Difference between revisions of "USA PATRIOT Act"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (double spam revert) |
(→Links: more references) |
||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
* {{dkosopedia|Patriot Act}} | * {{dkosopedia|Patriot Act}} | ||
* {{sourcewatch|Patriot Act I}} | * {{sourcewatch|Patriot Act I}} | ||
| − | * [http://www.fcnl.org/issues/issue.php?issue_id=68 Friends | + | * [http://www.scn.org/ccapa/ Concerned Citizens Against the Patriot Act] |
| + | ** [http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html Patriot Act vs. Constitution] | ||
| + | * [https://web.archive.org/web/20110307021034/http://www.fcnl.org/issues/issue.php?issue_id=68 Friends Committee on National Legislation] | ||
===Filed Links=== | ===Filed Links=== | ||
| − | {{links | + | {{links/news}} |
| + | ===to file=== | ||
| + | * '''2009-04-19''' [http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/webster/090419 Patriot Act unconstitutional] by Michael Webster (note: site is apparently right wing) | ||
| + | |||
===Discussion=== | ===Discussion=== | ||
* '''2007-06-12''' [http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/to-catch-a-wolf To Catch a Wolf: How to Stop Conservative Frames in Their Tracks] by Christina Smith: second section ("The Question of Terrorism") discusses how [[Wolf Blitzer]] phrased a question to [[Dennis Kucinich]] about the Patriot Act in such a way that he was able to slip many assumptions in without further discussion: "First, and perhaps most importantly, the question assumed that the plot was indeed serious and was not ... disorganized and disgruntled citizens who were hapless and harmless. Second, the question assumed that the plot was only foiled due to the provisions of the Patriot Act – not community cooperation or police work. Third, the question lumped all Patriot Act provisions together under the banner of necessity. Many provisions in the Patriot Act are indeed beneficial and needed. However, many more are a clear violation of civil rights – Blitzer's question did not reveal these disparities. Fourth, the language "tough measure" and "terrorists out there" represented the Bush administration exactly as the President wanted: The Republicans are tough (hence the Democrats are weak), and there is real evil immediately threatening us (and the Democrats are too weak to protect us). ... Finally, the question suggested that the trampling of civil rights through this "tough measure to deal with potential terrorists" is virtuous and worthy of being commended. Since the plot was foiled – Blitzer's question implied that the Patriot Act is an effective measure to fight terrorists – and is therefore worth the destruction of civil rights." | * '''2007-06-12''' [http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/to-catch-a-wolf To Catch a Wolf: How to Stop Conservative Frames in Their Tracks] by Christina Smith: second section ("The Question of Terrorism") discusses how [[Wolf Blitzer]] phrased a question to [[Dennis Kucinich]] about the Patriot Act in such a way that he was able to slip many assumptions in without further discussion: "First, and perhaps most importantly, the question assumed that the plot was indeed serious and was not ... disorganized and disgruntled citizens who were hapless and harmless. Second, the question assumed that the plot was only foiled due to the provisions of the Patriot Act – not community cooperation or police work. Third, the question lumped all Patriot Act provisions together under the banner of necessity. Many provisions in the Patriot Act are indeed beneficial and needed. However, many more are a clear violation of civil rights – Blitzer's question did not reveal these disparities. Fourth, the language "tough measure" and "terrorists out there" represented the Bush administration exactly as the President wanted: The Republicans are tough (hence the Democrats are weak), and there is real evil immediately threatening us (and the Democrats are too weak to protect us). ... Finally, the question suggested that the trampling of civil rights through this "tough measure to deal with potential terrorists" is virtuous and worthy of being commended. Since the plot was foiled – Blitzer's question implied that the Patriot Act is an effective measure to fight terrorists – and is therefore worth the destruction of civil rights." | ||
| Line 26: | Line 31: | ||
* '''2006-02-28''' [http://www.nysun.com/article/28232 Patriot Act E-Mail Searches Apply to Non-Terrorists, Judges Say] by Josh Gerstein, The New York Sun | * '''2006-02-28''' [http://www.nysun.com/article/28232 Patriot Act E-Mail Searches Apply to Non-Terrorists, Judges Say] by Josh Gerstein, The New York Sun | ||
===Video=== | ===Video=== | ||
| − | * [[googlevideo:-6828018365396793024|Bullshit!]] by [[Penn & Teller]] (first half is about PATRIOT, second half is about surveillance) | + | * <s>[[googlevideo:-6828018365396793024|Bullshit!]]</s> by [[Penn & Teller]] (first half is about PATRIOT, second half is about surveillance) |
** "[[other purposes]]" as a legal phrase | ** "[[other purposes]]" as a legal phrase | ||
** most of the reps who voted for the act didn't read it | ** most of the reps who voted for the act didn't read it | ||
** gives right to get lists of books checked out by library patrons without their notification | ** gives right to get lists of books checked out by library patrons without their notification | ||
** trials on offshore barges | ** trials on offshore barges | ||
| − | ** [[ | + | ** [[we are at war]] ?? libraries as sanctuaries for terror? |
| − | ** Bob Barr, republican who voted for the act, now regrets his vote | + | ** [[Bob Barr]], republican who voted for the act, now regrets his vote |
** cameras didn't stop the terrorists; [[citizen empowerment|armed passengers]] could have stopped them | ** cameras didn't stop the terrorists; [[citizen empowerment|armed passengers]] could have stopped them | ||