundamental civil liberties, freedom eventually wins. I'm not worried about the spirit of the American people; I'd just like to see our Bill of Rights restored without a bloody revolution. --Zephram Stark 14:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
It is apparent that you are refusing to read what I am writing. Therefore, I will leave out the hundreds of examples of the actions of our federal government before FISA was passed. I feel that without FISA/USA Act/USA PATRIOT Act, the federal government will return to the untouchable practices of the past. You feel that they will suddenly go honest. I feel that we must increase restrictions further then they are already set. You feel that the restrictions themselves subvert the law. Since you refuse to state why you believe that the federal government will be different than they were before 1978, there is no point in continuing. Kainaw 17:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Nations that adopt constitutions do so because diplomacy is a slippery slope. Without a constitution: we would compare what we have now with proposed new rules and regulations; we could argue that the new rules are merely a codification of what our government is already doing; we could make a case that legalizing the abuses of government with restrictions is better than an unrestricted government. A constitution, however, always restricts the actions of government. It allows us to compare new rules and regulations with the civil liberties that founded our nation—-basic human rights that our founders claimed can never be taken from a person. Because the United States has a constitution, we don't have to compare the USA PATRIOT Act with the old FISA to see which evil is lesser. We can directly compare the corruption of the USA PATRIOT Act with the purity of the Bill of Rights, an unalienable component of the highest law of the land. --Zephram Stark 20:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, a simple question that you refuse to answer: Why do you believe that the federal government will be different now than they were before 1978? If you cannot answer that one simple question, there is no point in continuing. Kainaw 00:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Your question assumes that the federal government is better today than it was in 1978 and that FISA restricted the actions of the FBI, the NSA and the CIA. I would have to disagree with both of your assumptions. All three organizations have been controversial since their inception. Watch-dog groups have kept track of abuses. In the mid-seventies, a case of public opinion was mounting for federal agencies to be dismantled. FISA may have averted the demise of these agencies by legalizing what they were already doing while restricting them from further incursions into our civil liberties, but that was as far as the American public was willing to go. Today, the feds want to try the same trick again by legalizing further incursions, but we won't be fooled twice. FISA didn't stop the feds from breaking the law. It only served to make abuses legal. The secrecy of FISA proceedings along with the vague powers of FISA made it the perfect springboard for the corruption we see in the FBI, CIA, and NSA today. The concept of federal police forces failed. The patch to fix them failed. By the end of 2001, we had hundreds of examples of illegal abuses, even under the expanded powers of FISA, with very little positive to show for the existence of these agencies. What was the solution? Did we dismantle the federal bureaucracy that was destroying our nation? Did we restore the Republic of States? Did we finally see that the Principles of the Declaration of Independence were true: that government must be at the consent of the governed if we don't want terrorism? No. Orrin Hatch's solution was to give the FBI and the CIA even more power to abuse our civil liberties. "The FBI is breaking the law again? Just make what they're doing legal once more under the guise of setting up looser constraints to fight Communism terrorism. The public won't notice that we're actually using the looser constraints for other alleged potential crimes (read: anything we want to accuse people of potentially doing in the future)." Guess what? We did notice. The reason you can't take baby steps away from our civil liberties is because we aren't comparing the PATRIOT Act with FISA. We're comparing it to the Bill of Rights. The PATRIOT Act might not be that much different than FISA, and FISA might not be that much different than the FBI breaking the law, but the Bill of Rights compared to the PATRIOT Act is like a dozen roses in a Ming Vase compared to a Turd Blossom. --Zephram Stark 04:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
My question makes no assumptions. It is exremely simple: Why do you believe that the federal government will be different now than they were before 1978? It appears that your answer is: We'll get rid of the FBI, NSA, and CIA - then we can trust them. It is obvious that you live in a fantasy world and I have no more interest in discussing this. Hopefully you will realize that wrapping yourself in the Bill of Rights does not immediately make you right. Kainaw 13:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
If your question makes no assumptions, then this one won't either. Why are you an enemy of the United States Constitution? --Zephram Stark 19:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
This question clearly assumes something... That he is an enemy of the US's Constitutuion. Kainaw's question makes none: "...will be different now than..." It says different, not better. Read carefully. 67.185.106.194 01:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Tildekey(Not Logged On)

Keep your opinions to yourselves, both of you. This is Wikipedia - facts belong here, opinions do not. Saying something like "The U.S. Patriot Act clearly limits the rights of American citizens as compared to before it was passed into Legislation." would probably be acceptable, as it is a fact that it limits rights, but to even things out you might add "In order for various enforcement agencies to better act against terrorism, both widespread and domestic, it was necessary for the limitation of various individual rights and liberties." A statement that blatantly voices an opinion to make it sound factual is unacceptable. Dudewheresmypizz4 15:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The removal of the "irrelavant sentence"

I just realized I am not logged in. My username is gregnorc, I did not intend to edit that anonymously. -GregNorc (talk)

[edit] How about a "false claims" section

I just reverted an addition to the introduction that claimed the USA PATRIOT Act forces judges to hand out warrants based on suspicion of a crime as opposed to criminal activity. This is blatantly false for two reasons: No judge is forced to do anything. This is referring to sneek&peek searches handed out by the FISC, not normal judges. I thought it may useful to have a section on "False claims". There are many: The USA PATRIOT Act was created in whole after 9/11. The USA PATRIOT Act is solely about anti-terrorism. The USA PATRIOT Act lets anyone in the government get your library records anytime they like for any reason (or lack of reason). I've even seen claims that the USA PATRIOT Act is going to abolish the 2008 elections, allowing Bush to remain President forever. It is sad that so many people believe this garbage. I feel that a "False claims" section would be useful if it quoted a claim from a specific source (newspaper, television, propoganda movie...) and explained in whole what the truth is. These false claims are not really lies. They are half-truths. Adding the whole truth, the reader can make an intelligent decision about the USA PATRIOT Act (and hopefully realize that it needs to be fixed, but nobody in Washington is checking up on their library records). Kainaw 15:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with having a false claims section, and will add a link to my statement which you previously removed. To adress your assuption that no judge is required to give a warrant (I am changing "warrant" to ex parte order, even though they imply the same thing, and that library records cannot be searched any time:
"Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The order, upon service of that order, shall apply to any person or entity providing wire or electronic communication service in the United States whose assistance may facilitate the execution of the order. Whenever such an order is served on any person or entity not specifically named in the order, upon request of such person or entity, the attorney for the Government or law enforcement or investigative officer that is serving the order shall provide written or electronic certification that the order applies to the person or entity being served". source: [[7]]
`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. source: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
Library records being seized was one of the most controversial things implied, thats why I mentioned it when discussing what was controversial. Go to www.ala.org/washoff/patriot.html for further information on libraries and the patriot act.
Clearly: "necessary for an ongoing investigation", takes the place of probable cause
Please read this before re-editing, if you really need to move my statement about its controversy lower in the article; fine, but be sure to make a new title for it, it is section 216, not 213, so don't put it in "sneak and peak searches" Raskolnikov The Penguin 21:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
(note: Going from memory, I thought you used the word force, but you used require. In context, the meaning is the same.)
I know the section you quoted. I believe you are misreading it. Condensing it, it states: When applied for, the court shall enter an ex parte order if the court finds that the attorney has certified the information is relevent to an ongoing criminal investigation. You initially stated that the act allows the feds to force a judge to issue a warrant. My problem wasn't with the word warrant. It was with the word force. Because of your emphasis, I feel you read the word shall as meaning that the judge is being forced. It actually means the judge is being permitted. In other words, if the judge feels that the case is made that the evidence will help an ongoing investigation, he has permission to issue the warrant.
I understand well the complaint that the act replaces probable cause with necessary for an ongoing investigation. That is the whole point of the act - it defines what the feds can and cannot do when claiming that they are trying to stop a crime before it happens.
Section 501 is an entirely different problem with a hell of a lot of history. It goes all the way back to the beginning of FISA. Contrary to modern media, FISA was passed to limit the power of federal investigations. The original 501 was a tradeoff. It is often misread also. It states clearly that the directory of the FBI can ask for just about anything he wants without giving much reason. If he is busy, he can appoint someone to go get the information for him. However, it should not be read as, "the Director of the FBI can appoint everyone at the FBI the permission to gather anything they like on anyone they like for any reason." The appointment referred to is necessary. If 501 were needed and the Director of the FBI really needed someone's records, he may not be able to go get them in person - so he is allowed to appoint someone to get them for him.
My problem with 501 is that is lacks checks an balances. There should be a future oversight within a specified time period - even if it is before the ultra-secretive FISC. As it is, the Director of the FBI has too much freedom to infringe on the freedom of others - but then, some would argue that I just defined his job description. Kainaw 00:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Typography

Why is the title in upper case? It's not an acronym, and I can see no other reason. It doubtless appears in capitals in certain places in certain official documents, but this is the first time that I've seen it in capitals anywhere else. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to USA PATRIOT being in upper case? It is an acronym. Kainaw 23:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism", clumsy, but an acronym. Uber nemo 01:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Good grief, it's even worse than I'd thought (it's also obvious that it's an acronym back-engineered to fit the 1930s-style name and purpose of the legislation, but I suppose that that's irrelevant to the typography in the article). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New legislation template

I tested it out here. Looks nice, doesn't it? I was wondering if someone could make it into a template. By the way, I am absolutely OPPOSED to the Patriot Act (as it's an authoritarian piece of shit), I was just testing this template out. Revolución 02:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I created the template. Revolución 02:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
{{{Name}}}
{{{Parliament/Congress/Senate it was passed in}}}
Dates


I suggest that you add to your template the legislation that is absorbed into new legislation. For example, the USA PATRIOT Act contains the USA Act and the FISA. That is very important to know. Then, people can get informed easier and stop making really stupid uninformed comments such as, "The USA PATRIOT Act gives the government too much power, so we should get rid of it." Only by understanding that the USA PATRIOT Act contains the USA Act and the FISA will those people realize that getting rid of the USA PATRIOT Act will increase the governments power, not decrease it. Therefore, having it in the template would be a nice place for it. Kainaw 15:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
In Firefox, the word "allows" in the phrase "section 216, which allows" intersects with the top left of the table. However, in IE the table does not appear at all! --pile0nadestalk | contribs 12:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The title itself is POV

Why should it be written like this "USA PATRIOT act" sounds like they're quoting the esteemed mr.Moore, wouldn't it be better to just move the whole thing to USA Patriot Act so it seems less like the article is yelling at you, and just stick a redirect in this article--I-2-d2 16:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Searching Thomas for information on the act, we get to this page [8], which identified the Short Title as Introduced, passed House, and enacted as "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001." The correct title of the article should actually be in all caps, and I look forward to your support for such a move!Hipocrite 17:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the issue he had a problem with was Patriot being capitalized. If a person has no interest in reading the article, they would assume that Patriot was just a word and not an acronym. Therefore, they would assume that the word was in all caps to enforce that this is a patriotic law - which is POV. This situation is not rare. If you get your news purely from anti-Bush sources (such as Michael Moore and Jon Stewart), you will have only been told that the USA PATRIOT Act is an evil unconstitutional law that Bush and his cronies forced all of Congress to sign against their will so that Bush can take over the United States and become the Anti-Christ. Obviously, we shouldn't be capitalizing Patriot for a law like that. (If you have no sense of humor, please erase this entire comment from your brain. I won't take politics seriously until they let me legally own a toilet that is capable of flushing a man-sized turd again.) Kainaw 23:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the title of the act is perfect in an Orwellian sort of way. --Zephram Stark 14:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • War is Peace
  • Freedom is Slavery
  • Ignorance is Strength
  • Patriotism is subverting the Bill of Rights
  • Can I move it or not? I don't want to move the whole article USA Patriot Act only to have every one fo you call me a wackjob neocon, or something else like that--I-2-d2 22:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you'll have wide opposition if you move it, not from me, but from many others. If it were up to me, I would rename it "Final Nail in The Coffin of the Bill of Rights Act" --Zephram Stark 22:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill of Rights comment removed

