Patriot Act no more. Your thoughts?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:57:59 -0400

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/31/411044789/live-blog-facing-midnight-deadline-the-senate-debates-parts-of-the-patriot-act

Parts Of Patriot Act Expire, Even As Senate Moves On Bill Limiting Surveillance

Unable to overcome parliamentary maneuvers by Sen. Rand Paul, the Senate adjourned and let three provisions of the Patriot Act expire at midnight.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 1 at 2015 1:18 AM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 01:18:39 -0400

I think that they need to scale back some of it, but maintain what is needed to insure National Security.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 2:26 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:26:52 -0400

We need to resist the urge to embrace the surveillance state, I'd like to see the entire Patriot act dismantled and trash caned.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 1 at 2015 2:35 AM

PO1 John Miller — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:35:09 -0400

I was against the Patriot Act when it was first written/came into law and I am still against it. Nobody, not even the SCOTUS, can justify it in anyway and say that it is not unconstitutional!

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jun 1 at 2015 2:39 AM

COL Ted Mc — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:39:15 -0400

The first rule of any Security Officer is "Threats To Security WILL Be Found.".

I was never a big fan of the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" for several reasons (not the least of which is the fact that I LOATHE convoluted legislative titles designed to produce cutsy acronyms.

There was very little contained in the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" that wasn't already available to law enforcement and/or security forces (albeit with MUCH better safeguards for Constitutional Rights and individual liberties) BUT the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" made it easier for lazy people to look like they were doing their jobs well.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if an UNBIASED study were to show that there has been zero improvement in the level of security for the United States of America in the past 14 years - or, at least, no statistically significant one.

As long as ISIS and the other bands of sociopathic murderers persist in recruiting the "low hanging fruit" (and as long as there are "low hanging fruit" to be recruited) they are going to be able to attack the targets you don't think they are going to attack because you don't think of them as targets.

For example, what would the effect of taking down the Revelstoke Dam be?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 5:50 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 05:50:14 -0400

My thought, sir, is this is a big mistake. An important weapon in the battle of good vs. evil has gone away.

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jun 1 at 2015 6:27 AM

PO3 David Fries — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 06:27:55 -0400

I am on the fence about the Patriot Act. I believe that anything that further entrenches the Federal Government into our personal lives is bad. I also believe that the government needs tools to be able to prevent acts of terrorism on our own soil. It's a tough balancing act.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 1 at 2015 7:56 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 07:56:14 -0400

Simply put, there was enough of the People that didn't want this renewed, that it made perfect sense to let it sunset.

Call it a "minority Rights" issue. Just because a tool is useful or even valuable for the government, doesn't mean that said government should have it. If there is a sizable enough dislike of a law, heck even 5%, maybe there shouldn't be a law.

To draw a parallel. Military is what 1%? Many of us don't like the proposed changed to retirement, yet the other 99% of the population is unaffected. Does that mean Congress should be able to just push through the changes because "there wasn't enough objection?"

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jun 1 at 2015 8:10 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 08:10:48 -0400

Though MOST of the (misnamed) Patriot act is still in place, this IS a step in the right direction. Well done Senator Rand Paul et al.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 1 at 2015 10:56 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 10:56:21 -0400

Those who have met me in other discussions on this forum probably don't have to read the following, but for those who haven't... The Patriot Act is anything but patriotic. This is the first rule of legislation. Simply reverse the meaning of the well-meaning title and you'll be at the root of it.

Imagine if the federal government decided to put an end to kidnapping. If they followed the reasoning behind the Patriot Act, they would make the paying of ransom illegal.

To put it simply, any terrorist attack that reaches the shores of America is prima facie evidence of a failure in American defense and diplomacy. How can anyone expect the federal government that has thus failed to correct the problem by bullying their way into the lives of citizens? At the moment of a terrorist attack it becomes a local issue. It is time for the citizens to defend themselves. This is the function of the National Guard, police forces, and citizens militias as well as individual citizens in their homes.

Isn't it interesting that the federal government, rather than getting out of the way, is denuding the National Guard of key assets, agitating to nationalize local police forces, and viewing with suspicion any attempt by citizens to arm and defend themselves?

Remember the adage: When moments count, the police are only minutes away? Well, as it applies to terrorists, when they are knocking down the door, they have already stepped over the federal government.

The bottom line: The Patriot Act was the last gasp of a drowning person dragging down anyone unfortunate enough to be within their grasp.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jun 1 at 2015 11:53 AM

COL Ted Mc — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:53:00 -0400

One of the problems that is almost certain to arise from legislation like the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act is the creation of "terrorists" like the two people recently tried in Victoria BC (that's in Canada).

Those two people were such pathetic losers that their original "plans" included conducting a mass rocket attack on Seattle WA (which they believed was only 30 miles away from Vancouver BC) - talk about "falling short". [They also had no idea of how to build rockets - let alone rockets with 30 mile ranges.]

However, through dint of diligent police work they were persuaded to plant police supplied [non-functional] bombs at a police suggested target in such a manner as to "only damage the building and would not hurt anyone" in return for which they were going to be cured of their narcotics addictions, spirited out of the country, given new identities, and provided with enough money to live a life of ease and luxury for the rest of their lives.

Look around you folks. What percentage of the citizenry would have "become radicalized" if THEY were promised that the bombs they planted at the suggestion of the police would "only damage the building and would not hurt anyone" in return for which they would be cured of their narcotics addictions, spirited out of the country, given new identities, and provided with enough money to live a life of ease and luxury for the rest of their lives?

However, the arrests and trials DO count as a "case clearance" and go a long way towards making those involved look good at the next round of promotion boards.

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Jun 1 at 2015 12:23 PM

SSG Leonard Johnson — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 12:23:56 -0400

Unfortunately I do believe it will resurface

Response by SSG Lloyd Becker BSBA-HCM, MBA made Jun 1 at 2015 2:03 PM

SSG Lloyd Becker BSBA-HCM, MBA — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:03:22 -0400

Hip-Hip Hooray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by MSgt Norman Chaney made Jun 3 at 2015 9:33 AM

MSgt Norman Chaney — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:33:43 -0400

Let them die. We don't need this intrusion when the government is not willing to testify on effectiveness to save the program. I.E. it's worth less than the invasion of our freedoms.