Formal high school debate: looking for info supporting Patriot Act, any help appreciated (vanity)

myself

[sdk7x7]

Hi, high school FReeper here. I'll basically be the only neocon in attendance at a formal "Model Congress" debate we're holding this week on the Patriot Act. I've read most of the Act in full... looking for any articles/op-eds/research that outlines reasons why it's good, constitutional, etc.

Thanks in advance.

[Cathryn Crawford]

You said the dirty word in your post. Enjoy your flame war. :-)

[hole_n_one]

I'll basically be the only neocon in attendance...

I hope you've thought to make enough room to spread your wings within that pigeon hole you've made for yourself.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Calling yourself a neocon will limit you.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Call yourself an independent who is open to all ideas. Then argue the Repub argument. They won't be able to demonize you.

[AdamSelene235]

Well, obviously, the only solution any problem is to give more power and more money to the Feds.

I mean you don't expect us to start revoking Saudi visas just because they slaughtered 3000 Americans, bought nuclear weapons for unstable Islamic Pakistan,bought off the chairman of the 911 investigation and routinely kidnap and rape American citizens do you?

I mean who would have expected that the WTC would be bombed twice or that the flight instructors who warned the FBI about Arabs training to fly but not land were serious?

Obviously we need more intrusive state.

[MatthewViti]

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

btw, ever read up on Hitler's Enabling Act? I highly suggest you do.

[exit82]

Type "Patriot Act" in the Forum search engine here on FR., by keyword. You'll have plenty of articles to peruse.

Good luck in your debate. Even when others trash you personally because of your brilliant objective arguments, don't sink to their level. But don't let them spin either.

[Matchett-PI]

Check out these two posts in the Ann Coulter (who is FOR the patriot act) thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982525/posts?page=50#50

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982525/posts?page=52#52

[yonif]

bump

[KMAJ2]

I think you will find this story by Mary Mostert, a formal liberal turned conservative, informative.

http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-03MQC/9-10-2003.1.html

(excerpt)
Throughout the left wing media, and sometimes in the right wing media, we are deluged with fiction such as Amy Goldstein’s recent Washington Post article which states, “By its very terms, the Patriot Act hides information about how its most contentious aspects are used, allowing investigations to be authorized and conducted under greater secrecy.

“As a result, critics ranging from the liberal American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Eagle Forum complain that the law is violating people's rights but acknowledge that they cannot cite specific instances of abuse.”

The Patriot Act is not a secret document. It is available on the Internet for the entire world to read, and I recommend that everyone, but especially those who are prone to believe the drumbeat of accusations about the Patriot Act to READ it. It’s only 131 pages long, which is a mere 15% of the number of pages America’s children, many as young as 10 years of age, have been reading in the latest Harry Potter book.

You will note that many of the Patriot Act paragraphs seem to begin with statements ending with “the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is amended” or “the Communications Act of 1934 is amended.” Why? Because, contrary to the propaganda being spread throughout the media and various organizations, the provisions of the Patriot Act simply amends laws already on the books used by America’s law enforcement arsenal in tracking down crime syndicate bosses and drug lords for at least 25 years to make them also apply to terrorists. We have not heard a soul complain about the 1978 law having destroyed their personal liberties or the Bill of Rights. Why will making those provisions apply to terrorists destroy personal liberties or the Bill of Rights?

As I write I have before me on my desk a flyer that claims the Patriot Act was causing us to lose our “fundamental rights, including the freedom of religion, speech, assembly and privacy, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, due process and equal protection to any person, equality before the law and the presumption of innocence, access to counsel in judicial proceedings, and a fair, speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.” Nowhere on the flyer was I told who wrote it, where I could READ the Patriot Act or that the Patriot Act merely makes the Foreign Surveillance Act of 1978 applicable to terrorists and the 1934 Communications act applicable to cell phones.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed when Democrat Jimmy Carter was president, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd was Majority Leader in the Senate and Democrat Rep. Thomas O’Neill was Speaker of the House. So, how come we are only now learning that that bill caused us to lose all our fundamental rights? Or, maybe we are to assume that people who blow up other people on the street and seek to seize control of nations with terror are not bad enough to use the same surveillance we use on drug lords or crime syndicates?

