One argument that people had against the patriot act was loyalists thought they should remain loyal to the king because they didn't want to get their family in trouble or get killed in rebellion actions that the patriots were doing. if its wrong don't judge in im 5th grade.
The patriot act gives the government the ability to punish and deter terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools and for other purposes. Basically the government has the authority to to come in your house take what they want with a warrant tap your phone lines, so on and so forth... you lose alot of your personal rights.... thanks 6 \/\/ |3 but only if the government can prove probable to 12 sitting judges that you are participating in terror related acts or communication.
I is important because patriots fight for our country with goodness of there hearts. They put there personal lives aside and worry about the country's lives. The only reason we are free right now is because of our patriots. On Patriots Day, we should all take the time to celebrate for what they do for us. Lets do something for them.
A patriot was someone who defeat the British anything from writing critizing plays to fighting in the war
No: To give up basic rights to "secure" the state...is to "ensure" a dictatorship and tyranny. Maybe we'll wind up a banana-republic sans bananas! The big boys have already stolen a trillion from the nation's treasury. I personally do not. I believe it takes away our freedom because it allows searches and seizures without warrant.
Foremost, the erosion of first and forth amendment rights, is a great concern created by the Patriot Act. Among privacy advocates, the complaint is caused by increased surveillance powers. And for most Americans it's alarming to realize that they can be listed as a threat without; being suspected of a crime, armed and dangerous, emotionally disturbed or being considered a terrorist. There have also been increased involvement of the military in ordinary policing, which changes the identity of the United States towards being a Military state. While the Patriot act is vociferously praised by all sections of the United States, there is also emerging evidence that there have been considerable abuses of ordinary citizens under its policies.
NOTE: The question posits as fact that there ISsomething wrong with the Patriot Act. However the Act was passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law (and re-affirmed) by two successive administrations and, as of Nov '11, it is still in effect and there have been no successful court challenges to its provisions. Therefore, any 'answers' to this question can only be considered as the contributor's OPINIONS and should not to be treated as factual responses to a valid question.
# Privacy Invasions. USAPA II dramatically widens the powers of government to invade the privacy of Americans and others living here. This includes: #* Broad new authority to compel information from ISPs, friends, relatives, businesses and others, all without informing you. #* Immunity for businesses that voluntarily turn over your information to law enforcement. #* Extra punishment for use of cryptography-- no connection to terrorism needed. #* Instant police access to your credit reports upon certification that they are sought "in connection with their duties" -- again, with no connection to terrorism needed. #* Relaxed requirement of specificity for warrants for multi-use devices like PDAs and computers with telephonic capabilities. #* DNA collected from all terrorism suspects/DNA database information open to all law enforcement. #* Less judicial oversight of surveillance. # More "End Runs" Around Limitations on Surveillance and Information Sharing. Federal, state and local officials can now freely share information, regardless of the original reason for gathering it. This includes information in your credit reports, educational records and visa records. It also includes information obtained by administrative subpoenas of any business, from your ISP to your credit card company to your grocer. It also includes DNA database information and information obtained through the secret court processes of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Much of this sharing need not have any relationship to terrorism investigation. # Gag Orders and Increased Governmental Secrecy. The "sunshine of public review" is a key check on abuses of governmental power. But USAPA II makes it even harder for the public to evaluate what the government is doing with its broad new powers. USAPA II allows gag orders for subpoenas that force third parties to turn over information about their friends, loved ones or customers while making it unlawful for them to tell anyone except their lawyers about the subpoena. In a similar vein, the law creates broad new exceptions to the Freedom of Information Act for terrorism detainee information, prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from warning the public about environmental dangers from chemical releases and reduces the ability of judges to force the government to present its evidence in open court. # Expanded Reach of Powers under the Control of Secret Courts. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted more than 20 years ago to handle the special problem of non-criminal investigation of foreign intelligence activities in the United States. For this limited purpose, Congress established an unprecedented secret court system. USAPA expanded the reach of FISA and the secret court dramatically, and USAPA II goes even further. Under USAPA II, the secret court will be able to authorize searches of individuals with no connection to foreign governments or even terrorist organizations. It will increase the length of surveillance and decrease court oversight from the already low levels set by USAPA. # Not Targeted to Terrorism. As with its predecessor, USAPA II contains many provisions that appear to be nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to increase governmental powers in areas unrelated to terrorism. In other areas, while terrorism is included, the provisions are not limited to terrorism-related investigations. These include government access to credit reports, sentence enhancements for using encryption, and sharing of some FISA-obtained information.
