If you really want to read & judge for yourself, you might look at PATRIOTWATCH, (http://www.patriotwatch.org/), and/or check out ample posts under the category "Civil Liberties" at TalkLeft, (http://www.talkleft.com/), for starters.

How many library records have been secretly viewed because of the Patriot Act and were they looking at mine? I don't know, it's classified. How many enemy combatant illegal aliens have been jailed indefinitely? I don't know, it's classified. How many roaving wiretaps have been granted and are any of them on phones I use? I don't know, it's classified. How many people's emails are being monitored and are they reading all of mine? I don't know, it's classified. You won't be getting any examples because they are all classified.

Sorry Peggy, but PATRIOTWATCH is the exact sort of emotionally charged, highly partisan site I'm talking about. No thank you.

I'm looking for dispassionate analysis from a reasoned perspective, not links to editorials in SLATE on why Ashcroft is evil and why John Edwards says the Bush administration is coming for our children.

Trigger: References? Specific sources?

Orrin Kerr is dispassionate and analytical, and pretty much tears apart the critics, and makes the case for why PATRIOT only strengthened civil liberties in some crucial areas. Dahlia Lithwick notes that a lot of the fears are hysterical and overblown, but makes the case that some concerns are legitimate.

Got anything more sources like these? Because let me tell you: if you'd told me two years ago that library records are all a matter of public domain, I would have found that mildly interesting and not at all disturbing. So why should I be scared now?

"Roving wiretaps?" That's a nice scary way of saying, "a judge may order wire taps to follow a specific suspect, and not merely a specific phone number." So what?

And how many NON-roving wiretaps were issued BEFORE 9/11? Who the fuck knows, and who the fuck cares? You still have to go through a judge for these things, and all becomes public record eventually. So what? Any judge can order a wiretap on any phone any time--that was the law well before PATRIOT. So now he can issue wiretap order on a person rather than a specific phone number, and for security reasons they don't want to publish the names of all people whose phones are tapped? Could they do that before? I'm supposed to be frightened?

THIS is the encroaching police state?

That's it?

Ok, Dean. I just offered a couple of starting points, if, as you said, you'd like to really explore the implications of the PATRIOT act. I still urge you to look at TalkLeft's "Civil Liberties" file, and maybe you can try this: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61836-2003Aug28.html), if you need something more 'mainstream,' or whatever it takes for you to just read some source material (that you've asked for) without dismissing it as "emotional"?

The Washington Post piece gives no specifics on what powers the Attorney General has as a result of this act that he didn't before, specifies no limitations on those powers, gives no back and forth on the benefits and drawbacks of whatever he wants. Just a lot on why Ashcroft is "controversial" and tells us Democrats hate him and that some Republicans are nervous.

I don't get this. Why can't I get something that says:

1) Patriot Act allows A. A was not allowed before. The limitations on A are as follows [insert details here].

2) Patriot Act allows B. B was allowed before, under circumstance X and Y. Now it will also be allowed under Z.

3) Prior to Patriot Act, the Attorney General had to [blah blah blah]. Now he doesn't have to [blah blah blah] but he still has to [blah].

I don't want to hear how scared people are, how "controversial" the legislation is, and I don't need to hear about secret library book checkout records. I want to hear what's so damned different from before, what's still the same, not how "uncompromising" or "hard line" or "controversial" the Attorney General is. I want to know what he can do that he couldn't do before, under what circumstances he can and can't do them, what's changed, what's the same.

Orin Kerr comes the closest to actually doing that that I've ever seen, and he thinks most of the rest of you are off your rockers. If the fearmongers can't give specifics, I cannot take them seriously.

Note: I've been asking this same question for over a year and still have yet to get an answer. I do keep hearing about how scary certain Democrats think John Ashcroft is though. Woo-hoo. I spent 8 years listening to Republicans tell me how evil Janet Reno is, and I remember several years of Democrats telling me how evil Ed Meese was. I can't remember an Attorney General that people didn't hate. Big whoopie-doo.