In the child pornography case mentioned, the investigators had a crime and an online identity. They had to match that identity to a person. Zephram added the comment that using the act to do so subverted the Bill of Rights. Where does the Bill of Rights protect your internet identity? I'm not asking what "the founding fathers meant". I'm asking, where the Bill of Rights protects us from being identified on the internet. Kainaw 20:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's pretty evident that searching our stuff would include our electronic files as well, but you're right, the founding fathers didn't explicitly include a provision about electronic data. I'll rework it so that there isn't any ambiguity. --Zephram Stark 22:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I want to point out that this case is unique in that the act was not used to search records that belonged to the suspects. It was used to get specific information from an ISP (you can argue that you own your ISP's records, but that failed in court when the record labels sued to get file trader's identities). Also, there was no 'search'. It was a specific request: "What is the real identity of the user who used your service with [IP Address] on [Dates and Times]?" Only after a warrant was issued was there any search of the suspect's property. I know that the act would allow the investigators to ask for more, but they didn't. They had all they needed except an identity. Also, this is not a case of investigation where there is only a suspected crime. The crime was there. The identity wasn't.
As I noted, this is equivalent to the RIAA lawsuits. They sued and won the right to force ISP's to hand over the real identities of people using the Internet for criminal activity.
In my opinion, this is a different issue than the Bill of Rights one. As I've stated many times, I want more and more clearly written ammendments to protect my rights until I commit a crime. Once I commit a crime (as these people had done), I've taken away the rights of someone else. Therefore, I shouldn't expect mine to be protected. Again, that is just my opinion. Kainaw 23:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand the spin that those who are against the act want to put on this case, but representing this as some innocent guy who stumbled across some child porn is simply stupid. The order of events: There are multiple sexual assaults of children (under the age of 10) in parks and libraries - the police believe that it is one man, but have no identity to investigate. A 6-year old girl testifies and leads the police to believe that photos taken were to be sold/traded on the Internet. An internet investigation shows that a local person was purchasing, selling, and trading child porn on the Internet (including photos of the children who were abused in their area). The USA PATRIOT Act is used to get the identity of the person. A warrant is issued immediately after the identity is discovered. The man (and his wife) are arrested and convicted of multiple accounts of child pornography and currently serving 30-90 years in prison.
The spin on this is that many people have tried to represent it as some innocent guy who accidentally got a picture of a girl who wasn't quite 18 yet. There has been cases of that. Please use one of those. This is different and I find it rather offensive that anyone can ignore the fact that this man abused several children (not teenagers - children) and portray him as the victim. Kainaw 13:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
There is no spin in reporting the facts of the case. If you portray him as guilty until proven innocent, that would be spin. We don't actually know what the FBI pre-searched and what they didn't. That's the problem. The feds allude, in their report, to tracking the couple's file sharing, but none of this information was available to the defense attorney, nor are the records available now. In fact, had it not been for the Justice Department's report, written only to promote use of the PATRIOT Act, we would have never known that the provisions of the PATRIOT Act were used to investigate this case. The really sick part is that the Act was used specifically to circumvent the judicial process. Adkins was one of many suspects in the investigation of a much bigger crime. The PATRIOT Act was used gather evidence that would make him appear guilty of the attempted abduction of young children, but Adkins was never allowed to defend himself on the abduction charge. He was found guilty by association and sentenced to 75 years in prison. The temporary internet files on his computer were mostly of women above the age of 18, but the Justice Department found some pictures that were under age. When Adkins was shown evidence that some of the women he looked at were underage, he plead guilty to looking at them. His plea of guilt in looking at underage women was painted to be the same thing as abducting and raping young children. As far as the press was concerned, the right man was in jail for the rest of his life. That may or may not be true; we'll never know because the FBI was more concerned with framing someone in order to solve the case than in going through constitutionally guaranteed channels. --Zephram Stark 13:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
You have changed the article to read that the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate sexual assault. That is not true. The FBI wanted to solve a sexual assault case, but that was a separate issue from the one Adkins was found guilty of. The FBI only spun it in the newspapers to make it seem like the two were related, but from everything I can find on the incident, there was not enough evidence to bring him to trial on that charge. The FBI simply identified a likely target and then tried to dig up as much dirt on him as the could, so that they could say the case was solved. Apparently, they did such a good job of confusing the two cases that you are now reporting factually incorrect information. --Zephram Stark 13:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
It is true that they used the act in a sexual assault investigation. Kainaw 14:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Legally, there were two cases. The only evidence in the sexual assault investigation was a description by a 6-year-old child. That description had nothing to do with the USA PATRIOT Act.
I've spent a great deal of time investigating this and I can't find any factual source that says Adkins was involved in the selling of child pornography. I believe that your statement on that is incorrect as well. To report that the act was used to investigate child pornography assumes that he was selling it. If he was only looking at pornography of underage women that he didn't even know were underage until proof was shown, your title is highly misleading, to say the least. I know that emotions are high on this, but Wikipedia is a factual resource, not a lynching forum. --Zephram Stark 14:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"Both defendants, who were from Nicholasville, were convicted at bench trials in January of 99 counts each of receiving child pornography and one count each of possession of child pornography and conspiracy." ~ Kentucky Enquirer

Another Enquirer article [9] - Child porn was not temporary web browser files. Adkins used a file-trade program like Napster. Sexual Assault charges for 6 year old.
Yet Another Enquirer article [10] - Mother turned him in. Sexual Assault charges for 7 and 2 year old. Wife says she knowingly downloaded child porn for her husband.
I mis-attributed 'distributing child pornography' as 'selling child pornography'. I did not intend to imply that he was making his money from child pornography. He was a babysitter.
Nowhere have I seen the child pornography described as "underage women". It is always described as "children". With sexual assault of children under age 10, I find it hard to belief that he was only trading pics and videos of women who are barely under 18.
This again states that detectives identified Adkins when his mother recognized him from police sketches. Everywhere, it claims that Adkins' mother turned him in. Yet, the DoJ has a little blurb that a subpeona was issued using the USA PATRIOT ACT. Within hours, a warrant was issued. It does not say that the warrant was issued because of information from the subpoena. It doesn't even say that the subpoena was ever delivered to the ISP. What really happened? We can't know from news articles, but I feel that the DoJ put a heavy spin on this to make it seem that the USA PATRIOT ACT was used to catch this guy. The truth is that his mother turned him in and a warrant was issued.
"Wohlander held it up and said it contained a file-sharing program, similar to Napster, which Terry Adkins used to trade child porn from around the world."
This is what the prosecutor claimed. Adkins was not found guilty of distributing pornography of any kind because the prosecutor was quoting what the FBI said. As it turned out, the FBI lied to perpetuate the myth that Adkins was guilty of something he was never indicted for. We have irrefutable proof of lies told by the FBI in this case to circumvent the judicial process. What Wohlander claims, based on FBI lies, isn’t worth a hill of beans. He was speaking out of the side of his mouth. The court could not find any evidence of Adkins distributing pornographic files, but that apparently didn’t stop some people from lynching him in the press anyway.
Your observation is certainly correct that sexually assaulting children under the age of 10 isn’t consistent with looking at pornography of women barely under 18. Have you ever read Fahrenheit 451? When the “authorities” purposefully confuse and are vague about details, it’s always because they are trying to make it sound worse than it is. In such a case, our commitment to innocence until proven guilty demands that we assume only what is proven, especially in an encyclopedia article. I would appreciate it if you would remove any reference to items that Adkins was NOT found guilty of, especially when the accusations come from a source that has proven itself, as per the links in that section, to be unreliable. --Zephram Stark 01:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you claiming there was no file-sharing program on Terry Adkins' computer? If so, where is your source?
Are you claiming there was no sexual assault investigation against Terry Adkins? If so, where is your source?
You also side-stepped the article which included statements from Terry Adkins' wife. Are you claiming she was taking part in the FBI conspiracy? If so, where is your source?
From everything I have been able to dig up, Adkins was investigated for sexual assault. The FBI has a separate probe on online child pornography. Adkins' mother identified him to the local police. The search of his house linked him to the FBI's online child pornography investigation. He admitted to the child pornography. His wife admitted to sexual assault and child pornography. Then, much later, a moron in a suit claimed that the USA PATRIOT Act came in and saved the day.
As for removing items - I claim there was a sexual assault and child pornography investigation. Are claiming that is false? Kainaw 13:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Below are the parts of the section that are factually incorrect:
  1. The part of the title that reads "Using the act to investigate... sexual assault" is false. The PATRIOT Act was not used to investigate charges of sexual assault against Adkins. The only evidence in the sexual assault case was a description by a 6-year-old. Her description had nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act.
  2. The part of the title that reads "Using the act to investigate child pornography..." is also false. Adkins was not indicted on "child pornography" charges because the court did not find him guilty of distributing child pornography (a necessary component of that charge). The FBI failed to prove its case that Adkins did anything more than look at pictures of women under the age of 18 in his house. Sure, the FBI claimed a lot of things, but it failed to prove them to the court. Because of "double jeopardy" laws, Adkins can never again be tried for distributing child pornography. He was found "not guilty" of that. It is no longer even a charge. After the trial is over, and he is found not guilty, you can no longer say that he is even suspected of authorities of doing that thing any more. They had their day in court and failed to prove their case. Adkins was only found guilty of the items mentioned in the quote from the paper above.
  3. The part of the first paragraph that reads "who were found guilty of... sexual assault of underage persons" is false. This is the really scary part for me. The 2003 source you cited says that Adkins was charged with sexual assault, but you report it as Adkins was found guilty of sexual assault. Do you realize the difference? This isn't just a minor leap of logic. You have bypassed the entire judicial system. You are reporting him as guilty of sexually assaulting a little girl because he admitted to looking at pornography. Nothing else has been proven. In fact, given that the full force of the FBI tried to prove more than the pornography charges and failed, the only thing we can say for sure about Adkins is that he didn't verify the ages of the girls he looked at. It may be true that there is more to this story, but we can't assume more in an encyclopedia article. Moreover, saying that Adkins was found guilty of sexual assault is factually incorrect. --Zephram Stark 14:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Unless I have completely missed what you've written, this is the first time you brought up that I put "found guilty of sexual assault". I agree that it is incorrect and it was not intentional. I can only assume that I meant "charged with sexual assault".
As for the "investigate child pornography" title, when I pointed out that Adkins was investigated for both child pornography and sexual assault, you made the claim that the FBI only investigated child pornography. Now you claim that they didn't investigate child pornography. What was the FBI investigating? You appear to have a great wealth of documentation on the FBI's investigation, but you aren't sharing it. So, I can only go by the news articles that I've provided links to.
I fix the misinformation that I added to the section. As for the guilt of Adkins, this is not the area for it. An article on him would be. The issue here is very specific: Was the USA PATRIOT Act used in an investigation? According to the DoJ, yes, it was. What was done? According to the DoJ, they requested for and received a subpoena for an ISP to get the account name and address for one of their clients. What is the issue with the use of the USA PATRIOT Act in this instance? I'm not sure. It is was the RIAA does all the time to nab music-sharing kids. As I've stated, I'm not sure they even issued the subpoena. Kainaw 17:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