Pros: Useful in case of a real terrorist attack which is very unlikely
Makes people feel like they are more protected (which is a lie)
Makes some soldiers feel like they are trying to defend the act and increase the chances for men and women to join the army.
Cons: Abuses the Bill of Rights,
Opens up a gate way to pass other bills, like the "Cyber Security Act" which is just a way to take control of the internet. (There are already tons of executive orders to shut down the entire infrastructure of America.) They are trying to pass it because of the Stuxnet Virus(that's what they "claim" but they're lying)
Anyone can be a terrorist now. Did you know they(government) is claiming that, gun owners, libertarians, constitutionalists (people who believe in the constitution), tea party members are possible terrorist.
the patriot laws are the rules of a patriot which is called the patriot act.
It was when Benjamin Franklin and his friends signed a bill that made us all competely free men...and women...and whatever else exists, Now, Someone tell me the name of that bill, SHOW me the location of the wording and where to get a copy of it !!
>Bill is not real, and was never signed by Benjamin Franklin or any of his known associates.
the patriot act is a bit gay , okay ?
It broadened law enforcement's powers to monitor the activites of suspected terrorists
I guess you tell her that its not cool and that you wouldn't invade her privacy.....of course she could bite you right back and say "you're my son/daughter and blah blah blah." it really depends what she did.
Or you could just shout and say shes a bad mother. And plan an argument before you start because parents have a knack at turning it back onto you..
to reduce violence against Americans who tried to vote
I think in order to be a patriot from a war...you need to be able to stand up for your own counrty and people. Also, if your country was attacked you would have to take a bullet for someone u love and care about. That's what it takes to be a true patriot for your country.AnswerI think in order to be a patriot from a war...you need to be able to stand up for your own counrty and people. Also, if your country was attacked you would have to take a bullet for someone u love and care about. That's what it takes to be a true patriot for your country. AnswerI think in order to be a patriot from a war...you need to be able to stand up for your own counrty and people. Also, if your country was attacked you would have to take a bullet for someone u love and care about. That's what it takes to be a true patriot for your country. AnswerI think in order to be a patriot from a war...you need to be able to stand up for your own counrty and people. Also, if your country was attacked you would have to take a bullet for someone u love and care about. That's what it takes to be a true patriot for your country. AnswerI think in order to be a patriot from a war...you need to be able to stand up for your own counrty and people. Also, if your country was attacked you would have to take a bullet for someone u love and care about. That's what it takes to be a true patriot for your country.
It was a series of four laws that came to be known as the Alien ACT and the Sedition ACT. In order for the laws to get passed, the lawmakers had to write in a sunset provision, stating that unless renewed they would expire the last day of John Adams' first term of office, March 3, 1801.
Granted more powers to some U.S. agencies. Established the Department of Homeland Security.
Removed rights of ordinary citizens to open even a small bank account without ID and extraordinary hoops to jump through. Tightened all banking regulations nationwide.
Removed or restricted activities US Citizens could do--before--without extra effort. For example, no one needed a US passport to go visit Canada like we need now.
Alien and Sedition Acts--- it was passed without his consent
The situation will have a great deal to do with liability, as well as what the act was.
Firing a gun is usually considered an intentional act, and if it hits someone unintentionally, you could still be held liable. If it can be described as unintentional to a jury, and they believe it, it could result in a lessor crime, such as manslaughter rather than murder.