Where's the beef?

You could try emailing Nick Gillespe over at www.reason.com and ask him.... :)

Dean, I can't do your reading for you. But here's a hint: "sneak and peak." (Google it, or something, for gosh sakes.) You can't seriously be saying that if no one convinces you to do so (i.e. researching major issues for yourself) here on your pages, that you're content to post such tired complaints about those who do (read things)? C'mon.

Dean, I'm mostly with you. To be honest I don't know what's even IN the Patriot Act I. I do know that if you aren't breaking the law - ANY law, then you are safe. Just inferring that Ashcroft and the Republicans will use this as an opportunity to squash dissention doesn't make it so. Last I checked that's still protected by Bill of Rights. If, however, you are busy exercising your freedom of speech, press, and assembly, oh and breaking the law at the same time, well cry me a river.

The only thing that scares me is in the definition of "terrorism". Right now the most horrible thing I do is download the occassional song from Kazaa. The RIAA would love to have that deemed "terrorism" so they, a private entity can trample on people's rights so they can continue to live like fat cats. And if the RIAA wants to do it, you can be sure there are dozens of other organizations that do, too.

Private organizations taking on the role of the police - now THAT scares me.

References: The Patriot Act. Sources: The Patriot Act. Read it. Read what it changed. If it changed nothing, as you seem to believe, why was it implemented? Why was it SOOOO crucial to be voted on before it was even read if it changed nothing? If it's not a big deal, why was it such a big deal that it had to be passed only weeks after 9-11 without public debate? Where's the beef that made it sooooo crucial to be passed sight unseen? You should be asking all the supporters of the Patriot Act exactly why it was so important. They should have your answers for A and B and X and Y and Z, now shouldn't they? Don't limit your bias to only question those who oppose it. Where are your references and sources for why the Patriot Act is so crucial, yet doesn't change anything? I want to see sources offering an analysis in favor between the time the Patriot Act was introduced and when it was voted on and passed? Show me the analysis that was done before the Patriot Act passed. You assume it's harmless and want proof it harms. Try assuming it is harmful and get proof it isn't. Seems to me the answer to both those questions should be the same. You round up your proof that it is not harmful and changed nothing and I'll read the stupid thing again and copy and paste the pertinent parts.

I guess you would have no problem with this happening to you or your family.

http://www.tribstar.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2003/August/12-1562-news01.txt

I also guess you would have no problem if one agent with a twitchy finger accidently shot you during the raid based on secret probable cause evidence that will never be made public.

Dean, I don't think you're getting the beef because no one knows where the meat market is.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/

Here is a general analysis.
Here is a more specific analysis related to electronic media and privacy. And here is an analysis specific to immigration policy.

These analyses show very clearly what the new powers are. But in and of itself, I also don't find many of these powers terribly frightening. What I don't like is the over-broad definition of terrorism along with the new powers to circumvent judicial review. Together, these two items make abuses of the Justice Dept. powers, as well as the ability to hide those abuses, far too convenient. (You can find several articles like this that detail known abuses...but of course, due to the new secrecy rules, it is likely that there are others that have not come to light.) I'm glad that people are paying more attention to this issue, but I don't think the act needs to be repealed...just rewritten to provide more oversight of the JD.

PS- Orrin's analysis only pertains to online privacy, which is only a tiny portion of the PA.

Trigger,

The problem with all these reports of abuses of the Patriot Act, like the one you cite with a URL is that they have nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Certainly the author of the piece suggests that Patriot Act provisions are responsible, but that doesn't make it so. In fact, there is nothing in that story that wasn't completely normal BEFORE the Patriot Act.

And that "secret probable cause" evidence has always BEEN secret, due to the purported "right to privacy". The only time that information becomes public IF it ever does, is at trial. And it is perfectly common for the probable cause for a raid or an arrest to be concealed even in court. All this was true BEFORE the Patriot Act.