OK - I fixed my misinformation. Now, you have the following quote "The FBI told newspapers and Adkin's attorney that a search warrant was issued based on the testimony of a 6-year-old girl in a separate attempted kidnapping incident for which Adkins was not indited." Adkins was indicted for sexual assault of the 6-year old and for sexual assault of a 2-year old. He has not, as of yet, been convicted. In fact, I have not found any instance of the trial taking place yet or the charges dropped. Are you willing to correct your misinformation? Kainaw 17:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That word is thrown around so much in the context of convicted that I didn't even look it up. Thanks for the info and the chance to fix my own mistake. I'll get right on it. --Zephram Stark 21:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I called the paper and talked to a dozen people. They said they think the reason they stopped reporting on that 2003 story was because the abduction charges were dropped after Adkins was found guilty of receiving underage pornography. Adkins never admitted to anything except looking at pornographic sites that the FBI proved had underage women. The lack of any additional newspaper story about Adkins is because there was no additional story to tell. After Adkins admitted to looking at underage porn sites and received 75 years for doing so, that was the end of it. The paper wasn't absolutely sure about anything, so they gave me this number for the sheriff's department, 859-334-2175, and told me to ask for Michael Helmig when he comes in Monday morning. Until then, I think it's safest to only report the things we know. The status of this case has apparently changed since 2003. We no longer know if he is being charged with abduction. Wikipedia has been in trouble for accusing people of things that aren't true in the past. I better take your allegations off for now, until we can contact Sheriff Helmig. --Zephram Stark 02:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


I thought about this whole conversation this morning and I feel that we are both missing the point. This is an article about the USA PATRIOT Act. The section we are discussing is "Using the USA PATRIOT Act to investigate child pornography". It is not "The life and times of Terry Adkins". So, I suggest we re-think the section to answer the question: How was the USA PATRIOT Act used to investigate child pornography in the investigation of Terry Adkins?
  • I think that it is important to note that it was used to gain a subpoena (which comes from a jury), not a warrant (which comes from a single judge). A warrant was granted later, but the USA PATRIOT Act was not used to get the warrant. The DoJ statement claims that it may have been difficult to obtain the warrant without information obtained from the subpoena.
  • The subpoena was not based on the possibility of a crime. It was based on an actual crime (online transfer of child pornography). The FBI documented the crime and then requested a subpoena. This is important because the problem most people (and both of us) have with the USA PATRIOT Act is that is often used to punish someone before they commit a crime.
  • The defense did not know about the subpoena, but stated that learning about it will not affect the case since Terry Adkins and his wife have never claimed that the photos found in their home were not theirs or not child pornography.
Anything else will add to an already bloated article. What do you think? Kainaw 17:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


I have been rethinking it too, but I want to talk to the Sheriff in the case before I make any changes. The story I got from two women at the paper was that the whole thing was kind of an embarrassment. Everyone was so up in arms about the abductions that there was a mob mentality in that part of the state. People wanted blood, but the FBI wasn't getting anywhere through normal methods. They called in profilers who said that Internet records might give them a lead because there is sometimes a link between child porn and child abductions. In order to get these records without probable cause, the FBI had to use some of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. Using the internet records, the FBI was able to identify a likely suspect who also matched a description from a six-year-old attempted abductee. They charged and grilled Adkins, but couldn't get a confession or any more information about the abductions. Finally, they proved to him that many of the women he was looking at were underage and threatened Adkins that they would put him away for the rest of his life if he didn't confess to the abductions. Adkins still claimed that he was innocent of anything but looking at underage women. He plead guilty to receiving and storing pictures of underage women. The FBI requested that the judge ignore federal guidelines and sentence him to prison for the rest of his life. The judge did as he was told and sentenced Adkins to 75 years. The FBI told everyone that the case was solved and that the guilty party was in jail. The paper reported it as a happy ending, ignoring the fact that Adkins had essentially received a sentence for abduction without ever being tried for the crime. According to the ladies at the paper, the only problem with the happy ending was that the abductions didn't stop. --Zephram Stark 03:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you called anyone. I called Boone County and all they have to say is that he is currently facing charges of sexual assault on a 2 and 6 year old in their county, but it won't move forward until his appeals on child pornography are closed. Also, he has sexual assault charges against a 7 year old in another Kentucky county and charges in Virginia. They knew nothing at all about a subpoena to his ISP. The warrant was issued based on his mother's testimony. Also, each count of child pornography was for physical photographs of children being sexually abused, not for computer files. Those photos could have been computer files printed out to appear to be photographs. Each charge was for a separate child depicted, not for a separate photo - since the children had multiple photos each. The conspiracy charge came from the fed's investigation, not Boone county's. Kainaw 14:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for following up on that. --Zephram Stark 19:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure you agree that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Using unproven accusations as social-evidence that Adkins deserved 75 years certainly wouldn't belong in an encyclopedic article. If he is ever convicted, then we could say that he is guilty of those charges. --Zephram Stark 19:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
With the information that I have, I find some of your additions to the article either completely wrong or half-wrong.:
  • "...based on the testimony of a 6-year-old girl in a separate attempted kidnapping incident for which Adkins was not convicted." He was not convicted because it has not gone to court. I feel that you are implying that the charges were dropped or that he was found innocent. You can claim that he "has not yet been convicted", but that implies he will be convicted. For brevity, I would simply leave it as "for which Adkins was charged". That does not imply that he is innocent or guilty.
  • "...the electronic snooping powers of the USA PATRIOT Act, not a girl's testimony, had been used to obtain a search warrant." It states that "it is unlikely that sufficient information would have been available to obtain the search warrant." It does not state that the girl's testimony was not used. Also, you imply that "electronic snooping powers" were used. An ISP was given a subpoena. That does not include snooping, spying, hacking, or anything electronic. A grand jury was asked to write a subpoena to an ISP. The grand jury said OK. The subpoena was issued. Nowhere in that is the USA PATRIOT Act used to obtain a search warrant. Information obtained from the subpoena, along with other information (the girl's testimony and Adkins' mother's testimony) were used to obtain the search warrant.
  • "delete your temporary internet files" This implies that the pornography he was charged for were files on a computer. Each charge was for a physical photo, not a computer file. As it is a quote, it cannot be altered. However, it may be clarified that he was not charged with possession of computer files. He was charged with possession of photographs.
Please provide the sources you are using that disagree with the statements from the newspapers and Boone County police. I am currently attempting to contact Adkins' lawyer, but I have not made it past his secretary. I figure that if anyone will have a good "Adkins is a victim of the system" spin, it will be his lawyer.
Disregarding all of that, I think that one fact that is important is missing. The USA PATRIOT Act was used to get a subpoena after evidence of a crime was discovered. This is highly unusual because the USA PATRIOT Act is normally used to investigate people before they commit a crime, not after.

It sounds like you are trying to spin this as though the USA PATRIOT Act helped catch someone who was guilty, but would not have otherwise been caught. Before we crucify Adkins in the court of public opinion, we have to remember that he has not been found guilty in a court of law. We also have to remember that many people crucified this way were later shown to be innocent, but their lives were already destroyed. It is not up to us to circumvent the justice system, nor is up to the FBI. The bottom line is that Adkins went to jail for 75 years for receiving and storing underage pornography. He may be guilty of more. He may not be guilty of more, but according to the United States Bill of Rights, Adkins had the right to defend himself of those charges. Instead, information found because of the USA PATRIOT Act lead a judge to exceed sentencing recommendations in jailing Adkins. Because of the USA PATRIOT Act, Adkins is serving the sentence of a child abductor without ever having a chance to defend himself of that charge. Those of us who help crucify him in the court of public opinion help make such a travesty possible. You go ahead and edit it any way you want, but the real story is that the USA PATRIOT Act enabled, once again, a circumvention of the Bill of Rights. --Zephram Stark 02:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Do not blame me for your mistakes. I clearly explained why the additions you made to the section were not true. You refused to respond specifically to any of the three simply points. Instead, you are trying to twist this once again into an argument about crucification and the Bill of Rights. It is apparent that you do not read - you only respond. If you did read, you would see that I did not ever state that Adkins was guilty of anything other than the crimes he himself said he was guilty of. On the other hand, you are trying to claim he is innocent of crimes he has been charged for, but has not been to tried for yet. The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" does not mean that we cannot claim a person has been charged with a crime. It means we cannot say they are guilty of the crime. You obviously don't understand the difference between being charged and being guilty. Worst of all, this has NOTHING to do with the USA PATRIOT Act. Kainaw 13:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
You took out the cited sources of factual information, newspapers, Report from the Field: The USA Patriot Act at Work, and added a conclusion based on nothing but your own feelings on the subject. You also failed to mention that Adkins and his wife received more than a hundred combined years in prison because they admitted to nothing, nor have they been found guilty of anything, more than receiving and storing underage pornography. I understand that you have a desire to put a pro-PATRIOT spin on this, but you've exaggerated the article to the point where it is no longer true.
The story is really very simple if you let the cited sources speak for themselves: the FBI wanted somebody in the Kentucky case to go to prison for the rest of their life, but they didn't have enough evidence to do it legally. Instead, they cast enough aspersions to crucify Adkins in the court of public opinion. As was clearly stated in the DOJ Report, the USA PATRIOT Act was key in doing this. The really sick part is that if Adkins would have known he was part of a witchhunt, he certainly would have fought the case instead of confessing. Adkins believed that he was going to be sentenced for the crime of receiving and storing underage pornography. He was never told that the USA PATRIOT Act was used to gather evidence of a much bigger crime that would affect his sentencing. --Zephram Stark 14:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
"because they admitted to nothing" I gave you the resources to read. You refused to do so. If you did, you would know that Terry admitted in court that the file cabinets containing photos of child pornography were his. You would also know that his wife admitted in court that her husband forced her to collect the photos for him. The admitted to nothing?
"the USA PATRIOT Act was used to gather evidence of a much bigger crime" Please go find a dictionary and look up the definition of subpoena. It is a request for information. It is nothing remotely similar to a search warrant. The subpoena in this case was used to link is ISP account to his real identity. Are you claiming that using the internet is "a much bigger crime"?
Before you push to add a link to the DoJ report, read it. It clearly states that Adkins was identified by "an informant" - not by the subpoena. In the references I gave you, that you obviously ignored, the informat is identified as his mother. This does not support your argument, so I did not include it. I will happily include it if you like.
My desire is to be honest. The USA PATRIOT Act was not used to get testimony from the 6-year old. The USA PATRIOT Act was not used to get testimony from Adkins' mother. The USA PATRIOT Act was not used to get a search warrant for Adkins' home. It was used for one and only one thing: to get a subpoena to link his internet account to his real identity. If you claim it was used for anything other than that, you are a liar until you can provide some evidence that what you are claiming is true. Everything you've provided has proven you wrong, not right. Kainaw 14:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


Amendment IV

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.

