What about the patriot act bothers you so much?
Is it that the Fed can now go to court to request medical records?
Is it that certain purchases can be monitered?
I am pretty sure that they have done these things in the past and will continue to do them.
I would like to hear exactly what your problem with the patriot act is.
I am reading things right now from various sources(Left and right.) and they all seem to be in strong opposition to it without ever stating what it IS.
I am looking at a 100 page document as well by the architects of the act and can not see the big deal.
I am reviewing the changes to the FDA right now and they seem like measures are being taken that have long been ignored.
For everyone else, why not mention a specific part of the legislation that you do not like and perhaps I might agree with you.
Oh, and Bain Sidhe, make as many contrarian posts as you like. I enjoy them. I try to do it but since this is a Conservative Forum and I am a Conservative, it can be difficult. :D
I do argue against the anti-drug people quite often. However, Liberals are only pro-drug when it comes to illegal substances. The legal ones they despise. Cigarettes, Alcohol, etc. I know that some liberals smoke and drink but look at the anti-smoking crusades, the luxury taxes on beer(?) and other things. I know its not drugs but now they want to control how I eat!?!?!? No thanks.
I am reading things right now from various sources(Left and right.) and they all seem to be in strong opposition to it without ever stating what it IS. ... For everyone else, why not mention a specific part of the legislation that you do not like and perhaps I might agree with you.
Part of the problem in doing that, for me, is that most of the PATRIOT act amends existing law. Therefore, reading the bill itself is not particularly illuminating because it simply refers to the section being amended and only states the words to be inserted (or deleted). So you have such gems as:
Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and section 303(a)(7)(B) (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)(B) and 1823(a)(7)(B)) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 are each amended by striking `the purpose' and inserting `a significant purpose'.
... and this means...?????
(What it actually does mean, BTW, is that Federal authorities can get a FISA warrant for an investigation which might be essentially domestic in nature. The FISA warrant has a much lower standard, essentially requiring only that the gov't state that they need it, rather than the standard for getting a warrant for "domestic intelligence" which requires that they show "probable cause." Changing this law to say that they need to show the court that foreign intelligence is only "a significant" purpose instead of "the" purpose means that they can get a FISA warrant even if foreign intelligence isn't the primary purpose of the investigation, as long as they can call it "a significant" purpose. Oh, and as icing on the cake, they don't have to explain or justify that assertion, they just have to make it.)
That said, my "umbrella" concern is with the lack of accountability and judicial oversight for the government's actions thoughout the whole thing, but especially in Title II - the "enhanced surveillance procedures."
The ACLU has a pretty good series of "fact sheets" on the various sections of the law - most of which I agree with:
How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Puts Financial Privacy at Risk
How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Expands Law Enforcement "Sneak and Peek" Warrants
How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Permits Indefinite Detention of Immigrants
How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Puts CIA Back in the Business of Spying on Americans
How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Puts Student Privacy at Risk
How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Limits Judicial Oversight of Telephone and Internet Surveillance
You might also want to read the Electronic Frontier Foundation's analysis of the USAPA provisions relating to online activities.
P.S. You might be right about RICO - I don't know that much about it, but from what I do know, I suspect I might agree with you if I DID know more about it.