I also guess you would have no problem if one agent with a twitchy finger accidently shot you during the raid based on secret probable cause evidence that will never be made public.

There are WAYYYY to many incidents of this happening already on record before the passing of the Patriot Act.

This is pretty much the point that Dean is making. All this blather (and your posts have been nothing BUT blather) about the evils of the Patriot Act fail to mention specifics. All of the actual incidents I have seen cited could have happened without the Patriot Act, and many identical incidents DID happen before the Patriot Act.

There are some changes that we know about, changes that make good sense, and changes that DID, in the wake of 9/11, call for rapid passage of the bill.

1. "Roving" wiretaps. When the existing wiretap law was written, cell phones were not even a wet dream, and there was no such thing as a "pay phone". That law had been updated from time to time, but at its base, it did not contemplate that a person might use more than one phone. The Patriot Act updates it to bring it in line with the capabilities of modern technology, on both the criminal and law enforcement side of things.

2. Easier access to library records and similar PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. It has always been possible for law enforcement to subpeona such records. The only difference under the Patriot Act is that the DEGREE of probable cause that is required for the subpeona has been lowered.

The same thing is true of book store sales records.

3. Federal investigators are now allowed to surveil people in church and in public political meetings. Prior to the passing of the Patriot Act, it was perfectly legal for a local police officer to follow you into a church and observe what you do there, but it was NOT legal for a federal officer to do so. (This is rather stupid.)

4. Investigators pursuing terrorism investigations are allowed to share information with investigators pursuing criminal investigations. Prior to the Patriot Act, if an investigation into mob activities developed information that one of the mob people was selling explosives and arms to people who were under investigation by another agent for possible terrorist activities, it was ILLEGAL for him to tell the other investigator about it. I think even you will agree that the sharing of such information is a Good Thing.

(Note: I've spent the last 18 years in law enforcement, I know what I am talking about with regard to probable cause.)

This is also interesting. It mentions the fact that states, not feds, do most of the wiretapping, but that states use fed guidelines (including the Patriot Act). With the less-regulated guidelines of the PA now in place, but without any additional state-level oversight or expertise combatting (or even defining) terrorism, it seems the states are ripe for abuses of the PA as well.

Leave it to Gary to inject a little real-world common sense into the discussion.

I myself come from a blue collar background, and my policemen and firemen relatives bear no resemblance to the jackbooted goose-steppers conjured up by hand-fluttering leftists. They are, all of them, good men with good hearts. I would much sooner trust my somewhat flaky fireman brother-in-law before Al Gore, to watch my back in a crisis.

Bill

Oh, and Mr. Dooley brings another point up. To really believe in the horrible evil of John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, one has to believe that there are soulless, brainwashed stormtroopers out there who are willing to stomp on everyone's rights without once questioning the actions of their superiors.
I know that "I was ordered to do it" is most assuredly not a valid defense for acting in a way that violates civil rights in the US Govt. It is a part of all initial training. There are still very strong laws and procedures to protect the privacy of US persons (including non-citizen residents as well as non-citizen, non-resident employees of US corporations) that have not been erased or even affected by the Patriot Act.
And I was scared and upset at the actions of the IRS long ago (like armed incursion into a home and dragging the person out from his shower because of late tax payments).
I've been with you on this one, Dean, for some time now.

It has all been said, except possibly for one question raised by Trigger that is typical of this whole concocted neo-McCarthyism scare.

Trigger asks: "How many illegal alien enemy combatants have been jailed indefinitely? I don't know because it is classified."

Wrong on all counts. The FBI has already released data on its sweep of some thousands of aliens, illegal or not. Jailed indefinitely? ZERO. (Maybe he's confusing aliens resident in the US with the Guantanamo detainees, who are being kept legally in custody until the cessation of hostilities, i.e., until pigs fly.)

The cases of aliens rounded up in the US have all resulted in release, except for less than 250 indictments. Of those indicted, more than half have been tried and convicted in open court, or acquitted. The others are still pending trial, and have all the protections available to any criminal defendant. Answer your question, Trigger?

