It was just a matter time (Anti-Terror laws used on common criminals)

Patriot Act was a blatant power grab that flew through after 9/11 after most of these provisions were killed in committee or struck down by the courts. It is designed to allow the authorities to cite it in a huge variety of cases and circumstances and could be the single biggest theft of our covil liberties ever.

Just wait for the VICTORY Act.

 

I'm generally supportive of the Patriot act, but this falls in the category of unintended consequences, and needs to be addressed. Obviously, the basis for this is ridiculous, and not what the law was intended to be used for. I would personally chalk this up to abuse of the laws, and one can argue that the laws themselves are flawed (obviously they are if they allow loopholes like this), but that does not mean that the laws should be scrapped, just reworked in some fashion.

Hopefully, this will make it to a higher court who will then rule that this is not in line with the intent of the laws. If not, then Congress has some work to do...

On the other hand, it sounds like these laws may be working out quite well in terms of law enforcement powers against criminals. Boo-hoo, a meth dealer might get 12 years to life instead of six months. Boo-friggen-hoo.

 

I think this portends a dangerous trend......drugs as WMD? Jeez. I knew that Patriot Act was an unneccessary compromise on civil liberties that will never be repealed, just like any other thing out of the Federal govt. It's just another excuse for the Imperial Federal govt to further have its way with you.

 

That's freaking scary. Not surprising, but very, very scary.

Why are we letting them take our rights away?! We're Americans, dammit! Why are we letting them get away with this?!

 

Because we are too busy worrying about J-Lo and Affleck's breakup to pay any attention. No one cares about politics on either side of the aisle except for a few of us on this board.

 

And John and Jane Doe know absolutly nothing about this happening. When someone brings it up, they are labled a terrorist and are told to remember 9/11. The Patriot Act needs to be repeled by a new AMENDMENT.

 

Curious.


One might almost be lead to believe that there was something to all those chicken littles talking about slippery slopes a while back...you think?

 

Terrorist! Don't you remember 9/11?!

 

I don't know that this really IS an unintended consequence. I think this has always kind of been the DOJ's hope for this law. Hook everyone with a popular reason, then slowly push it from terrorism to every crime. If it were an unintended consequence, would the DOJ be holding seminars telling people how to use the patriot act against regular criminals?

 

Actually, this isn't a surprise at all.

In fact, I just had to review an article for publication in a journal that dealt with a very similar issue.

Did you know that the new sneak and peak rules do not limit themselves to terrorism?

Sneak and peak warrants were originally allowed to deal with drug dealers and conspiracies. They were widely viewed by the judiciary as a necessary evil that had to be introduced to combat emerging crimes. One of the most amusing things in the early decisions is looking for references to the 4th Amendment's historical interpretation - it's not there. That, despite the fact that defendant's briefs were filled with such arguments, because history seems to bear out that they're right.

Many rights have been expanded over time by judges attempting to extrapolate "values" in the Constitution to situations the founders could not have anticipated.

This is one of the few areas where the protection of liberty has probably shrunk. The Founders seemed to have two primary ideas on the subject:

1. The home should be nearly sacrosanct and inviolate against the law.
2. Officers should have limited discretion.

Both of these came directly out of complaints against how the ENglish conducted colonial policy. The debates make the history of enaction of the 4th Amendment pretty clear about this. But now, this has become irrelevant.

Now, Section 2705 of a recent Electronic Surveillance Bill statutorily authorized delayed notice searches. Then, the Patriot Act took this a step further by removing many of the judicially and statutory protections against abuse of discretion.

All that is required to delay notice on "sneak and peak" searches is: 1. initial reasonable cause and 2. upon termination of a stay, subsequent good cause - such as a threat to prosecution.

There's no time limit, either ultimately or initially. Literally, the government can authorize indefinite sneak and peak searches. And it's not limited to terrorism.

Russ Feingold warned about this following 9/11. He favored the bill, but wanted such warrants to be confined to terrorism or at most, drugs. His pleadings were ignored in the patriotic zeal that swept the country and fear of terrorism.

 

the federal government will do virtually anything to get a new hook from which to hang a prosecution.

 

The article points out that this abuse was more-or-less intentional. Consider:

and

 

which is one of many reason . . .
the Tragedy of Sept 11th was SUCH A USEFUL COINCIDENCE.

Rocket River
I ain't saying they planned it .. but they may have LET it happen