Talk:Patriot Act/Archive 1

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)

---

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)

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)

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.