In the electronic age, the government can search a citizen's effects offsite by observing what they download. The USA PATRIOT Act enables the search of these effects without probable cause, without particularly describing the place to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized. It also enables the government to keep such searches secret. In the Kentucky case, U.S. Attorney Gregory Van Tatenhove was well aware of the results of the PATRIOT-enabled searches of Adkins' electronic effects when recommended that Judge Forester make a "rare exception" and go well beyond sentencing guidelines, but Adkins was never allowed to defend himself against this additional information. The result is that he was sentenced for a much bigger crime than he confessed——75 years for looking at underage pornography. He may have been guilty of more, but the Bill of Rights promises United States citizens a chance to defend themselves against additional charges.

Amendment V

No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury... and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

--Zephram Stark 14:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


If you cannot understand the following sentence, it is not my fault that you are so stupid. The USA PATRIOT Act was only used to request a subpoena after an FBI investigation discovered online trade of child pornography. It was not used to initiate the investigation. It was not used to discover the online trade of child pornography. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I am not claiming that the 75 years was just. I am not claiming that the Feds should be allowed to monitor our Internet usage. I am simply stating that the USA PATRIOT Act was not used in all of that. It was used to request a subpoena. You are doing everything you can to stretch it out until you start claiming that Adkins was using the USA PATRIOT Act to search for online porn.
So, you argue with 4th amendment. Even though the USA PATRIOT Act was not used to investigate Internet traffic, you feel that the 4th amendment applies to protection of data you send and receive on the Internet - just as it applies to data you send and receive on the phone? If you investigated this case as you claim you did, you would know that the FBI obtained authorization for wire-tapping to monitor the network traffic (just as they do for telephones) without use of the USA PATRIOT Act. Are you going to claim that the 4th amendment makes all wiretapping unConstitutional?
You use the 5th amendment, claiming that Adkins was deprived of liberty without due process of law. You apparently do not know about a thing called an "appeal". Adkins defense attorney is working on an appeal and stated that the use of the USA PATRIOT Act to get a subpoena has no affect on this case.
You bring up the 6th amendment. How can you claim he didn't have a speedy trial? How can you claim he wasn't shown evidence that he possessed child pornography? How can you claim he wasn't allowed assistance of counsel for his defense?
Now, please, show your references. Where is the report, news article, or anything you have that has the conversation you referenced between U.S. Attorney Gregory Van Tatenhove and Judge Forester? Where is the report, news article, or anything that explains how the FBI began this investigation whith the sole intention of putting away someone - anyone - for life? Where is the report, news article, or anything that explains how every other news article, the police investigators, Adkins' defense lawyer, and the court proceedings are all wrong and you are right? I've now talked to the Boone County police and Adkins' defense lawyer. I've been trying to contact Adkins himself, but it is difficult to get phone time. Nobody has agreed with a thing you've said. Can you give any reason of any kind why I should take your word over the word of the police who performed the investigation and the lawyer who defended Adkins? Kainaw 15:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I don't respond to your personal attacks of being "stupid," a "liar," that "everything [I've] provided has proven [me] wrong," that I "blame [you] for [my] mistakes," that I'm "trying to twist this once again into an argument," that "it is apparent that [I] do not read," that I'm "trying to claim [Adkins] is innocent of crimes he has been charged for," that I "obviouly don't understand the difference between being charged and being guilty." I think you know that none of these things are true. I imagine that you're just frustrated at not being able to put a pro-PATRIOT spin on this one. Nevertheless, the facts speak for themselves.
Adkins and his wife were sentenced to abduction-length jail terms[11], over 100 combined years, without ever having been tried for abduction charges. This is completely unconstitutional as per the sixth ammendment[12], but because the evidence used to sentence them was obtained through the extra-constitutional powers of the USA PATRIOT Act ("Without the information that was obtained pursuant to section 210, it is unlikely that sufficient information would have been available to obtain the search warrant."[13]), Adkins has no viable legal recourse. If the DOJ hadn't published a reference to their secret investigation[14], we would have never known how the government was able to turn looking at underage porn into a hundred years of jail time.
Above is the fully-cited story that is relevant to the USA PATRIOT Act. Anything else, as you admit, has nothing to do with the USA PATRIOT Act. --Zephram Stark 16:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
You are wrong about the sentence. You are wrong about the 6th amendment. You are wrong about "looking at underage porn". I've already explained this over and over. You either aren't reading what I write or you are too stupid to comprehend it. I really don't care which. I'm done trying to explain it to you. I hope that when you grow up and possibly have children, you will understand the difference between browsing online pornography and having filecabinets filled with hundreds of photographs of young children sorted by the type of sexual action being performed. Now, if I can gather anything from your comments, you are stupid enough to think that the last person to make a comment wins. Here you go... Kainaw 20:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Kainaw, personal attacks are not welcome here. Calling Zephram Stark "stupid" will not solve anything and reflects more poorly on you than him, completely regardless of the merits of your points. If this dispute is serious enough, you should consider a Request for Comments as a more constructive step. —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Kainaw, I have children and I understand how you feel about abduction, but Adkins is not a personification of child abduction. Wikipedia is a factual resource, not a witchhunt. We cannot report that the children Adkins looked at were "young," because it has only been established in a court of law that they were under 18. We cannot report that there was "sexual action," because that was not established in a court of law. The FBI wants people to believe that the child abductor has been caught, but without due process, we don't know if that is true or not. We can't let gossip and innuendo take the place of the court system. The problem with the USA PATRIOT Act is that it enables people like you to find Adkins guilty without a trial. Whether or not you bought into Adkins guilt-by-gossip is important, but not nearly as important as whether or not his sentancing judge bought into it. Given that Adkins got 75 years for "the receipt and possession of child pornography"[15], I think we all know the answer to that. --Zephram Stark 22:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JVB edits

A person calling themselves JVB (we cannot be sure) added some good content to the article. Unfortunately, she also deleted a lot of information that was good. I do not want to revert the changes, but it will take some time to integrate the new information with the old information. Anyone have suggestions for merging the old and new versions (other than copying both into Word and doing a lot of copying and pasting). Kainaw 19:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Jennifer Van Bergen, J.D. (do a google). I have invited her to create an account. Christopher Mahan 21:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I assumed that the J.D. meant Justice Department. There were errors of fact, as well as P.O.V. blanking, so I reverted it. I hope she comes in to discuss this because her ideas are very interesting and her knowledge is very informative. --Zephram Stark 17:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] How? (sixth ammendment)

How does the USA PATRIOT Act get around the sixth ammendment, offering all a lawyer? Where in the law does it allow that? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bohouse (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 October 2005.

If you Google it, you'll find lots of information. It's up to you to judge the credibility of this information, of course. Also watch out for the fact that some of this is related to the (even more controversial) update being called "Patriot II". —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
The USA PATRIOT Act doesn't try to exist within the framework of the Bill of Rights. As the Supreme Court says, "The Constitution is dynamic." In other words, new circumstances make the Bill of Rights obsolete. If you look at the powers permitted by the USA PATRIOT Act as compared to the Bill of Rights, you will find that it enables the circumvention of every article except #3. The Bill of Rights was written at a time when the United States of America was a Republic of "FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES" (Declaration of Independence). Today we are a Federalist Democracy. When the Bill of Rights was written, the government of United States derived its "powers from the consent of the governed" (Declaration of Independence). Today, the United States government doesn't only fail ask for consent, but it actively seeks to hide what it is doing from the public. This, of course, can only result in massive terrorism and uprisings. We need new tools to fight those members of our society and other societies who still believe in the obsolete concept of government by consent of the governed. In today's United States, you are merely asked to trust that your government is doing the right thing. --Zephram Stark 14:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Zephram, if you mean that the PATRIOT Act attempts to evade the protections of the Bill of Rights, you are correct, but to say that the Act doesn't try to exist within the framework of the BoR, or that the BoR is obsolete, is monumentally wrong. The Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) has not been overthrown, YET. It is still the law of the land and the PATRIOT Act must conform to it. To the extent that a provision is found NOT to conform to the Constitution, it will be ruled unconstitutional and void. This has already happened with some provisions. 66.32.45.47 20:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC) (JVB)

There ARE Sixth Amendment concerns with some provisions of the PATRIOT Act. BUT, remember that the Sixth Amendment only requires that CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS be allowed legal representation. It is possible that Bohouse is asking about how it is that the government can get away with preventing so-called "unlawful enemy combatants" ("UEC's")from having or consulting with attorneys. UEC's are not provided for in the PATRIOT Act. That was something Bush did on his own without any act of Congress. The idea behind those is that because these guys (UEC's) are COMBATANTS engaged in a war, the laws of war apply, not criminal laws, so we don't need to allow them to have lawyers. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this in the Hamdi case last year. See my article on this at http://counterpunch.org/bergen07192004.html. 66.32.45.47 20:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC) (JVB)

While I do not disagree with Zephram's comment (we've argued this before and he is basically restating my position that I want a Super Patriot Act with more and more restrictions on the Feds), I don't feel that it is a complete answer to the question. For reference, the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
I added the bold face to bring attention to the fact that the Sixth Amendment refers to prosecutions, not investigations. While the PATRIOT ACT is bloated with other things (including rules for handing out benefits to the victims of 9/11), it is derived from FISA, which is a set of rules for investigations. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that most of the USA PATRIOT Act has to do with investigations of crimes, not prosecutions of crimes. For that reason, I do not feel that it subverts the Sixth Amendment. It subverts other amendments, but not that specific one.
This last statement is incorrect in a number of ways. First of all, as I've said separately, the PATRIOT Act is not "derived" from FISA. It DOES amend portions of FISA. FISA is not exactly a set of rules for "investigations." It deals with "foreign intelligence investigations," which are different than criminal investigations. Criminal investigations require probable cause of criminal activity to be carried out; foreign intel investigation do not -- because they do not (or are not supposed to) involve crimes or criminal prosecutions. They involve investigations of foreign powers or agents of foreign powers. (Now, they also involve terrorism investigations. I discuss all this at length in different parts of my book, with full citations to the provisions and other sources.) Where FISA gets into trouble, and where it involves constitutional questions, is where such investigations do end up in a criminal prosecution or where they involve NON-foreign powers (that is, U.S. citizens, who are always protected by the Bill of Rights). (JVB)
Also, the PATRIOT Act does not exclusively have to do with investigations and not prosecutions. This is completely false. Much of the Act amends criminal laws, as well as other laws, such as banking laws, immigration laws, etc. 66.32.45.47 20:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC) (JVB)
How does the USA PATRIOT Act amend the prosecution of existing criminal laws in such a way that it goes against the Sixth Amendment? Kainaw 21:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Short answer: it doesn't. Long answer: FISA created a kind of loophole in the FOURTH Amendment relating to searches and seizures, which the Attorney General mutated into a regulation about monitoring Attorney/Client conversations, which you may know are privileged. Not only does the regulation violate this privilege, it violates the 6th Amend. right of an individual to legal representation, IF it applies to representation covered by the Sixth Amendment (that is, during a criminal trial). See my articles on the Lynne Stewart case on these issues. 66.32.72.157 14:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (JVB)(Sorry, I haven't gotten my login to recognize me.)


