Skip to main content

The Patriot (but not really) Act - demand reform!

Ever since the bill's passage on October 26th of 2001, I have felt that the Patriot Act has been ill-named and in need of definite reform. Unfortunately, as recent news has showcased, the Obama Administration has carried on with the law in a very similar manner to the previous administration, and while I have defended the president on both Benghazi and the IRS, I can do no such thing when it comes to the AP leaks or the continued spying by the NSA. That's not change I can believe in right there.

In case readers are unfamiliar with the nearly 12-year old law, here is a list of some of the most controversial portions of it that I feel are in need of reform:

- "Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain 'any tangible thing' relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the 'thing' pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or it should be allowed to expire."

- "Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as 'roving John Doe wiretap' provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize. Section 206 should be amended to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target. Otherwise, it should expire."

- "Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, or the so-called 'Lone Wolf' provision, permits senior intelligence surveillance of non-US persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. Such an authorization, granted only in secret courts is subject to abuse and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United States."

- "The bill also fails to amend other portions of the Patriot Act in dire need of reform, most notably those relating to the issuance and use of national security letters (NSLs). NSLs permit the government to obtain the communication, financial and credit records of anyone deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation even if that person is not suspected of unlawful behavior. Numerous Department of Justice Inspector General reports have confirmed that tens of thousands of these letters are issued every year and they are used to collect information on people two and three times removed from a terrorism suspect. NSLs also come with a nondisclosure requirement that precludes a court from determining whether the gag is necessary to protect national security. The NSL provisions should be amended so that they collect information only on suspected terrorists and the gag should be modified to permit meaningful court review for those who wish to challenge nondisclosure orders."

For those whom want to make their voices heard about this law, want it reformed or repealed, write to and call your Congressmen and women and let them know how you feel. You may also sign petitions such as this one:

https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/repeal-the-patriot-act/

I don't care if a Republican or a Democrat is in office, I will adamantly demand that changes be made to the Patriot Act. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Unfortunately, it's now 12 years after the fact, and people are finally starting to yell - perhaps too little, too late.

http://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-act

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...