One of the few responsibilities that a limited federal government has - and one of the few it should have - is to protect the union (of states) from foreign enemies. That is the purpose of the Patriot Act.
The main purpose of the Patriot Act is to greatly reduce terrorists' abilities to operate within the United States.
The key techniques used to do so include (but are not limited) to the following:
* Reduced restrictions on law enforcement access to records
* Reduced restrictions on conducting intelligence gathering in the United States
* Expanded government authority to regulate financial transactions
* Broadened discretion for detaining and/or deporting immigrants
* Expanded the definition of the word "terrorism" to allow greater use of the Act
First and foremost the law is unconstitutional since it is in direct violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution
We were told it was necessary to combat "terrorism" and would be used only against terrorists. Already it is being used against Americans in non-terrorism contexts. (See Elliot Spitzer case). In other words, if the federal government wants the authority to wire tap all of us without prior proof of probable cause the proper and LEGAL method of doing so is via amending the constitution, a necessarily difficult process because the founders knew it should NEVER be easy to make changes to the constitution.
increased authority to use electronic surveillance
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday (April 15, 2009) that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.
But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was "dumbfounded" that such a report would be issued". Washing Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-s tands-rightwing-extremism/?page=3
Today she offered a weasel worded apology and blamed DHS employees and "Washington word smiting" for her irresponsible and impolitic remarks. One would think a member of the Presidents cabinet would have the intellect to realized that such a statement was inflammatory on its surface and further researched the assertion before defending it.
These attitudes with in her circle of advisors give a clear view of the of the anti Vet undertones within this Administration. The first indication was when President Obama became the first President in history not to attend the "Heroes (Veterans and Military) Inaugural Ball. I personally don't believe it was a conscious decision by the President. But I am sure it was by his advisors and schedulers
Sadly they and Ms. Napolitano do not understand the obvious. Common decency aside, when you disparage Veterans it sends a message to those currently serving and to the next generation of Americans the Nation may need to call upon.
Openly denigrating Veterans has become in vogue again. First the Media and Hollywood. Penn State, a major university and now a member of the Presidents Cabinet. http://themunz.blogspot.com/2009/04/youtube-penn-state-stude NT-affairs.HTML.
And worst of it, the Secretary of Home Land Securityvilifies those very Americans that she may have to call upon to defend our safety and security, It is a dangerous president and reflects a serious culture within the Administration.
There is no question that there is an anti veterans culture among many of the Presidents advisors. I don't think the President is anti veteran per se . But it is hard to argue the point when Secretary Neapolitan makes such a outrageous comment. And originally justifies stands by it in the national media.
We you read the docs, the authors intimate that they have no proof as such, but just came to this conclusion.
Her original statement of defense of sounds same the stereotyping of Vietnam vets confronted upon their return form the fields of battle..
The larger point in defense of my assertion, is that she originally said she stood by the statement. So we a have cabinet official who believed it to be accurate and that is on the public record. And she demonstrated no judgment concerning an unsubstantiated statement. That alone says much about Secretary Napolitano!
What Janet Napolitano did will cause untold damage to these returning Vets. Her attitude is now in the public's conscience. As is her mealy-mouthed explanation.
Give me food and I will live give me water and I will die what am I?
Asked By Wiki User
What is the biggest number you can make using the digits 641?
Asked By Wiki User
Why is TikTok getting banned in the US?
Asked By Amie Smitham
What is exponet of 7x10x10x10x10?
Asked By Wiki User
Define Patriot Act and What it has done for Criminal Justice Agencies?
Asked By Wiki User
Is the patriot act in affect. And at what point does this current administration crosses the line into treason?
Asked By Wiki User
What has the patriot act done for the criminal justice agencies?
Asked By Wiki User
What are the differences between the us patriot act and the electronic communications privacy act?
Asked By Wiki User
Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.