I know, you can argue that we are holding people for months and years without charging them, so they aren't getting the right to a speedy trial. If they haven't been charged, they are not under prosecution. They are under investigation. Once charged, they have the right to a speedy trial. Of course, that fails sometimes (Kevin Mitnick - was the old FISA used on him?). You can rationalize that if we have someone in a prison under investigation, he is just as good as being prosecuted, but until the Supreme Court makes that same decision, there is a legal difference. Kainaw 17:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, Kainaw, I'm sorry but you are incorrect here. Holding people without bringing charges violates due process and the right of habeas corpus (the right to challenge one's detention and be brought to a court of law and heard, which also incorporates the right to be charged ad\nd tried or or set free). 66.32.45.47 20:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC) (JVB)
I may be wrong again, so please correct me. Isn't "the right of habeas corpus" the right to either be charged (enter prosecution) or be set free? Then, isn't that part of Article One, not the Sixth Amendment? My understanding is that the right of habeas corpus was purposely put into the description of the Legislative Branch of government instead of the Bill of Rights because it is a right that may be revoked by Congress - such as it was during the Civil War and then again against Japanese during WWII. That brings us to how habeas corpus and the USA PATRIOT Act relate. According to Article One: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." This allows Congress to claim the threat of terrorism justifies the suspension of habeas corpus against suspected terrorists. Kainaw 21:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Kainaw, yes habeas corpus is an Article One protection, not a Sixth Amendment protection. But the right of habeas corpus was not revoked by Congress during the Civil War. President Lincoln unilaterally revoked it and was later supported by Congress, although the Supreme Court chastised him. Nor was it revoked against the Japanese. The Japanese internments were the result of Executive Order 9066 (and regulations promulgated to effect it) which was later upheld by the Supreme Court (Korematsu case), but these internments are now widely viewed as violative of the Constitution (including habeas and due process). You are certainly correct that habeas corpus could probably be suspended by Congress (or arguably by the President) now (and in effect, that's already occurred under the unlawful enemy combatant designations). However, the Supreme Court last year upheld habeas corpus in the Hamdi (unlawful enemy combatant) case. 66.32.72.157 14:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (JVB)
Image:LaughterTears.gif
LMAO!! I like yours better than mine! It almost sounds like you're serious. --Zephram Stark 19:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

""But my reputation and credibility are irrelevant." They are certainly not irrelevant when you cite yourself three times in the references. ;)" I am new to wikipedia, but I am almost positive that you arent supposed to sight yourself. On to a more relavant satement, the article is still in progress, but it seems that it is miising something important, a contraversy section. I notice that most articles have one, and I think that by adding one that you can create a better, and stronger article. -- User:False Prophet

[edit] Updates on USA PATRIOT Act Wikipedia entry

To those persons who deleted entire, large portions of my updates to the USA PATRIOT Act Wikipedia page:

Some of the information posted on this topic was inaccurate -- some eggregiously so. I corrected, updated, and clarified the information, citing to the United States Code provisions in the text, where appropriate, so that readers could look up this information themselves.

You took down these changes and deleted the sources I cited, including those posted in the "Critical Views" section.

Why would you do this unless you do not want readers to have full and accurate information?

Please look up those provisions yourselves and see that my citations and information are accurate.

One of you commented in your edit that there were other sources than my J.D. degree. I don't use my J.D. degree as a source in any context, including in my articles on this or other topics, in my book on the PATRIOT Act, in my speeches or debates -- and not here either. I always cite to my sources, as I do here.

The information I posted in this article is all verifiable and is the result of many thousands of hours of research and writing on my part, much of which has been widely recognized as accurate. It has been utilized by the ACLU (and I have even pointed out their errors to them), as well as by the National War College and individual FBI agents and Assistant United States Attorneys. My work has been published by reputable law journals and resorted to by congress-persons, lawyers, and judges.

But my reputation and credibility are irrelevant. What is important is the accuracy of my sources. Before you go changing this article back to its previous, inaccurate form, check my sources.

After posting this, I noticed your earlier discussion about my changes, Zephram. You say you invited me to get an account. I never saw this invite but when I saw the reversions, I did so, and am here now to discuss as your (or anyone else's) leisure. J.D. means Juris Doctor. It's a law degree.

I have reverted the article, which I was loathe to do, but again, the information I took out was either incorrect or misleading, and the stuff I added was crucial to understanding the topic. I am willing to discuss this with anyone here, but I am not willing to have all my sources removed, as was done Before you consider removing them again, you should check the sources yourselves. It will take you, as it did me, a HUGE amount of time checking them. Meantime, please leave them as they are.

If people want to add back in information that I took out, let's discuss it here first, since I contend that it was incorrect and/or misleading.

JVB

I removed your duplicate comment. I do not believe it was intentional.
The issue with your edits was that you completely removed many sections. For example, the intro contained the USA PATRIOT ACT's definition of "terrorism". If you go to the terrorism article on Wikipedia, you can see there is no clear description of what the word means. So, when a law is sold to the public as "anti-terrorism", it is very important to explain what it means by terrorism. Therefore, it is better to make large changes (such as deleting a section) one at a time to ensure there is a consensus. Some people have pet sections that they will fight tooth and nail over. It isn't a matter of what is factual or not.
If you go back many versions (to last year), you can see that the article has made a lot of progress. For example, it wasn't very long ago that the history of FISA and the USA ACT was introduced to the article. This does not mean that I agree with everything the article said before your changes, nor does it mean that I agree with all of the changes that you made. I just feel that the article is maturing nicely and shouldn't have a single mass update, abandoning previous work. Kainaw 02:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello to Kainaw, Zephram, & horsepunchkid. I am really just learning how to use wikipedia, so thanks for the assistance. I will respond to each of these posts directly below each for clarity. I deleted the terrorism definition because it was incorrect. It was not complete and it misstated one section. Referring to another Wikipedia article for the definition is not, in my opinion, the way to verify this. There certainly ARE clear (and multiple) definitions of terrorism within the Patriot act (although they can be very confusing and I've written about this extensively in some of the articles of mine that I posted). Check out the chart I did at this URL: http://pegc.no-ip.info/jvb/articles/FTO_Chart.CPLPEJ.doc. Consensus is not adequate in this context. We can all agree on what the PATRIOT Act says, but we can all be wrong. What really matters is what the PATRIOT Act SAYS. It certainly is a matter of what is fact. 66.32.45.47 (JVB)

The USA Act is NOT a source for the PATRIOT Act, even if it was a bill that underlay it. In fact, the PATRIOT Act has many, many sources and the USA Act is not even significant in that picture. The FISA information is very important but the statement that the PATRIOT Act is only an amendment of FISA is so completely incorrect, it's almost embarrassing. The FISA provisions in the Act are about 1/10th of the whole. 66.32.45.47 20:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC) JVB

I'm glad you came back, JVB. I think you have a lot to add to the article, but I also believe that other people have much to add as well. Therefore, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, you are not the final authority on the subject. This is a group effort. Even if you think you know more about the USA PATRIOT Act than everyone else in the world, combined, I doubt that the rest of the world will see it that way. If you are willing to convince us that each part you propose to change is better than what the dozens of people who have worked in consensus to achieve have added, I know that the article will improve. I'm sure it will take a long time to merge the changes you propose with the existing article, and I hope you realize that you will not always get your way, but I'm willing to work on it if you are. --Zephram Stark 04:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I do not propose to be the final authority but neither is a factual issue merely a matter of group opinion. It is not about my way. In fact, if I had my way, large sections of the PATRIOT would not even exist. 66.32.45.47 20:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC) JVB
Now that is something most of us probably agree on! ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for coming back, JVB. A quick suggestion: You can sign your comments here by typing ~~~~ after the text. This will insert your user name and the date of the comment in order to help people follow the flow of the discussion.
The changes being discussed are summarized here. I agree with Zephram Stark that though there were some valuable additions, the large excisions seriously offset them. For example, the sections labelled September 11, 2001 Attacks and USA PATRIOT Act (discussing the USA Act) were entirely removed. It almost looks like each of the changes could be debated on a point-by-point basis, since the diff has captured them pretty well. continued below —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't have time now to look at these again. (I'm presently working on major revisions of a 50+ page law journal article on "Administrative Detentions & Torture" that is being published by the Case Journal of Int'l Law.) But as I said, the USA Act is really irrelevant to the discussion since it was never enacted and covers only a minor portion of the provisions in the PATRIOT Act. 66.32.45.47 20:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC) JVB
It is fallacious to claim that the USA Act is irrelevant merely because it was not enacted. The text of the USA Act article makes it sound like the PATRIOT Act was very significantly related to the USA Act. Perhaps that article is also in dire need of correction. :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
You're right, but the USA Act is merely a draft for the PATRIOT Act, and is not otherwise of much importance. If you read David Cole's book, it provides you with the full history and background to the PATRIOT Act. 66.32.72.157 14:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (JVB)
"But my reputation and credibility are irrelevant." They are certainly not irrelevant when you cite yourself three times in the references. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
No, these things are NOT relevant. What IS relevant is the information found in those pieces of mine (and others, by the way, that I posted and were deleted). THAT is why I posted them. They contain massive amounts of source material. Please check them out. 66.32.45.47 20:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC) JVB
IANAL, so I don't know how it works in your system, but in any scientific field I have studied, when you cite an author, regardless of who it is, you assert that the reputation of the author is high enough for the information in the cited source to be credible. That's all I'm getting at. If you don't want your credibility to be an issue (and I don't think it is, though you seem intent on defending it :-), then perhaps you could remove a level from the citation chain and just cite the sources you have cited in your papers. —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
HorsePunchKid - citing my sources would take me days, weeks, months. They are voluminous. I don't view myself as the final authority (and remember, you raised this issue, not me), but I do cite to my works because they contain compilations and discussions of authorities. 66.32.72.157 14:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)(JVB)

[edit] Nomination for spawning a child article

When adding a missing parenthesis, I noticed the warning that the article is larger than normal and should be split. Normall, a large section is split off into a child article to grow on its own. Should that be done? If so, which section should be split off? My suggestion would be the "Abuses" section. Right now, that section is limited because the content inside should be limited to the article, the USA PATRIOT Act. However, if it were split into a new article, the content can grow easily to cover any and all abuses in detail without someone arguing that it takes away from the article topic. Kainaw 16:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Since the abuses are the main story (the things that people most often reference), perhaps it would be better to split everything else off into a separate article. --Zephram Stark 22:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Since nobody has voiced an opposition to having two separate but linked articles, I will split the Abuses section into a separate article and provide a brief description and link on the main article. I suggest the title of the new article be Abuses under the USA PATRIOT Act. I know that they are referred to as Alleged Abuses in this article. I will add an intro to the new article to point out that they are alleged. I just wanted to shorten the title.
I won't do this today. I want to give some time for those opposed to this idea to voice their opposition. Pre-answering comments that may be voices... It is my opinion that separating a section does not make it less important. The opposite is true. It is more important because it requires a new article all to itself. As I mentioned in my previous comment, a new article will allow the description of the abuses to grow a great deal. An example of this is on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Oil controversy was split and it quickly grew in detail. I hope that the same would happen here.
Playing devil's advocate: If we split off an Abuses article, shouldn't we be completely NPOV and have something along the lines of Successful Investigations? I know there are almost no examples of successful investigations using the USA PATRIOT Act, but it looks very negative to only list the abuses. It appears we are hiding the successes on purpose instead of demonstrating that they are few and far between. Kainaw 15:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
As described here, I split the Abuses section for the two reasons mentioned: Brevity of the main article and the ability to expound on the abuses without cluttering up the main article. Kainaw 21:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patriot Act / Sedition Act

The Patriot act has some simmalarites to the 1796 sedition act. Anyone think so???

