Talk:Patriot Act

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jazzman831 (Talk | contribs) at 19:13, 1 September 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Not only was the following obviously a direct uncited quotation, a Yahoo! search revealed it to be from wikipedia! You'd think the Patriot Act page would be as closely followed as the page on evolution or unicorns!!

On March 9, 2007, a Justice Department audit found that the FBI had "improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information" about United States citizens. [1]

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused a Patriot Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

On April 6, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the FBI over the USA PATRIOT Act's authority to demand that a business hand over records that may contain private financial or business information that is not pertinent to an ongoing investigation. The specific action in question was the request of the FBI for the account information for users of an Internet service provider.

Citing possible secrecy provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Department of Justice prevented the ACLU from releasing the text of a countersuit for three weeks. [4] After judicial and congressional oversight, sections of the countersuit that did not violate secrecy rules of the USA PATRIOT Act were released.

The lawsuit filed by the ACLU was dropped on October 27, 2006. ACLU stated it is withdrawing the lawsuit because of improvements to the law. "While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration's most reckless policies," Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the ACLU.

In June 2005, the United States House of Representatives voted to repeal the Patriot Act provision that allows federal agents to examine people's book-reading habits at public libraries and bookstores as part of terrorism investigations.[5]

Jazzman831 17:58, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Can you specifiy what the difference is between "the Bush administration's most reckless policies," and a Law past by the Legislative Branch. The above appears to be little more than twisted, veiled, and distorted criticism of the Bush administration. If the Bush administration were not enforcing a law passed by the Congress, that would be grounds for legitimate criticism. RobS 12:53, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
I take no responsibility for the content in the above statement. It was copied from Wikipedia onto this article and all I did was remove it from our page. I believe that part about the Bush administration has also since been removed from the Wikipedia article. Even so, I wouldn't get too riled up about the comment; it's so non specific Ms. Beeson really could have been talking about anything. Jazzman831 15:24, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Good job. If it wasn't so subtle, this would probably be a good example for Bias in Wikipedia, but it would take more words to explain the subtlelty than the subtlelty itself. 16:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Entering homes

Cut from article:

The act took away civil liberties law enforcement may enter a persons place of business or home without a warrant. We all know without a warrent it is unconstitutional to enter someones private property. Also the owner doesnt have to know about the search or invasion of his/her home or business

This needs references. What is your source? --Ed Poor Talk 14:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

As much as I dislike the Patriot Act, that quotation is either vandalism or a misunderstanding of how the act works. The Act allows, under very specific circumstances, so-called "sneak and peek" warrants, which are exactly as they sound. Law enforcement does need a warrant, but the suspect doesn't know about the search (until a certain time after the fact). These are performed when notifying the subject of the warrant could seriously hamper the investigation.
Later tonight (too burnt out from school right this moment) I will integrate the research paper I did on the Patriot Act last semester into this article. For now, the above explanation should suffice. JazzMan 16:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Done and done. JazzMan 21:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Correct name

I think this should this be moved to Patriot Act (for capitalization purposes) or USA PATRIOT Act (for complete name purposes). To me it makes more sense to have the full article at its correct name and then make Patriot act a redirect. Opinions? Jinkas 16:47, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Smooth work, TK my man. Jinkas 16:51, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
<edit conflict> I vote for USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, which is technically it's full name. However, this link is really ugly, and most people won't know to use it. I'm not sure what our priorities are (or what theys should be). If we want clarity, we should stick with what we have; if we want technical correctness, we should move it to the most correct form. (Well technically Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 is the most correct, but that just breaches some boundaries of sensible practicality!!) JazzMan 16:55, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Usually the guideline would be accuracy coupled with common usage of the subject used for searching. "Patriot Act" would seem to me to be the common use. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:15, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Gotcha. JazzMan 17:20, 31 August 2007 (EDT)


Rob, it's clear you aren't reading my sources before you change my work. The Patriot Act was one of the fastest bills passed through Congress. Period. Other people have in the past proposed measures which were included in the bill, but those have no bearing on how fast this act was passed. Additionally, Ashcroft wanted the bill "passed by the end of the week" not "considered immediately". You are being overly hostile to my edits for not having actually read their source. Additionally, you are assuming bad faith on all my edits.

I know Ed Poor or TK will pop up and tell me I shouldn't edit if I don't want them reviewed relentlessly, but it's clear you have a vendetta against me and it's also clear you haven't read the source material. If you want to push away a good faith editor you are doing a great job (here and on other articles). Here's a quotation for you:

"When Attorney General John Ashcroft asked for the new law enforcement powers Sept. 19 — calling on Congress to clear a bill by the end of that week — Republicans and Democrats alike balked. The proposal included powers that the Justice Department had sought unsuccessfully for years." (Emphasis added).

Ashcroft pushed these measures, and asked it to be passed in less than a week. He still today takes credit for the Patriot Act; I saw him speak last year.

I'm not sure why you think it's such a bad thing that Bush might have written part of the Patriot Act (Conservapedia is in favor of GWB, correct?) but I don't remember which source I pulled that from right now. I'll leave that but correct the parts supported above. JazzMan 14:46, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Nice try JazzMan, but the quote above is absolutlely meaningless without authorship. Now, let's start from the beginning, give the identity of authors and the source language for any reversion I make that you wish to argue over. Thank you.
P.S.: I'd advise against throwing around personal references such as you do above, (terms like "vendetta", or accusing people of lack of good faith; frankly, it is a waste of time, and does not address the issues under consideration whatsoever). Thank you again. Rob Smith 14:57, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
There's a reference right on the page!! It's the little [1] that links down to the bottom of the page. If I understand correctly, it's the same thing we do on every single page of this website.
P.S.: I wouldn't have to throw around personal references if I didn't truely believe that you are trying as hard as you can to prove I'm a Marxist who's been indocrinated by Marxist professors (which you have insinuated several times on talk:liberal). The coincidence is simply too large to be credible. JazzMan 15:10, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I saw that. Unfortunely it is the Congressional Quarterly. And unfortunely I have too much first hand knowledge and direct experience with Kathryn Wolfe [1] and her anonymous editing and conflict of interest as Wikipedia Admin User:Katefan0. [2] So I'm not impressed at all with Congressional Quarterly. It still needs an authors name attached to it. Rob Smith 18:15, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
It's hard to keep track of who you guys don't like around here. There are no listed authors for the source; that's the full reference. Feel free to use your own (references, that is, not memories) if mine aren't good enough. JazzMan 20:13, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Here is what actually happened:

Before and just immediately after 9/11, there were many measures before Congress, many at the White House and Justice (some of them remainders from the Clinton Administration) that were intended to deal with improving intelligence gathering, and increase national security. There were hundreds in Congress and the Executive who were already worried about the terrorists before 9/11, you know. In the aftermath of the World Trade Center, Pentagon and the airplane crash in PA, the big guns in Congress, Ashcroft and the people at the White House conducted lots of public and private meetings. Some of what are considered the most draconian components of the final act were included against the wishes of Justice and the White House, and vice-versa. That is how our government and legislative process works, like it or not. To claim Bush or Ashcroft (or even Rove) were the principle authors of the act is utter nonsense. Ashcroft was not alone in asking for the things he did, and had remarkable bi-partisan support in the Congress, mainly because his requests mirrored what was already in introduced or proposed legislation! I was there, and I can tell you there were dozens of really draconian ideas that the Administration and some Congressional leaders insisted be canned, mainly because they would have been hell to implement or administer, or were thought to be ultimately held un-Constitutional. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:34, 1 September 2007 (EDT)