Changes

''This entire section was removed from the main article.''

''This entire section was removed from the main article.''

----  

----  

Much of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarian]]s and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]].  

<s>Much</s> Some of the Patriot Act is controversial. The largest criticisms come from [[civil libertarian]]s and others who believe that the Act gives too much power to the [[executive branch]] and infringes on [[civil liberties]].  

* Problem: We need to specify WHAT power is "given to the executive branch" and HOW this "infringes on civil liberties".  

* Problem: We need to specify WHAT power is "given to the executive branch" and HOW this "infringes on civil liberties".  

Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill.

Some claim that these problems arose from the rushed nature of the passage of the bill.

“The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.<ref name="cato" /> Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.  

“The richest and most powerful government in world history was portrayed as a weakling vis-à-vis Al Qaeda terrorists. Until that legislative package was enacted, America was supposedly at a grave disadvantage.”<ref name="cato">Cato Handbook on Policy (6th edition). Ed. Edward H. Crane and David Boaz, p. 199 (Cato Institute, 2005)</ref> They also claim that Arttorney General Ashcroft and the Bush administration pressured Congressmen to vote for the package as a whole, instead of piece by piece, <s>which lead to even more measures which would not have been passed had appropriate procedures taken place.</s><ref name="cato" /> <s>Votes were scheduled to pass the bill before members of congress could get a copy, and in the days right after the terrorist attacks nobody wanted to be seen as unpatriotic by voting against the USA PATRIOT Act.</s>  

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />  

One point of contention with opponents of the Patriot Act is with the roving wiretaps provision. Some claim that the since the FBI does not have to determine the location of their suspect before they start collecting intelligence, the privacy of innocent citizens could accidentally be intruded upon.<ref name="dempsey">Dempsey, James X. “Section 206: Roving Surveillance Authority Under FISA: A Summary” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/section-206 (Accessed April 16th, 2007).</ref> They also claim that, due to changes within FISA outside of the realm of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to know the identity of the person upon whom the warrant is being issued. This could lead to “John Doe” warrants, in which the government does not specify a suspect or a place of interception.<ref name="dempsey" />  

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />  

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />  

Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho]], [[Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however, the FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.  

<s>Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho]], [[Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however,</s> The FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.  

In September 2007 a federal judge ruled that sections of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional, stating in a 106 page ruling that the Act was "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html?nav=rss_politics</ref>

In September 2007 a federal judge ruled that sections of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional, stating in a 106 page ruling that the Act was "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html?nav=rss_politics</ref>

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}