Paper Help: Patriot Act vs. Amendments

[KDawg]

I need to write a three page paper about how the Patriot Act effects the amendments, problem is I can't find a good website that clearly explains things... Obviously everyone gets the jist of it all, however I need to hit even the small details...

The assignment is for me to call into question the problems with it's conflicts with the amendments, say why it may be a good thing, and to express my view on the subject...

Any website help or anything would be GREATLY appreciated...

Thanks guys/girls

[iheartskins]

I'm just about finished with an article (aka thesis) that I'm writing about the Patriot Act so I may be of some help. My focus hasn't been on constitutional questions, so take my advice with a grain of salt.

Probably what your teacher is hinting at is the conflict between the 4th and 6th amendment and Title II of the Patriot Act.

Here's a link to the Library of Congress's version of the Patriot Act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:4:./temp/~c1076SB0Ky::

If it doens't work, use google to search for 107 Public Law 56 or 107 PL 56 or HR 3162 or 115 Stat 272.

Good luck.

[Kilmer17]

I think an intersting angle would be to examine the reasons certain Senators voted for it and then denounced it.

But the reality of it is you will be hard pressed to find an unbiased site with info. You'll be stuck with supersupportive or superanti sites.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

I think an intersting angle would be to examine the reasons certain Senators voted for it and then denounced it.

But the reality of it is you will be hard pressed to find an unbiased site with info. You'll be stuck with supersupportive or superanti sites.

Remlik, I don't know if you've read much about the Act, but there was virtually no legislative history. I know for a fact that Title Three (to do with money laundering and reporting requirements with broker dealers) was written by one man with very little input from Senators or their staffs. There was one statement by Sarbanes (who is famous for Sarbanes Oxley) about the Act before it was passed and that's it.

We are witnessing the response to Acts such as this and the S-Ox which are both coming under great scutiny. In the WSJ, there was a long article about a conference call held by the SEC in re Section 404 (Controls) of the Act. Companies have had some positive response through finding weaknesses in their fraud prevention but it's also cost a lot of companies more money than it's worth.

[Kilmer17]

That's an even more interesting angle.

Why would a Senator vote for a bill without understanding it?

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

That's an even more interesting angle.

Why would a Senator vote for a bill without understanding it?

Public outcry for a new bill was likely the engine behind the passage of the bill. And consider this: the bill was slated for writing on or about Sept 24, 2001 and was passed on or about October 12, 2001. That's about three weeks from idea to exection which, at least to me, seems about a 1/1000 of the time it usually takes to get something through Congress.

[Kilmer17]

I get that part. And I think it's fascinating to examine what was at work to make them do something that fast and, apparently, blindfolded.

[iheartskins]

To be able to go into the Staff Offices--especially someone like Chuck Schummer and see what was going on and who was calling and what they were saying. It'd be very interesting.

It'd also be interesting to consider/know how much of the Act was part of a plan that Congress or the President or whatever constituency had in mind even before 9/11. I bet there were provisions in the Act that had roots from well before.

[KDawg]

Thanks for the help iheart... A bit different than what I was looking for, but it'll definitely get the job done...

[Larry]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

That's an even more interesting angle.

Why would a Senator vote for a bill without understanding it?

1) You're joking, right?

2) The weekend after the Patriot Act passed, every single Sunday talk show featured a Congressman, and every one of them said the same thing: "This bill was two pages long the day it was introduced. It was four hundred pages long eight hours later when we voted. I voted in favor of the law, but don't blame me if there are stinkers in it, because no one read the whole thing before we voted."

So, if you want to know why a Senator would vote for a bill he hasn't read, just ask every single one who voted for it.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Larry

1) You're joking, right?

2) The weekend after the Patriot Act passed, every single Sunday talk show featured a Congressman, and every one of them said the same thing: "This bill was two pages long the day it was introduced. It was four hundred pages long eight hours later when we voted. I voted in favor of the law, but don't blame me if there are stinkers in it, because no one read the whole thing before we voted."

So, if you want to know why a Senator would vote for a bill he hasn't read, just ask every single one who voted for it.

To add to Larry's point, in Moore's video, he had an interview with Rep. Conyers a dem from Mich. He actually told Moore . . .

"Sit down, my son. We don't read most of the bills." :doh:

I couldn't believe that he first had the gaul to say it, and second, had the audaity to act so nonchalantly in doing so.

[Larry]

Originally posted by iheartskins

It'd also be interesting to consider/know how much of the Act was part of a plan that Congress or the President or whatever constituency had in mind even before 9/11. I bet there were provisions in the Act that had roots from well before.

If you'll remember from the last Presidential election: John Kerry wrote part of the Patriot act.

He'd written it something like ten years before 9/11, because he wanted the government to have the ability to go after dirty money. (Mostly political corruption. This is why some of "his" parts allow the government broader powers for terrorism and money laundering investigations.)

(I seem to remember that the first recorded use of Patriot powers was against a politician in Las Vegas, not a terrorist.)

When 9/11 came around, Kerry pulled out the same bill he'd been introducing for the last ten years (and watching it die in committee), added the word "terrorism" to it, and introduced it as an ammendment to Patriot.

To me, the only way a law can grow that big, that fast, is if virtually all of it was simply various Senators standing around a compost heap, tossing things they'd pulled out of their trash bins into the pile. As long as it involved increasing government powers, then it must be anti-terrorism, right?

(Which doesn't get us to Patriot Act II, which the DoJ actually spent over a year writing, in secret, so they'd have a "suggestion" ready in case another 9/11 gave them a chance to railroad through another unread extention of government powers.)

However, what this has to do with the Constitution will require actuall digging into what the law says.

[iheartskins]

Larry--that's not true about Kerry writing Title III of the Patriot Act: “International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-terrorist Financing Act of 2001,”. For my article, I've interviewed the Special Counsel of the Senate Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs committee who actually did the writing.

Kerry may have had the desire to include anti-money laundering provisions from an earlier date, but neither he, nor any member of his staff, did the actual writing. He's not even on the relevant committee. Further, the Patriot Act provisions have to do with preventing international and not domestic money laundering. Granted the Suspicious Activity Reports and Customer Identification Programs affect all domestic banks, but the scope of the Title III is, again, to prevent international money laundering.

The goverment already had the power to go after dirty money through the Bank Secrecy Act (Pub. L. No. 91-508, 84 Stat. 1114-36 (1970) (codified as amended at 12 U.S.C. §§ 1730d, 1829b, 1951-1959; 18 U.S.C. § 6002; and 31 U.S.C. §§ 321, 5311-5314, 5316-5322)) which was passed in 1970 and only facially amended by the Patriot Act.

[Maxito]

Try these websites. Hope this helps

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/feingold.html

The second link is a letter from one of the Seantors writing a letter to President Bush about the Patriot Act

[Sarge]

I'm sure Micheal Moores website can give yo a whole list of Amendments that have been supposedly violated.

I'm being serious