Interesting that the vast majority of those so vehemently opposed to the PATRIOT act (with the likely exception of the EFF and other professional privacy-watching organisations, who, while I'm too lazy to look up history on, probably did so), don't seem to have any complaints about FISA of '96 (which is one of the primary bits of legislation that PATRIOT expands, if I remember my reading - FISA also includes some of the bits that people most-often hyperventilate about).

I don't suppose the fact that Bush couldn't remotely be blamed for FISA makes any difference?

I mean, Christ. I understand being opposed to PATRIOT (and I understand far more sympathetically being opposed to specific parts of it, for specific reasons); but I can't help but suspect very strongly that a large number of those opposing PATRIOT do so so loudly and so hyperbolicly only because the man in the White House is One Of THEM (Republicans), and a majority in Congress have (R) after their names.

I might be wrong, but listening to them in their contexts over the past year or two hasn't dissuaded me from this belief, and I believe it's well evidenced.

(I repeat, groups like EFF aren't particularly guilty of this; nor, of course, is that minority of people who bother to note that PATRIOT is strictly incremental and that FISA broke at least as much ground in terms of Horrible Violations Of Civil Liberties. Or people that note that as far as anyone can tell, nobody has used PATRIOT provisions to get library records - the entire brouhaha appears to have been based on the fact that it could be used to do so at some point in the future.)

Hyperbole and hyperventilation (and any other appropriate hyperwords) don't make a strong argument. Specific evidence and appreciation of context do. If PATRIOT is as bad as people imply, it should be easy to show it being bad while avoiding the former and employing the latter. If, as I suspect, it's not that bad (while still potentially bad, I'll surely grant), maybe it'll be better to be accurate about that, rather than overplay the hand?

Here's a handy guide. If the commentary doesn't cite both the relevant section of the Patriot Act and the text of that section, ignore it.

Maybe Trigger would like to enlighten us:

Which section of the Patriot Act, specifically, is responsible for "people's emails [] being monitored"? What does the text of that section say? What change in the law did it make?

Which section of the Patriot Act, specifically, is responsible for "roaving wiretaps hav[ing] been granted"? What does the text of that section say? What change in the law did it make?

Which section of the Patriot Act, specifically, is responsible for "enemy combatant illegal aliens hav[ing] been jailed indefinitely"? What does the text of that section say? What change in the law did it make?

Now why do I doubt that Trigger would be able to do any of that?

If you are looking for a concise, dispassionate description of some of the changes brought by the PATRIOT ACT, a good place to start is this recent opinion rejecting the ACLU's attempt to force the Justice Department to turn over statistical information about how the statute was being used. (See especially pages 2-6, though the whole thing is worth reading.)

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/02-2077.pdf

I get it. If I ask why the Patriot Act isn't harmful, it's blather. If Dean asks why the Patriot Act is harmful, it isn't blather. Funny how that works.

So the story I cited has nothing to do with the PA. It all could happen BEFORE the PA, you say. All of these powers were in place before the PA. Using military style midnight raids is another problem and whole other story.

I'll ask once again then. Why was the Patriot Act so important to keep the sky from falling that it had to be passed before any public debate? What about the Patriot Act made it so important that we couldn't find terrorists without it? What provisions in there were so important it had to be passed right away or we were all going to be the victims of terrorists?

250 indictments for what? Planning terrorist activities or just being late filing paperwork? I still see all these arguments that the Patriot Act doesn't really change much at all, but nothing to back up the bloody murder screaming done to get support of the Patriot Act before it was passed. If the Patriot Act is as good as people imply, it should be easy to show it being good without using scare tactics to get people to vote for it sight unseen. And Al can tell me the source of where his questions were answered before the Patriot Act was passed can't he?