Check at these:

Good observation. Yes, they do and I wrote about these laws and their similarity to the PATRTIOT Act in part two of my article "Repeal the Patriot Act" in April 2002. 66.32.72.157 15:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (JVB)

[edit] Next to useless

I'm very sad to say that this article is next to useless. Neither the USA Act or USA PATRIOT Act detail the various clauses. There is tantalising detail here about what the Act contained: for instance, it allowed the FBI to employ translators!

I notice that the actual text of the Act has ten titles, each with their own important subsections. Hardly any are covered in this article. This makes it impossible for me to evaluate the criticisms levelled at the Act. I find that this is sad, especially in the light of the following sentence (from the article): "According to The Gallup Organization, the public is wary but ignorant about the USA PATRIOT Act." This article doesn't do much at all to assist with informing anyone about the scope of the Act!

Surely we can do better than this? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking over the article, Ta bu shi da yu has a good point. Given the length of the article, it's surprising how little I knew about the Act at the end of it. Of course, that means that an article that did provide the information would be huge; is there any sensible way to subdivide it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I have made a start on the titles. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I heartily endorse this effort. The Act is immense and there is no real overview here of all that it covers. In fact, your earlier version that I deleted said only that the Act was an amendment of FISA which is so erroneous it's embarrassing, esp. when you consider the ten titles. Ta bu shi da yu, I'm glad you are working on it. 66.32.106.144 12:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC) (JVB)

[edit] The Ten Titles & a Few Sources

My article on the designation and material support provisions is not yet available online. The journal promised to post it, but it isn't up yet.

However, there is another article that looks very good on similar questions. It's at http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jol/vol42_1/chesney.php.

This, of course, covers only a tiny corner of the PATRIOT Act provisions.

The best book on all the titles is C. William Michaels' book "No Greater Threat: America After September 11." He has sections on each title and has an updated version coming out that covers more recent legislation that amends or complements the Act.

I will post these sources on the wikipedia entry, too. 66.32.106.144 12:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC) (JVB)

[edit] Miniproject started

I've started a miniproject, mainly because I really can't be stuffed making a Wikiproject (too much work). Anyone who wants to assist can contribute their and on the articles themselves. Wikipedia:Miniproject USA PATRIOT Act. Let's get this article up to speed! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Info. About Non-citizen Detentions?

There is almost nothing in this article concerning the detention of non-citizens, which is another debated provision. I believe it is mentioned in the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act article, but I see little about it in this one. I am not sure if there has been many abuses of this but it deserves some mention. - 12.201.16.126 16:57, November 18, 2005

I don't believe the PATRIOT Act covers the detention of non-citizens... however, I've been steadily working through summarising the act so I may find I am wrong about this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Sadly, I am wrong. See section Section 412: MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS. When I get to title IV I will summarise. I'm working backwards, writing up about each title in detail - then I'll come back to this article and start sorting it out. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What Legislators Admit To Not Reading The Patriot Act?

I've been hearing this debate for awhile. It was used in an episode of Penn and Teller on Showtime, in Fahrenheit 9/11(which I didn't watch), and in several blogs. However, to my knowlege nobody has actually listed the people who admit to never reading it. Can anyone tell me how many legislators have actually admitted to not even reading it and if there are any legitimate reasons why? Some claim it is because they wanted to debate the issues later and needed the act to be passed right after 9/11. Others just say they were too lazy and most people in congress never read the legislation anyway. I think it would be an important thing to add to the article. - Zack

I agree. We should work that out. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
See http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/policeState.html - Insight on the News, Kelly Patricia O'Meara - "Police State". Dunno how verifiable it is though. It does say:
Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote -- at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."
Food for thought. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting Wikipedia

Could someone design a template to be added to all legislation that gives a caveat along the lines of "this does not constitute legal advice - seek appropriate qualified advice, legislation can change and this article may not be up to date etc etc." Otherwise this is a lawsuit waiting to happen! User:AndrewRT

No. We don't do that. We have a general disclaimer that is all we need, and if anyone takes this article for legal advice, to be frank they are a fool. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
On further investigation I noted the disclaimer on the bottom of the page which seems adequate and the template Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer which I'll use in future AndrewRT 17:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
No additional disclaimers are necessary. Our blanket legal disclaimer for the project is sufficient. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Name

Must "Patriot" be ALL in capitals? It think it makes it look horrible. It would seriously look better if it was just: "USA Patriot Act". --Kilo-Lima 15:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"PATRIOT" is a backronym, and traditionally acronyms are spelt in capital letters. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson

[edit] Status of this article

It's getting better, but it still has a long way to go. My thoughts later. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stopping a persistent POV pusher...

... I have temporarily semi-protected this page to stop a particularly insistent editor who keeps adding Benjamin Franklin quotes. I might have noted it on the talk page, but I didn't mean for it to be added to the article! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Predecessors

I'd just like to make the point that FISA was not a predecessor of the Patriot Act (at least not an Act that was incorporated into the Patriot Act at any rate). Title II did a lot of amending of it, however. I'd also like to point out that the article Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is rather incomplete, and something I'd like to see expanded upon. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International money laundering abatement and anti-terrorist financing act of 2001 and Miscellaneous

When are these sections going to be put up? Zachorious 07:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Be bold, give it a try! Assawyer 07:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Short answer: when I finish Title II :-) Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's taken me four months, but I have finally read and understood Title II and Title III. You can read about Title III in USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, though I still have to write its history. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also entry

Reichstag Fire Decree should not be in the See also section for two reasons:

  1. it is already dealt with in the comparisons to other laws section, and
  2. it is really nothing like the Patriot Act.

I have removed it from the section. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Both infringe(d) upon civil liberities of citizens of the respective countries. 2. Both were created as a reaction to acts of terrorism (though the RFD was engineered by the Nazi).--KrossTalk 14:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What part infringes on civil liberties? Give me a section, and tell me why. The translation of the the decree is nothing like the Patriot Act - I doubt you'll be able to tell me the exact section where they impinge upon civil liberties. So if 2) is the best you can give me, then that's not too good, I feel. I again emphasise, however, that this Decree is already covered in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Alien sedition act and such are already covered in the comparison section, yet are also linked in the see also section. Proof Patriot impinges on civil liberties? Have you watched the news for the past few years?--KrossTalk 04:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed I have. Name an instance. We should be removing those other links, I'll get to it. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I reverted your link removal before I noticed this discussion. Can you please include "see talk" in your edit summary next time? Thanks! Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman 19:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No, you should be checking the talk page before reverting anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congressional Action

This section should be updated to include information about the latest extension (to March 10th) and information about the compromise that may have been reached ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act;_ylt=At1yLTxbvFcEMD7gUMPk99qs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY- ). I am not familar with what the sticking points were so I shall leave it to someone more informed. 70.161.91.189 23:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Liberties concerns

Does the article express the civil liberties concerns of Americans (and others) who worry that the Act gives too much power to the Executive branch?

  • That the current (or next) Administration might abuse the Patriot Act to spy on its domestic political opponents for partisan advantage?

Should the article balance this concern against the concern of others that overseas phone calls (between US numbers and, say, numbers in Pakistan) might be used to coordinate hostile acts against the U.S.?

Which people or parties oppose / support the Patriot Act, and for what reasons? It's not clear at a glance, and I don't think our readers should have to comb through every word of the article to get the answer to this. --Uncle Ed 15:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


  • I agree. There is too much clutter in the article. The bottom line is who supports it and who does not. --Bookofsecrets 09:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What about trying to explain what the Act actually says first? Surely that is more important than giving opinions? After all, people can't judge the veracity of opinions if they don't know what is being opined. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patriot Act: GOOD or BAD?

Obviously, the Wikipedia article should be as objective as possible. However, for a student that's only trying to get an overview, the article has too many facts and too little perspective. I tried to read through the article, but also kept getting stuck on the legal (?) jargon. Would it be going against any rules/codes of conduct to post links to various editorials (with different persepectives) concerning the Patriot Act? (A lot of Wiki articles have a "related links" section).

xxcerise@yahoo.com

Thank you.

The problem here is that the Patriot Act is vast. Have a look at USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, I wrote this and I got an article that was 4 times larger than anything I've written before. And that's just one title! However, I take your point on board. What I'm doing is documenting what the Act says title by title, then I'll start working on this article. Editorials, incidently, are fine: however they won't necessarily make things clearer. There is a lot of misinformation about the Act (regrettably, we perpetuated some of it in earlier revisions). - Ta bu shi da yu 12:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars References

As a citizen of the United States, regardless of whether I agree with this act or not, I'd like to NOT have to spend an hour of my day removing reverences to the "Galactic Senate" and "Supreme Chancellor of the United States" from an article which should ALWAYS be neutral. It's disturbing that I just had to do that and it lowers my opinion of Wikipedia. I don't want it to lower other people's opions as well.

Someone from "Merrimack Educational Center" was responsible, which gives the impression that a bored or delinquent schoolboy/girl was responsible. I had to fix some more of the same. Frankly it was one of the most destructive vandalisms I'd seen in that other people made legit contributions over top of it, which made it impossible to just revert. I'm going to check and see if I missed anything now... 68.39.174.238 00:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to mention, I got so disgusted after a little bit that I just reverted the whole page. Sorry guys. 68.39.174.238 02:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I encourage this in a lot of ways. I think it was fine. Always make sure you keep doing what you are doing though - note your revert on the talk page to give people a chance to reverse you revert, or at least discuss it. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag that an anon added as nothing has been stated on the talk page before it was added. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Methamphetamine

Just read this news report about an amendment to the renewed Patriot Act that targets those who synthesize the drug:

The law also takes aim at the methamphetamine trade by imposing new restrictions on the sale of over-the-counter cold and allergy medicines, which contain a key ingredient for the drug. Customers will be limited to buying 300 30-milligram pills in a month or 120 such pills in a day. The measure would make an exception for "single-use" sales -- individually packaged pseudoephedrine products. By Sept. 30, retailers will be required to sell such medicines from behind the counter and purchasers would have to show ID and sign log books.

--Howrealisreal 15:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research

Feel free to contribute! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: currenlty reviewing the below history section, as have been informed I'm offbase somewhat. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
History and background of Act
Notes
  • The bill originated in the House of Representatives as a public bill.
  • In 2003 Slate stated that:
    How bad is Patriot, really? Hard to tell. The ACLU, in a new fact sheet challenging the DOJ Web site, wants you to believe that the act threatens our most basic civil liberties. Ashcroft and his roadies call the changes in law "modest and incremental." Since almost nobody has read the legislation, much of what we think we know about it comes third-hand and spun. Both advocates and opponents are guilty of fear-mongering and distortion in some instances.
    (source)
  • THOMAS's Congressional Record is the place to look for debate on the Act.
  • The Subcommittee on the Constitution (part of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives) met to discuss Anti-Terrorism Investigations and the Fourth Amendment After September 11, 2001.
The USA PATRIOT Act modifies FISA (1977 I think), so shouldn't that be in the history? --Kainaw (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikiPEDIA?

