This one is really quite obvious.
1) The act should be refreshed.
2) It should have another sunset clause.
3) It should have any articles that courts have found unconstitutional removed.
4) The FBI should NOT get any additional powers.
Refreshment, with the related caveats, would give police powers the needed ability to attempt to defend the country. Many of those provisions did exist elsewhere for specific types of investigation prior to the act.
The sunset clause should be in place. These powers should periodically be reviewed and removed if the elected representatives feel that the powers are abused or misused. The powers put in place are to increase safety, not diminish citizens rights. I'm certain that even with the best of intentions, sooner or later some agency will use these powers inappropriately and should then be restrained. Bush is calling for the act to become permanent, and I think that is a major mistake. Give it a revision and another trial period, and then decide if the act was worthwhile.
As for the unconstitutional clauses we can go to the ACLU for one clause already declared unconstitutional.
The articles struck down are 505 as unconstitutional and 805 as vague. (See this site for the more controversial sections.)
Lastly there is the point on the expansion of the FBI subpoena powers. I don't like this one at all. Why should the FBI be allowed subpoena powers with out court prior approval? Sorry, that just doesn't float. The expansion to the subpoena details are here.
1) The act should be refreshed.
2) It should have another sunset clause.
3) It should have any articles that courts have found unconstitutional removed.
4) The FBI should NOT get any additional powers.
Refreshment, with the related caveats, would give police powers the needed ability to attempt to defend the country. Many of those provisions did exist elsewhere for specific types of investigation prior to the act.
The sunset clause should be in place. These powers should periodically be reviewed and removed if the elected representatives feel that the powers are abused or misused. The powers put in place are to increase safety, not diminish citizens rights. I'm certain that even with the best of intentions, sooner or later some agency will use these powers inappropriately and should then be restrained. Bush is calling for the act to become permanent, and I think that is a major mistake. Give it a revision and another trial period, and then decide if the act was worthwhile.
As for the unconstitutional clauses we can go to the ACLU for one clause already declared unconstitutional.
Saying that "democracy abhors undue secrecy," a federal court today struck down an entire Patriot Act provision that gives the government unchecked authority to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight. The court also found a broad gag provision in the law to be an "unconstitutional prior restraint" on free speech.I'm not fond of the ACLU. Personally I think they do some very good work, but I loathe that they must make everything into a political rant against the standing administration. They also misplace blame in far too many situations. This is the case here when they scream Ashcroft is at fault, while missing that he was required by law and oath to uphold the laws of the US, which the Patriot Act is. Ashcroft didn't invent the law, merely carried it out.
The articles struck down are 505 as unconstitutional and 805 as vague. (See this site for the more controversial sections.)
Lastly there is the point on the expansion of the FBI subpoena powers. I don't like this one at all. Why should the FBI be allowed subpoena powers with out court prior approval? Sorry, that just doesn't float. The expansion to the subpoena details are here.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, meeting behind closed doors Tuesday, voted 11-4 to extend the expiring provisions and allow the attorney general to issue subpoenas for business records -- including medical, financial and gun, hotel, and education documents -- without the target's permission. The order could be challenged in court, but only after it has been executed.I'll agree with that statement on fishing.
Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr called the bill "fishing expedition powers to snoop."
"This is taking us from bad to worse," said Mr. Barr, a Republican and chairman of Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, a coalition of existing organizations that oppose the Patriot Act, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
No comments:
Post a Comment