This is why there is so much opposition to the Patriot Act. They said let's just pass this without proving it is helpful, without explaining why it's crucial to protect us all from terrorists, without having a public debate, and without even reading it, and then make those opposed to that course of events prove it's bad. I'm not calling anyone evil. I just want the supporters of the Patriot Act to do what they should have done before it passed instead of asking skeptics if they've stopped beating their wives yet. I'm waiting. Where's the proof the Patriot Act doesn't really change anything and is vital to protect us from terrorists? Where are the transcipts of the congressional debate about the provisions of the Patriot Act before it was passed? Now why do I doubt Al can provide any political or public debate that sheds light on how the Patriot Act doesn't change anything before it was passed?

Orrin Kerr says:

"From time to time, I blog about some article or commentary that misdescribes the effects of the USA Patriot Act (as I did earlier today). Correcting such errors is a surprisingly easy game to play: the majority of the descriptions of the Patriot Act that I come across in major newspapers, magazines, or online have significant errors. Pretty much all of the errors cut the same way; they overrepresent the effect of the Patriot Act, making its provisions seem much more significant than they actually are."

And some examples:

1) "But the Patriot Act did not lower the privacy protection offered to search terms."

2) "Section 215 on the whole probably offers more privacy protection in the terrorism context than the law has traditionally offered in the criminal law context."

3) "The government has had the authority to conduct sneak-and-peek searches since long before the Patriot Act."

4) "the Patriot Act hardly changed the Wiretap Act at all, and the law still requires the same "super warrant" that it has required in the past to tap a phone (the law since 1968) or intercept a private e-mail message (the law since 1986)."

I get it. If I ask why the Patriot Act isn't harmful, it's blather. If Dean asks why the Patriot Act is harmful, it isn't blather. Funny how that works.

(sigh) No, you don't get it. You are not asking why the Patriot Act is not harmful, and in any case, it's not my job to prove that it's not harmful. YOU are the one making accusations, it is up to you to support those accusations with facts. So far you have not done so.

So the story I cited has nothing to do with the PA. It all could happen BEFORE the PA, you say. All of these powers were in place before the PA. Using military style midnight raids is another problem and whole other story.

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch, are you retarded? We have been doing military style midnight raids on drug dealers for literaly DECADES. We've been doing those raids on arms dealers, car thieves and all sorts of bad people.

We do them in the daytime too, ever hear of Waco? Your elected representatives sent thier tools in to burn dozens of women and children to death because they defied the government. John Ashcroft and George Bush had nothing to do with the LARGEST GOVERNMENT ORDERED MASSACRE OF CIVILIANS SINCE THE INDIAN WARS.

We sent armed men into a private residence to kidnap a small child from his unarmed and uncriminal family members too, remember the picture of Elian looking down the barrel of a Mac-10 in the hands of one of the storm troopers?

The government had all the power it needed to do anything it wanted long before the Patriot Act.

I'll ask once again then. Why was the Patriot Act so important to keep the sky from falling that it had to be passed before any public debate? What about the Patriot Act made it so important that we couldn't find terrorists without it? What provisions in there were so important it had to be passed right away or we were all going to be the victims of terrorists?

What was important was that Congress be seen DOING something, and doing it RIGHT NOW. The big rush had nothing to do with hidden provisions and everything to do with public relations. (And the general incompetence of congress.)

It's not my job to prove it's harmful, it's your job to prove it isn't. Sorry buddy. It's your job to prove it's needed in the first place. Have you stopped beating your wife and raping your kids yet Gary?

Gary, you may want to re-think your whole retarded argument and read what I said. What part of "another story" and "whole other problem" don't you understand. Hmm. Did I mention Ashcroft or Bush being involved in WACO? Nope. That would be Reno and Clinton wouldn't it? Am I defending them? Nope. Straw man, Gary, straw man.