As i tried to read this article I failed to understand a few simple basics facts regarding the act:
Except for defining domestic and foreign terror, what does the Act actualy means? What will happen to a person who is charged in terror? what legal procedures will that person undergo? If the Act does not dictates these things, I rather think it would be logical to mention this on the article. anot question that jumped into my head: how does the Act "sits" with The Constitution? 212.179.126.2 09:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

All extremely good questions. I am currently working backwards through the Act documenting each of the Titles in turn (Blackcap is also doing this). A good deal of information about Title II — one of the most controversial bits — has already been documented in USA PATRIOT Act, Title II and constitutional arguments are covered. Anyway, once I have finished documenting each of the ten titles, I intend to rework this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Due to the high amount of vandalism (at least once per day) I am semi-protecting this article. A good deal of vandalism appears to coming from schools, so accounts will need to be registered for some time to edit this article. I'm leaving this semi-protected for a while. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bbc19842.jpg

[edit] Is this the crassest name ever given to a piece of legislation in a democratic country?

Well, does anyone know of any that are worse? Osomec 23:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Nineteen Eighty-Four. Remember, Big Brother watches you. --VinceB 20:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about:
  • Electricity Needs Rules and Oversight Now Act (ENRON Act)
  • Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM Act)
  • Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices Act (PUMP Act)
  • Safe Notification and Information For Fragrances Act (SNIFF Act)
  • Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness through Advance Notification, Updates and Posting Act (CLEAN UP Act)
Just to name a few. By the way - it is easier to use Google than to try and come up with new reasons to hate the USA PATRIOT Act. The old reasons are just fine. --Kainaw (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reichstag Fire Decree and the Alien and Sedition Acts

Orin Kerr, a noted professor of law at The George Washington University Law School said the following about our article:

While I'm at it, may I be so bold as to suggest that the Patriot Act is not historically similar to the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Alien and Sedition Acts (currently the #1 and #2 entries in the list of historically similar laws)? Also, most of the "alleged abuses" listed in the Wikipedia entry do not actually involve the Patriot Act. - (source)

I'm removing them both until I can get a verifiable and reliable source that says it's similar. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The following is what I've just removed from the main article:

  • The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. The Alien Act allowed the President to arrest, imprison, and deport "dangerous" immigrants on mere suspicion of "treasonable or secret machinations against the government." If a deported alien returned, the President could imprison him for as long as he thought "the public safety may require." The Sedition Act made it unlawful for any person to write, print, publish, or speak anything "false, scandalous and malicious" about the government, either Congress or the Executive, if it was done with the intent to defame or to bring the government "into contempt or disrepute," or to excite the hatred of the people against the United States. It is arguable whether the PATRIOT Act does this, although some, such as Peter P. Swire, believe that the debate about such things as government access to library records has been important as a symbol of possible over-reaching in government surveillance. See "Repeal the USA PATRIOT Act" by Jennifer Van Bergen, listed below in critics section. The library provisions were dropped in 2006.
The Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State (Reichstag Fire Decree) and subsequent Enabling Act that empowered Adolf Hitler to seize control of Germany are occasionally compared to the USA PATRIOT Act.[17] The similarities are that both were passed after an act of terrorism, both were passed quickly, and both limited civil liberties with the expressed purpose of protecting the people. The English translation of Article 1 of the DRPPPS states that the decree intends "...to restrict the rights to personal freedom, freedom of speech, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of letters, mail, telegraphs and telephones, order searches and confiscations and restrict property, even if this is not otherwise provided for by present law." The USA PATRIOT Act is not as explicit about its intentions, often wording the act in terms of what civil liberties and safeguards people have left.
The Reichstag Fire Decree differs from the USA PATRIOT Act in that the DRPPPS more explicitly seizes states rights and associates the death penalty with many offenses. Additionally, some of the USA PATRIOT Act has a sunset provision, whereas the set expiration date of the Enabling Act was dependent upon a succession of power, and the DRPPPS did not have a set expiration date. The USA PATRIOT Act and the Enabling Act were both passed by a freely elected Congress, whereas the DRPPPS was an "emergency decree" by the German president made at the behest of Chancellor Hitler.
Although the USA PATRIOT Act differs in some respects, the Reichstag Fire Decree and subsequent Enabling Act are cited as examples of how giving up civil liberties in times of crisis can be used to legally overthrow a government's constitution from within.

I don't see reliable sources for these assertions. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it was correct to remove the things you did, but you may want to also remove the corresponding entries in the "See also" section. --Willwallace 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have. I have also added fact tags to two of the other laws, unless a source is provided in say a fortnight, I'll also shift that content to the talk page also. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The Reichstag section above was just copied by an anon into the article. I do not see anything here of an agreement to reinsert it into the article. If I am wrong, please put it back in the article. I just feel that it is rather silly to put it in with nothing more than a long-winded explanation that it really isn't all that closely related to the Patriot Act. --Kainaw (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial USA or The American Empire

Imperial USA or American Empire is born with this act. A new era in a true democracy. One should note, The Patriot Act is the the rebirth of a new glorious empire. Hail democracy. Hail Imperial America. Hail President Bush. President Bush 4 life. Bush for King. USA is the King of Kings. Hail The American Empire!

We continually get nuts (like the one above) that don't have any comprehension about how a bill is made into a law (hint: the President only signs his agreement to enforce them once Congress creates them). However, we never seem get anyone who has actually been abused by the USA PATRIOT Act. Where's all the people tossed in jail for life because they accidentally searched for "how to make a dirty bomb" in Google? Where's all the people who were deported because they checked out Chairman Mao's little red book from the local library? Where's all the people sitting in a holding cell for eternity without charges because they accidentally dialed a number in Iran when they meant to be ordering pizza? I keep hearing "Bush is out to get YOU!!!", but we just don't get the hordes and hordes of people unjustly abused by evil little Bush around here. What am I missing? --Kainaw (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'm sorry. I shouldn't read controversial talk pages after giving 2 pints of blood and having very little sleep. --Kainaw (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Try the gate for foreigners in any international us airport, I guarantee you won't defend this so blind as you do now. You will be treated like a criminal. --VinceB 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, what part of the USA PATRIOT Act are you referring to? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You know - article "Lock up all the foreigners at the airport". I know that is been hell over here. I work at a medical university with over 50% foreign students and doctors. You can imagine what it has been like since Bush took over. I think Dr. Okonofua had to paddle over from Nigera on an inflatible tube. Dr. Jesri snuck over from Syria to Israel and pretended to be Jewish so he could get in. And Dr. Kalamanoski - well, even though she is Canadian, with a name like that she won't be seeing daylight anytime soon. --Kainaw (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a shame how much damage the general climate of paranoia has done to the US. It used to be one of the prefered locations for meetings and conferences (especially scientific and business ones). All the beaurocratic hassle involed in getting into the US these days makes it much less attractive. Foreign Student numbers have also been dropping and many talented people now decide to study in the UK, as an example, instead. Every highly talented individual, whatever his or her background, used to be forced to at least consider the US as a place to live and work, I fear that is no longer the case.
As for the PATRIOT Act itself the only imposition I can see on foreign travel in it (admitedly only from reading the Wikipedia Article) is to do with machine readable passports. Does this provision have any relation to the one in the "U.S. Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002" which requires any foreigners wishing to gain entry to the US under the VISA waiver program to have machine readable passports and for ones issued after 26/10/2006 biometric passports? --Thyspe 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Where is your source on this? I work at the Medical University of South Carolina. Foreign student numbers have increased every year - including after the Patriot act. At the College of Charleston, nearby, foreign student numbers have increased. We have a big conference center (Charleston Place). Foreign meetings have continually increased. Are you claiming that Charleston, SC is somehow excempt from the Patriot act - or, are you just making up some story about the Patriot act and paranoia? --Kainaw (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
As I said most of what I wrote above has little or nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act and more to do with a change in the political and administrative climate. I did not research proper sources for what I said. It is my impression and opinion garnered from the magazines I read like the "Scientific American", the "New Scientist" and the "Private Eye" (a UK magazine which, though I would not use it as a reliable source, digs up interesting stories and anecdotes). I just wanted to add a comment to the preceding discussion.
I just looked for a story about VISA troubles and the general difficulty of entering the US on google. It concerns the Hallé Orchestra who had to cancel their US tour due to the increased cost in providing VISAs for all their musicians following the tightening up of procedures after 9/11 ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/01/do0103.xml ). As far as Science is concerned here is a petition to the Department of State to review their VISA procedures http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/May/13-916953.html . Here is also a piece containing several quotes about trouble foreign Scientists have obtaining VISAs for entry in the US http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23218/ however it also states that things are improving. As for the drop in Foreign Student numbers the only reliable (non-general media article type) I found after a cursory search is this http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_416.asp . It shows that Foreign Student numbers peaked 02/03 and then declined in 03/04, this follows a long rising trend. However this could be a one off blip as there is no data available from this source after 03/04. This survey http://www.nafsa.org/press_releases.sec/press_releases.pg/new_survey_shows_foreign of enrollment in 11/2005 states that foreign student enrollment numbers were flat. Searching for a drop in Foreign Students on google comes up with quite a few articles but far fewer primary sources.
The bit related to the PATRIOT Act was the question in my second paragraph. Which I would still be curious about. Also if it does actually change the status of Foreigners in the US anyway? I also just re-read that Telegraph opinion piece and it mentions something about Journalists not being exempt under the US VISA waiver program anymore. Anyways, I apologise for the ugly links etc. I'm rather new at this... Thyspe 21:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Visas are a problem - but not a new one. The USA PATRIOT Act doesn't help or hinder gaining a visa (unless you are suspected of a crime that falls in the realm of investigations covered by the act - but then, I think the U.S. would want you in the U.S. so they could investigate you easier). A funny thing - I bumped into the immigration lawyer for our University at lunch yesterday (literally bumped into him and knocked his Chik-fil-a lunch on the floor). I paid for his lunch and asked him about the current visa environment. It turns out that medical universities in poor areas (aka - Southern U.S.) are an exception to the rule. Before Clinton left office, Congress passed a law about medical relief in poor areas. It puts medical people (and students) at the front of the line for getting a visa if they are going to work in a poor area. So, I then asked a couple doctors I work with about it. One is from Syria. He have over in 2003. He said that he was told he could get a visa easily if he chose a place in the southeast. He wanted to go to New York, but he couldn't get a visa for that. I then asked a doctor from Nigeria who came over in 2001. He was trying to move last year. Because of his visa, he was limited to poor areas, so he opted to move to New Orleans - got a job, house, plane ticket, and all. The day before his flight was supposed to leave, Katrina hit. So, he's still with us. All in all, it may very well be that non-medical people are having more trouble getting visas since there is a specific loophole just for medical people in poor areas. --Kainaw (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I chatted with the doc from Syria today. He said two things that were a bit interesting. First, you won't find many doctors from Syria coming to the U.S. because they are paid so well there. Second, getting a visa for working in the U.S. is harder on the Syrian side than the U.S. side. I didn't really understand, but was saying that you may have all your paperwork OK and then say something to your wife in your bedroom in the morning and then not have a visa later that day. It really made no sense to me. I thought that applying for a visa had nothing to do with your own country. For example, if I apply for a visa to work in Syria, the U.S. has no say in the matter. Of course, I'm probably completely wrong on that. --Kainaw (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The Indenting is getting a bit silly.  :o)
I'd guess the Doc was probably more talking about social pressures. Rather than administrative ones. It could be equated with an American saying he wants to work for a Taliban warlord. Friends and family might not be too enthusiatic about that. As to the US Government preventing someone to work or emigrate to Syria, I'm sure that if certain people were to want to do it significant barriers would be put in their way. I'm not sure how much the US could do directly to prevent them from leaving though.
Anyways, moving back on topic. I think it is a bit of a shame that the Main article only covers the domestic implications or the limitations of rights of US citizens, while glossing over things like the right of the President to confiscate anything belonging to a foreign national or country deemed to be associated to terrorism by the President without any evidence needing to be presented or disclosed (Section 106). It also doesn't mention the impact the money laundering section has on immigrants wanting to send money home to their families. Using traditional banks is too expensive for the small sum involved and the informal system in use has nearly been criminalised by the Patriot Act. Thyspe 15:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you have a source to a critic, I could use it on USA PATRIOT Act, Title III. One day I'll have all these articles done and then I can summarise them ALL into a proper section on this article and then start sorting things out! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1984