---

Good luck in your debate.

Here is a link for the full Patriot Act:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:h3162enr.txt.pdf

[JulieRNR21]

This editorial is remarkable because the Cape Cod Times (MA ), while owned by the WSJ, has usually taken a liberal (pro-Dem) approach on most issues. Several letters applauding this 9-9-03 editorial have also appeared recently............Julie


Patriot games


Controversy over the anti-terror law is mostly overblown partisan rhetoric.

The USA Patriot Act has become a lightning rod for much of the anxiety abroad in the land since Sept. 11.

Opponents of the Bush administration and Attorney General John Ashcroft behave as if the recodification of police powers and surveillance procedures in the act is the opening manifesto for some Fascist brave new world.

Those who believe al-Qaeda operatives and assorted domestic terrorists - not the lawyers in the Justice Department - are the real enemies welcome the changes that allow the FBI to stick a little closer to the trail of suspects and make common-sense inquiries.

In our reading of articles and analysis (not, we confess, the law's full 334 pages, most of which are amendments to other federal statutes), we have yet to see evidence that the changes have affected the basic civil rights of any American. On the contrary, the parts of the Patriot Act that have been explained seem to be practical, timely changes to meet the needs of anti-terror surveillance in the 21st century.

The use of library records is one example of the way highly emotional, highly irrational hypotheticals are being used to score partisan political points.

Section 215 of the act allows the FBI access to documents in third-party hands if they are relevant to a terrorism investigation. According to Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, "the rhetoric surrounding...Section 215 has been alarmist, to say the least."

In a Michigan lawsuit, the American Civil Liberties Union says the section allows the FBI to "spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because...she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy."

In fact, Section 215 allows the FBI to obtain documents in third-party hands if they are relevant to a terrorism investigation. But the FBI can do nothing under Section 215 without the approval of a federal court. And the power to see third-party (school, library, business) records has always been available to grand juries in criminal cases.

The American Library Association trumpets the fact police have visited libraries hundreds of times since the Sept. 11 attacks. But the Los Angeles Times found in the same study that the number of such visits was actually higher in 2000. In the past, the government has obtained library records for the Zodiac killer investigation in New York in the early 1990s and the Gianni Versace murder case in Florida. After Sept. 11, there was good reason to check the enrollment lists of flight and scuba-diving schools.

The ACLU recently warned that the law's definition of "domestic terrorism" could rope in legal political organizations. But when challenged by a Los Angeles Times reporter, the spokesman admitted the law has never been applied that way.

The bottom line is that the provision applies only to people who violate state or federal criminal law, and who engage in conduct that "endangers human life," among other requirements.

We have yet to hear of a Cape Codder cited for reading the wrong books, for expressing anti-government views in a letter to the editor or for carrying an anti-war placard in front of the post office. If that happens, we will be the first to sound the alarm about the Patriot Act.

(Published: September 9, 2003)

[gdani]

Read up on the "pen register/trap & trace" aspects of the wiretapping provisions & how they apply to the Internet via the PATRIOT Act. Then also do some research on the feds' Carnivore internet surveillance capabilities/program & see if it's something that should/does concern you.

You may also want to do some background research on COINTELPRO & see how the feds used those powers.

[gdani]

The ACLU recently warned that the law's definition of "domestic terrorism" could rope in legal political organizations. But when challenged by a Los Angeles Times reporter, the spokesman admitted the law has never been applied that way.

The bottom line is that the provision applies only to people who violate state or federal criminal law, and who engage in conduct that "endangers human life," among other requirements.

I don't see how or why President Hillary wouldn't apply this to Operation Rescue (among others):

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended--

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

[Mixer]

Do you have a link to that article. I want to use it in another forum debate and they are sticklers for links...Thanks

[JulieRNR21]

Here's the URL of that editorial on the Patriot Act that was in the CCT:

http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/edits/ed9.htm

[JulieRNR21]

I don't see how or why President Hillary wouldn't apply this to Operation Rescue (among others): SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

Just the thought of a president hillary sends chills down my spine!

[Mixer]

Thanks. I appreciate it.