Now we are getting somewhere. Gary admits the Patriot Act was just a PR piece and a knee jerk reaction by Ashcroft and Bush et all to give the appearance that the government could actually protect us from all terrorists when on Sept. 11 they batted exactly 0 stopping terrorists. Could it be that nothing in the Patriot Act was direly needed to prevent terrorism and thus the reasoning used to support the Patriot Act was only sky is falling hysteria scare tactics at best? Why should anyone support the Patriot Act if it was only a PR piece to give our sheep the impression the government was DOING something? And if it was only a PR move, why is Ashcroft touring the country preaching only to the law enforcement choir about the dire need for the Patriot Act and more to save our country from terrorists?

Now let's listen to some words by a former Republican Congressman and US Attorney.

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/news_flankingaction.html

The perfect example is a measure passed a few weeks ago by the House of Representatives (not yet by the Senate). The measure would cut off funds for law enforcement agencies to conduct so-called "sneak and peek" searches. In such searches, federal agents can go into a home or a business and seize evidence without telling the owner they were ever there. Prior law required that agents announce themselves and leave an inventory of what they took and when they finished. In this way, you would at least know they were there, and could challenge their actions in court.

Sneak-and-peek power had long been available to the feds, so long as they showed a federal judge beforehand that it was needed for national security or an emergency. Interestingly, the PATRIOT Act, which was signed into law soon after the 9-11 terrorist acts, gave the government such power in all criminal cases -- not just those involving allegations of terrorism.

As a former U.S. attorney, I know that in virtually every instance in which the government previously sought authority to conduct such a notice-less search, the judge granted the request. Not satisfied, the Justice Department lobbied hard for the power to conduct such searches routinely in criminal investigations. The House measure to restrict sneak-and-peek is but one example of the reaction by Americans and their representatives in Washington against efforts to trim our precious liberties.

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr

The only people who need to be scared of the Patriot Act are terrorists. I really don't think Ashcroft is interested that you rented Moby Dick from the library or whatever.

I mean, Christ. I understand being opposed to PATRIOT (and I understand far more sympathetically being opposed to specific parts of it, for specific reasons); but I can't help but suspect very strongly that a large number of those opposing PATRIOT do so so loudly and so hyperbolicly only because the man in the White House is One Of THEM (Republicans), and a majority in Congress have (R) after their names.

Good point and one of the dangers of this sort of loud hyberbole about phony claims that our civil liberties are in danger is that after a while people start to tune it out much like the boy who cried wolf. Eventually if a real problem crops up, people will be so numb to it after living through months of "Ashcroft is a Nazi" that we'll have a harder time correcting the problem.

For the record, I'm part of that 60% of Americans who don't believe that the federal government has gone too far in fighting the war on terrorism. I agree that the way in which the Patriot Act was passed left much to be desired . . .as did the FISA changes in 1996 and the Clinton Crime Bill in 1994 and pretty much every piece of gun control legislation that gets rammed through Congress or a legislature after a high profile shooting. But it does not necessarily follow that the law itself is bad. There are many things which seem to be common-sensical changes of the "why they hell couldn't they do that before" variety and I'm unsure about the "controversial" elements since the rhetoric surrounding them has a lot of heat and not much light.

If you have specific concerns about what is actually in the law, please make them in a reasoned and rational manner. Otherwise you risk becoming to civil liberties protection what a malfunctioning car alarm is to stopping auto theft.

I'm with Dean on this.

Every time I ask for honest, dispassionate evidence that the PATRIOT Act is, as written, as evil as its detractors try to claim, I get told the equivalent of either 1) "Go read it, can't you see?" (or, 'Go read this other source that only has anecdotes or less, not actual contextual reasoning'), or 2) "You moron!".

Oh, and to rebound an argument back at Trigger:

Congress wrote it, Congress voted on it overwhelmingly, stop blaming Bush and Ashcroft. Especially stop blaming Ashcroft for upholding a law that Congress made. That, after all, is his job.

Now we are getting somewhere. Gary admits the Patriot Act was just a PR piece and a knee jerk reaction by Ashcroft and Bush et all to give the appearance that the government could actually protect us from all terrorists when on Sept. 11 they batted exactly 0 stopping terrorists.

