If someone was to "report" you for suspicius/sidicious talk or behavior, the Department of Homeland "security" now has the legal ability to
if someone wants to falsely report you for a crime and has only so much as a false witness to back them up you can face felony charges that you wont be able to defend. you don't even have to be searched or arrested (for the record I'd rather be searched than arbitrarily sentenced to prison). welcome to the real world that existed well before the patriot act.
This is a giant middle finger for the servicemen that have fought and died for this country.
don't even begin to bring military service into this unless you can say you served as did I.
It's grounds for a revolution.
AND TEH REVOLUTION STARTS AT MUH KEYBOARD!
a) kick down your door and arrest you without serving a warrent
wrong. you do know the difference between securing a warrant and serving a warrant, right?
The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant." In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous." Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979) You should really do your homework on delayed notification search warrants.
b) without telling you why you're being arrested
you are still required to be told why whenever you're arrested. there has never been a requirement to inform you as to why you are being detained or taken into custody as long as you are not being arrested. you do understand the difference between an arrest and detention, right?
c) can detain you for an unlimited amount of time
wrong again. Section 412 refers specifically to aliens who engage in terrorism. it does not apply to John Q. Did you say you read the Patriot Acts?
d) Since habius corpus is now thrown out the window, you could be tortured legaly as well
"Section 412 expressly grants aliens the right to challenge their detention in court. Aliens may file a habeas petition in any federal district court that has jurisdiction."Not that, once again, this even applies to you.
e) wiretapping without a warrent and these abuses are well documented
Before the PATRIOT Act, law enforcement had the authority to conduct electronic surveillance - by petitioning a court for a wiretap order - when investigating many ordinary, non-terrorism crimes. Agents also could use wiretaps to investigate some, but not all, of the crimes that terrorists often commit.
The non-terrorism offenses for which wiretaps were available included: drug crimes, mail fraud, and passport fraud.
Section 201 enabled investigators to gather information when looking into the full range of terrorism-related crimes, including: chemical-weapons offenses, the use of weapons of mass destruction, killing Americans abroad, and terrorism financing.
Section 201 preserved all of the pre-existing standards in the wiretap statute. For example, law enforcement still must: (1) apply for and receive a court order; (2) establish probable cause that criminal activity is afoot; and (3) first have tried to use "normal investigative procedures."Any illegal wiretaps that you may be referring to are not, and will not be, supported by the Patriot Act.
The powers in the Patriot acts are most certainly NOT delegated in the Consitution or the Bill of rights! Read that last part again please.
you mean the part that comes afterwards that says
NOR prohibited by the states?
But...if we REALLY want to get down to slam dunking your question of which rights the patriot act has violated/removed, let's read the following:
I'm rapt with anticipation because so far you haven't been able to reach the bottom of the net.
"Two sections of the Patriot Act have been declared unconstitutional.
In Doe v. Ashcroft, a federal district court struck down a “national security letter” records power expanded by the section 505(a) of the Patriot Act, noting that the failure to provide any explicit right for a recipient to challenge a such a broad national security letter search order power violated the Fourth Amendment. blah blah blah...
Marrero's decision--Doe v. Ashcroft --was a victory for the ACLU, to be sure, but what it wasn't was a repudiation of the Patriot Act. The judge mentioned the Patriot Act maybe three times in a 120-page decision, merely to note that it had modified the 1986 law in a way that had nothing to do with the court challenge. (Specifically, the Patriot Act continued a process begun in 1993 of broadening the application of NSLs to communications customers who were not foreign agents. This Patriot Act amendment was not at issue in the ACLU case; only the absence of a judicial review provision in the original 1986 law and the original disclosure ban were under litigation.)BAM! Look who bought the shiny spin the ACLU is selling. What's amusing is how the NY Times and Washington Post were the ACLU's salesmen.
"Judge Strikes Down Section of Patriot Act Allowing Secret Subpoenas of Internet Data" (New York Times); "Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional" (Washington Post). wasn't someone saying something about controlled media somewhere? oh, btw, did you happen to read their corrections the following day? Somehow I don't believe you have the stones to issue a similar retraction for your incorrect statements.
In Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft , the court held that specific phrases in Title 18 Section 2339A, as amended by the Patriot Act section 805(a)(2)( B ), violated First Amendment free speech rights and Fifth Amendment due process rights. blah blah blah...
Plaintiffs sought to provide support for the lawful activities for two organizations that had been deemed terrorist; plaintiffs sought summary judgment and an injunction on grounds that “expert advice or assistance” is unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad, that § 805 violates the First and Fifth Amendments because it criminalizes speech that is not related to illegal activity, and that it is unconstitutional because it allows the Secretary of State to independently designate groups as terrorist. Defendants motioned to dismiss but their motion was denied because court found plaintiffs had both standing and ripeness. Court held that “expert advice or assistance” is vague and therefore plaintiffs were granted an injunction. The court failed to find that the term was overbroad. Furthermore, the court found that it has been previously decided that § 805 does not criminalize free speech, and the court held that § 805 does not give the Secretary of State unchecked authority to label groups as terrorist. The motion for summary judgment was granted as to the vagueness of the term., vacated, 382 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2004).OMG TEH VAGUUE! Whew, good thing it wasn't overbroad too! So in other words, the plaintiffs receive their injunction based on the vaguery of four words. ok, I can deal with that. I was under the impression that was the way the system was supposed to work. checks and balances. what it doesn't explain is the eagerness of chimps like the ACLU to jump around screaming "OMG IT'S TEH UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!pi! WE WIN!1". BTW, whose rights were trampled before they fixed this sinister edict?
Section 206 of the Patriot Act allows the government to obtain “roving wiretaps” without empowering the court to make sure that the government ascertain that the conversations being intercepted actually involve a target of the investigation.
For years, law enforcement has been able to use "roving wiretaps" - in which a wiretap authorization attaches to a particular suspect, rather than a particular communications device - to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug offenses and racketeering. The authority to use roving wiretaps in drug cases has existed since 1986.
Section 206 authorized the same techniques in national-security investigations. This provision has enhanced the government's authority to monitor sophisticated international terrorists and intelligence officers, who are trained to thwart surveillance, such as by rapidly changing cell phones, just before important meetings or communications.
A wiretap under section 206 can be ordered only after the FISA court makes a finding that the actions of the target of the application may have the effect of thwarting the surveillance.
Now - I challenge YOU to put down the video game, or skip your next Blockbuster movie rental and spend a few hours learning about how your government has pissed all over your bill of rights.
and I challenge you to try thinking independently instead of trading one biased source of information for another. I also challenge you to learn to avoid making sweeping generalizations with no basis in reality that end up making you look like a simpleton. Is it irony when someone quotes Yoda and tells you not to go to Blockbuster, or is it just plain comedy?
I'm sure we'll compare notes later
we wont be comparing notes. you accuse someone of not being familiar with the subject in question and then you come to the table emptyhanded. you buy into the hype while denying that you do and accusing your "opponents" of doing the same.
I wish to educate you
then it would behoove you to stay up to speed on the issues.
I'm informed and I vote. Please be the same.
you may vote and if you do, good on you. your information, however, is sorely lacking.
