Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigations
This article discuses the patriot act. The patriot act was put in to place after 9/11 to stop terrorism in our country. There are many things in the patriot act but one thing is allowing law enforcement to search with no warrant needed. This article discusses how law enforcement can conduct searches without the person knowing. What do you think? Is the act keeping us safe or is it giving to much power to law enforcement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find it shocking that those who passed the Patriot Act had not even read the provision for the increased sneak-and-peek power. Legislation, and especially legislation created under an emergency situation, has to be specific so that it achieves its intended ends and doesn't have unexpected impact. I thought it was interesting that the author called the war on drugs "illegitimate," and I realized that I haven't really thought deeply on that issue about what my opinions might be.
ReplyDeleteThis law is very frustrating to me. I feel a lot of laws passed by Congress are purposefully vague and confusing so that later on officials can use it to further different goals. If the Patriot Act was created to protect Americans from terrorism, then that's what it should be used for, not as an excuse to help with drug busts. It's so easy for people to get caught up in sensationalism after a catastrophe and to pass extreme laws such as this one. I think laws should be more explicitly written and all members of Congress should thoroughly read them and weigh their long-term effects before abusive laws can be passed.
ReplyDeleteI'm personally angered by the use of the name "Patriot Act" as it is just a ploy to incite an emotional response from people, as Lofgren said in The Party is Over. People can blindly support the act simply because of it's name, even though it has little to do with love of our country, and more to do with deception and invasions of privacy. I think using an event like 9/11 to capatilize on the people's fear is disgusting. If we use the act to actually help and protect the people, instead of infringing on their rights and acting in secret, then I think it will deserve its name.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the Patriot Act is nothing more than another violation of citizens' privacy. The government should not be able to conduct any searches without permission or warrant. I doubt the Patriot Act keeps us any safer than we were before the 9/11 attacks. The government has too much power to sneak into the personal lives of its citizens. With drones, wiretapping, internet monitoring, etc. any more searches are just too much. Personally I prefer privacy to safety.
ReplyDeleteLike Jaime, I too found it shocking that only a handful of members of Congress had actually read the bill. If it was so necessary and important for out country's safety, one would think that the members of Congress would take the time to read it, first, rather than just blindly sign it due to a crisis. I also found it shocking that the number of sneak-and-peek cases went from 16 a year to 11,000 a year. That is a crazy jump. I agree with Rachel that the government is abusing their power with this provision.
ReplyDeleteI don't prefer privacy to safety as Becky said but I do agree that the government is abusing their power. For safety to be valued over privacy and the safety has to really be in danger. This law is almost too vague and it really bothers me that most of Congress didn't really read it. I think most people will give up their privacy in a very threatening situation but it should not be done in secret as Nia said.
ReplyDeleteThe Patriot Act is not something I strongly support, even though it is supposed to be used for protection against terrorism. I agree that the powers of this act should be limited to investigating terrorism, but I disagree with the expansion of this act to include drug-related crimes, not because I believe that narcotics are harmless, but because this sets a precedent, a precedent that could be harmful to society. Since the government has expanded the Patriot Act so that it can spy on people suspected of drug crimes, it is possible that they will expand it to include even more crimes, greatly reducing the privacy of American society. Though I believe that the intentions of the Patriot Act were good, it is clear that the government does not intend to limit the powers of the act to terrorism.
ReplyDeleteIt is my opinion that laws are bent in American politics to give a benefit to people of power, exploiting the common public. The more power that we allow government officials to have, the more education we should have for the common public on government. The patriot act, even though it is intended to target terrorists has developed into a law-bending situation to exert authority over drug related issues. The lack of privacy that exists in America is concerning.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Taryna said. I think that safety should be the first priority over that of privacy. I feel that this law is way to vague. It seems like it wasn't really thought over all that well. I also agree with what Raman said. I do agree that the government is abusing their powers. On the contrary, I want to believe that they are using their power to protect the American people but it does not seem like that is their only objective.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't surprise me that, given the current mindset of Congressional members, very few of them actually read the Patriot Act before signing it. It reminds me of that time Nancy Pelosi, speaking about Obamacare, remarked, grinning, "We have to pass it so you can find out what's in it." In both instances, politicians who don't want to take responsibility for anything decided to funnel omnibus legislation through Congress without pondering the possible unintended consequences. The Patriot Act has thwarted some terrorism, fulfilling its intended effects. However, its immensely broad nature allows it to be abused today. This teaches the valuable lesson that legislation should be specific and narrow in scope, making it easier for the American people to understand and harder for lifetime politicians to withdraw accountability.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Becky, the Patriot Act is another example of the United States violating its citizens rights and privacy. I feel as if the government took advantage of 9/11 to gain even more power and in my opinion, very unconstitutional power. The Patriot Act is used .05% of the time for what is was actually intended for, that is terrorism. Clearly, the government is abusing this act. The government may think or even say what they are doing is for our own protection but I only see things getting worse from here and soon who knows what the governments excuse will be for breaking into someone's home.
ReplyDeleteThis article just proves that politicians are becoming lazy and less interested in what is good for the citizens of the United States. The Patriot Act was passed in a vulnerable point in American history but should not be tolerated any further because it clearly invades the privacy of otherwise law abiding citizens. It's a complete overstep on the part of the government.
ReplyDeleteI think that citizens should not be worried about searches if they have nothing to hide; however, I think that if the government finds something illegal yet not related to terrorism they should not be allowed to act on it as this is not he point of this law. Ultimately, I think citizens should be willing to accept a small loss of personally privacy to ensure the safety of all.
ReplyDeleteI think that if search warrants are eliminated, that is an invasion of our privacy. Even if you have nothing to hide you still don't want people rummaging through all of your things without warning. If the government is suspicious about someone having illegal things or being a terrorist then they should be prepared to get a warrant quickly. They shouldn't intrude on people's privacy, and it they need to intrude, they should have to get a warrant first.
ReplyDeleteI believe the whole idea of a "sneak and peek" warrant was misunderstood by many here. It is still a warrant, and a judge still needs to approve it. The only difference is that the search is conducted covertly. Although perhaps overused, and perhaps not the intention of the PATRIOT act, the idea of covert searches still has relevance in modern investigations.
ReplyDelete