"Admits" has such a negative connotation, it suggests that I was trying to conceal this information in some way. Didn't happen, Bubba.

But I note that you blame Bush and Ashcroft for it. That didn't happen either. It was all Congress, all the way. Your elected representatives, not the "unelected President and the Fundamentalist Attorney General." They didn't have anything to do wtih it until AFTER it was passed.

Sorry buddy. It's your job to prove it's needed in the first place.

That turns out not to be the case. If I were a supporter of the Patriot Act, you MIGHT be able to pin that one on me, but since I am NOT a supporter of it, you lose.

I am not saying, and have never said, that the Patriot Act is good. What I have said is that it is not as bad as you say it is, and nothing you have presented suggests otherwise.

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/hr3162.pdf
About as raw as it gets. 342 pages. Have fun.

I kind of hate to bring them up, but how about the ACLU? I know they've become a bit partisan about some issues, but I think they can still generally be trusted for informational content. I hope.

Home addess is simple enough:
http://www.aclu.org/
And there's a link right on that page for the patriot act (as of 9/10/2003) pointing to this page:
Patriot Act

Dean,

Here is a beginning. There is a ton of paper/pixels to the topic. That is just ONE reason I can think of that none of the Chicken Littles will even attempt to give you the crib notes version of The Act. Read for yourself and then toss US a piece. :)
**********
Frequently Requested Information

Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (S. Rept. 107-351 and H. Rept. 107-792)

USA Patriot Act (Pub.L. 107-56): To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. Signed into law on Oct. 26, 2001 - [H.R. 3162] TEXT | PDF

Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107-296): To establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. Signed into law on Nov. 25, 2002 - [H.R. 5005] TEXT | PDF

Find this and MUCH more at:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/index.html

Um, Trigger - there was a public debate about PA I before it was passed. Perhaps you missed it? I sure didn't - the WAPO editorialized about it, the NYT did as well, matter of fact I'm pretty sure WSJ did too. I remember lots of Senate Dems complaining that it came up for a vote before they 'had time to read it', but didn't try to stop it from going to a vote. I certainly had time to write my Senators in support of the law.

It wasn't a long, loud, acrimonious debate, but there was a debate. Just because opponents didn't have time to scream long and loud and spread half-truths about it - as they are doing now - it doesn't mean a public debate did not occur.

I'm sick of all US citizens thinking that they have the right to reprimand the gov't...especially when this act was passed to guarantee our safety. They have created this amazing lifestyle for us. THEY created the bill of rights and the US constitution, so if in order to protect the lives of innocent Americans, then sure, they can twist the freedoms....the bill of rights still stands.
The government doesn't care what we're saying to our friends or how much we're telling our boyfriends we luv them over the telephone. They're not listening or reading into "that." If they're listening in on our conversations it's because they have just cause...and reason to believe that we're detremental to American safety. But, on the other hand, if we're speaking Israeli to people cross country, damn RIGHT they'd better hack into every aspect of that person's life possible. We should have nothing to hide about our lives....if you're innocent, no one's going to get any info on you. Who cares that they know what you rented from the library? So, does the librarian...and chances are, if you're checking out tons of books on bombs and terrorism and Iraq and etc......they're reporting your ass FOR THEIR SAFETY. I'm sick of Americans being so self involved and thinking this world revolves around them.......I'm sick of hearing about books titled "America, the beautiful...or is it?" The gov't has provided us with this extraordinary life which can't be sought elsewhere........that's proven in the numbers of immigrants coming to the US......2/3 of immigrants come here......for what, happiness, money, safety....because OUR GOVERNMENT has provided us with that. If you can't deal with the way the government is handling these matters, get out of this country and try to find a life comparable to this elsewhere.
Everyone's using the slippery slope argument here.........if we allow them rights into our privacy, then pretty soon, this will be a tyrannical country. No, it won't.
And obviously, no one that speaks against this act lost anyone to terrorism. Quit making yourself the victim.