(Moved comment to it's own section) Does anyone think this sounds a little like 1984? "With the invention of devices that could simultaneously receive and transmit..." Plus the name would be a perfect fit. Ministry of love=torture USA PATRIOT Act=decidedly UNpatriotic. I would consider myself a patriot Nofrendo 06:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Many people claim this this is like 1984. They say "Big Brother is watching you". They claim that it is funny that the PATRIOT Act is anything but Patriotic. Just as many people claim that this is nothing like 1984. They say that nobody cares enough about you to be watching you. They point out that there is no specific accepted definition of Patriotic. (A man burns a flag because he is patriotic. Someone else beats him up, because he is patriotic. A third sues them both because he is patriotic...) All in all, I strongly suggest you read the article. You may learn what the USA PATRIOT Act really is - and what it isn't. --Kainaw (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps "unpatriotic" is the wrong word. I think "unconstitutional" is more appropriate.
I am wondering what, exactly, is unconstitutional about this legislation? Please refer me to a section that has not already been repealed by the courts. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The patriot act has been used to fight small crime like strip club owners and matters regarding copyright and pot dealers. Think about that, the Iraq war is a part of the war on terrorism and so is the patriot act. What that means is that the military and homeland security are fighting both a technical military war as well domestic “terrorists" (crime) as a part of the same war. So in theory U.S. citizens could be rounded and put in the places like Guantanmo Bay (and yes they are building massive detention centres in the U.S.).

The War on terrorism shouldn't be considered a literal war any more than "the war on drugs", yet Bush has used his title as commander in chief and used the military to fight this "war". By this logic he could quite easily use the military to fight criminals, in affect creating a police state.

Of course he couldn't get away with it...failing "some catastrophic and catalysing event -- like a new"...September 11th.

Oh and if your going to support the Iran war, think about this...China and Russia support Iran as well as Nth Korea. If the US gets it's hand on just about all the oil coming out of the Middle East, it will strangle China and Russia of resources, just like the world strangled Japan of resources in the Second World War and we all know how they reacted.

If you base an argument on a lie, you can take the argument anywhere you like. The Patriot Act is not an "anti-terrorism" law. There are parts of it that are used to battle terrorism, but that is just a part of the entire act. You may as well say, "The Patriot Act was passed to control illegal shipments of bananas into to the U.S. and now it is being used to track terrorist funds passing in and out of the United States! Big brother is out to get you!!!" As I've said many times, there are many (MANY) reasons to dislike the Patriot Act - you don't need to make up new ones. --Kainaw (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think that the anon has a fair point on this one. The law's stated purpose is to counter terrorism, not to deal with domestic crime. However, if the law is being used against strip club owners, then I'd like to see the news reports and court material, because I'm trying to work out what part of the Act would have applied to the prosecutions! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I just removed my first comment as I found the article in question. The Patriot act was used to investigate bribery and racketeering - which is not the first time that has been done. I still think this is a situation where the Patriot Act is too broad and needs to be broken into smaller laws. Then, people will stop thinking that the Patriot Act is ONLY an anti-terrorism law. --Kainaw (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the only important part of the news article: "Sources said the FBI sought the records under Section 314 of the act. That section allows federal investigators to obtain information from any financial institution regarding the accounts of people "engaged in or reasonably suspected, based on credible evidence, of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering activities." --Kainaw (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

“ Legal scholars have stated that Bush is exposing himself to great legal risk, for example, in any civil or criminal litigation related to abuse of detainees or violations of the Bill of Rights, as by issuing this "signing statement" he is effectively giving his underlings written permission to act in violation of a law he himself has just signed. ”
This is a portentious statement, and I think it needs a link to the relevant works of these legal scholars. Λυδαcιτγ 17:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. My suggestion is to remove it from the article until it is sourced. However, given the general low quality of this article, I doubt that it will make the article any worse if you leave it in. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ouch. Yes, I removed it already. Λυδαcιτγ 17:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
So I noticed :-) The article will be better one day, I have just finished summarising Title V of the Act, now on to Title VI! - Ta bu shi da yu 18:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACLU Pro? Con!

Someone just added the following link: Nonpartisan Examination of the Patriot Act. I think this group's status as "non-partisan" is bogus. It's an anti-ACLU site because it is based on questioning whether the ACLU is good for America. The way the site frames the "ACLU debate" is anti-ACLU propaganda. [18] If this link stays I suggest it be renamed. I think it's preferable to delete it, however, because of the deceptive presentation of the website as "balanced" and "unbiased." Peruse the site and you will see what I am talking about. Also note the user's talk page. Rlitwin 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the word "nonpartisan" is misleading, since it seems to imply a balanced treatment, while in fact only meaning that the viewpoint is not based on any specific party. On the other hand, I think the site itself is well-done and pretty balanced. The ACLU site seems to be an offshoot of the main site, http://procon.org, which categorizes issues in different categories. I assume the Patriot Act simply fell under the ACLU because they don't have a generic civil liberties site.
As for the edit history of the user, I don't think we should discard a good link becuase of the possible bad motives of the person who added it. I kept the link, but changed the wording to "Pros vs. Cons Examination of the Patriot Act". Λυδαcιτγ 22:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting site, I'd support leaving the external link in this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] shorten the article

Maybe this article should be shortened to just the basic facts about the usa patriot act because it is too long IMO and that sometimes may makes people not want to read the whole thing. Just keep it brief.

I tried long ago, but there are too many people who feel it is a life or death matter that they warn you about Bush's plan to become Supreme Leader of the Universe by using the Patriot Act to see what books you are checking out at the library. Personally, I'd like an article on Anti-Patriot Act claims that have no basis in reality. It would fill up quickly. --Kainaw (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you help out then? I have one last article about title X that needs fixing. Once this is fixed, I intend to start research some background history of the Act and the reauthorization act. Once that is done, I'm going to start fixing the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

Concerning the nomination for Good Article status, I have put the nomination "On Hold" because:

  • The article does not contain sufficient references, whole sections lacking citations in some cases. For example, the quotes in the end of the "Provisions" section are not cited.
  • The article is marked for clean-up. I don't know how well that tag is deserved, but an article that does not match Wikipedia quality most certainly doesn't deserve GA status.

If those changes are made, I would consider passing the article. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, I would strongly oppose calling this article "good" in any way! It's totally disorganised for one, and almost misleading in many other ways. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
If the nominator consider such, then he ought to remove his candidacy (... and work on the article). Lincher 20:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

After 17 days the article still hasn't improved enough to pass Criteria 2. Couple that with the fact that there is still a pending clean up tag on the page (for what I'm assuming is some awkward sentence structures) and the fact that even the nominator doesn't consider this a good article, I'm going to decline the Good Article nomination at this time. Cielomobile was very generous with the length of time he gave beyond the normal 7 day hold. Agne 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I actually made a mistake when I listed this article. I should have relisted USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, and not this one. Apologies for any confusion. Is the article still up for nomination? Sorry, I'm slightly out of things while I prepare for my marriage. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ??

Where is the logig? If the law is ""Signed into law by President Bush on October 26"", then is quit impobilble that the "Effective Date: February 10, 2001" ? Or somentin is wrong in US legislation! Or it is normal that US law is retroactive? --Alexius Manfelt 08:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I looked at the law to see where the February 10 provision came in. I noted that most of the provisions of the Act went into effect on the signing date, some 60 days later, some 180 days later, and some 270 days later, but I couldn't find any reference to February 10. Maybe the reference was based on a certain number of days before the signing date. Feb. 10 was 258 days before the signing date by my count which would be an unusual number to be used in the Act. So I'm not sure what the February 10 date refers to. --Metropolitan90 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

somehow i doubt this act was effective February 10, 2001, being as ex post facto laws are kinda unconstitutional, somebody might want to look into that....

It was renewed in 2006. It became law in 2001 though. The effective date should read February 1, 2002 though from reading through the act. Sasquatch t|c 17:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Scope

With respect to this quote: "Section 2331 also includes the crime of international terrorism, which is identical to domestic terrorism, except that it transcends national boundaries. But this provision predates the Act." What Act of Congress first defined international terrorism? I'd like to see that included in the article -- backburner001 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is FISA. The USA ACT (which rolled into the USA PATRIOT ACT) expanded who could be a terrorist. Previously, a terrorist had to be working for a foreign government. Now, they can be working for any foreign group or all by themselves. --Kainaw (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


The definition of terrorism indeed predates the USA-Patriot Act, but is not found in FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), but in Title 18, which contains the criminal code. The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism[9]. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"

[edit] What sections are still active?

I have been unable to get a clear consensus on what sections of the USA PATRIOT Act are still enforceable. Which ones have been struck down by the court system? Did Congress' reaffirmation of the act invalidate previous court decisions? Could somebody in the know please add that information? Different parts of this article, and other articles on Wikipedia, all seem to contradict each other on this. Uiop 07:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help: Court: section 805

In this section it says the court ruled section 805 to be unconstitutional. I read through the sited material, which appears to be the judges ruling on case CV 03-6107 ABC.

After reading through it I found the exact opposite to be true. It appears the plaintiffs "Humanitarian Law Project", had failed to provide any evidence of constitutional violation. On page 35 it clearly says.

"The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on this basis, concluding that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the prohibition on providing "expert advice and assistance" violates the First and Fifth Amendments by giving the Secretary of State virtually unreviewable authority to designate groups as terrorist organizations."

I know to some this might not be clear but it basically says the Plaintiffs failed to prove violations of the First and Fifth Amendments.

I absolutely hate legalize so maybe I missed something in the judgment. If someone please read through the summary and see if I missed something. I might not be understanding something but it seems clear to me that the ruling did NOT rule 805 to be unconstitutional, hence 805 was found to BE constitutional. Again I may be wrong, but if I am right we will need to correct the article accordingly. Mantion 09:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case I believe it is... A judge in California found 805 unconstitutional. This was overturned by a superior court. Since one judge found it unconstitutional, some people feel it necessary to run around screaming "The court found 805 unconsitutional!!!" --Kainaw (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that might have been the case, the findings of higher courts always trump lower courts so I will change the article. If someone has information about 805 being found unconstitutional please let us know..Mantion 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wait What???

In response to the "Silly" comment below.

How can you compare the absoloute power that Hitler commanded to the power that a U.S. President has? The United States President does not have absoloute, "sovergn", power. The President answers to the American people and if he does not listen, well you can see what is going on in our government right now. Bush could not pass gas on Capitol Hill right now.


[edit] Clean Up Intro

Hi all. I am new to the site and was just browsing this article. It seems like the intro is quite long and could be shortened considerably, both to improve readability and to make it consistent with other articles of a similar length. One idea would be to move all of the information about definitions of terrorist or terrorism to a separate section within the article. Thoughts? --Mackabean 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/s/a/Talk%7EUSA_PATRIOT_Act_812e.html"