The PATRIOT Act has not harmed US Citizens?

[realtonygoodwin]

Hey, so I am having a discussion on Twitter about the USA PATRIOT Act with a fairly well-known conservative, who I am a fan of. When I asked what his thoughts were on the PATRIOT Act, he replied with:


Have yet to hear of any hard evidence showing even one American unjustly harmed by the PA. Can you name one?

I replied:

No, but I'm more worried about what could happen to Americans in the future. Also, that whole 4th amendment thing.

and continued with:

I have yet to hear of any hard evidence showing even one American unjustly harmed by black folks having to sit at the back of busses. Doesn't make it right though.

Him:
So, U have no argument against the PA based on any hard evidence showing any American citizens harmed by it in 10 years?

Me:
Correct, that is not the basis of my argument.

Him:
What is the basis of your argument, a slippery slope fallacy? ~ #Logic #HardEvidence

Me:
No, my basis is the 4th Amendment. If probable cause exists, then what is wrong with getting a judge's signature?

Me again:
and the FBI has admitted to civil liberties violations of thousands of Americans... Probably no physical harm, granted.

I don't really know how to answer him... is there any credible evidence that US Citizens have been harmed by the PATRIOT Act?

[specsaregood]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/the-end-of-hope-and-change/239428/



Contrary to the misleading reassurances of PATRIOT Act apologists, some provisions of the legislation aren't merely likely to be abused by law enforcement in the future -- they've already led to civil liberties violations, many of them documented circa 2009 by the Justice Department. Through National Security Letters, for example, law enforcement is permitted to obtain sensitive information from the banks, phone companies and Internet service providers of any American citizen. The FBI doesn't need a warrant to request this private data, and the target of the snooping needn't even be suspected of any connection with terrorism! More than 6,000 Americans were spied on in this manner during 2009 (the most recent year data is available), and the federal government has itself documented flagrant FBI abuses. All that's missing is a desire to fix the problem. There are plenty of other objectionable PATRIOT ACT sections too: the "lone wolf" provision, roving wiretaps, Section 215 notices. All are worthy of study, especially since now the American people won't learn more about them through a Congressional debate.

[realtonygoodwin]

But are we actually "harmed" by having our civil liberties violated?

[Sola_Fide]

But are we actually "harmed" by having our civil liberties violated?

Yes.

[headhawg7]

Yes.

Ditto

[realtonygoodwin]

In what way? Also, I edited my OP cuz I missed a couple.

[steph3n]

People are harmed but can't talk about it, research this: national security letter

[Anti Federalist]

What is the basis of your argument, a slippery slope fallacy?

God I hate that.

You could be sailing down a slope greased with pig shit right into the open gates of hell, and somebody would say, "oh this slope is just a fallacy".

Bet there were people in the boxcars on the way to gulags or death camps saying the same thing.

[Liberty Rebellion]

Check out this podcast:
Boiling Frogs: Nick Merrill, Another Innocent Victim of the Patriot Act
http://peterbcollins.com/2011/02/18/boiling-frogs-nick-merrill-another-innocent-victim-of-the-patriot-act/

[affa]

Harm has nothing to do with it, and the fact that he's requiring you to prove it harms someone is flawed.

If some gov't criminalizes blue sweaters, or adds security checkpoints at every street corner, no opponent of said policies would be able to 'prove harm' either. it's a ridiculous requirement, because it has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

Furthermore, while the 'slippery slope' can certainly a fallacy, it is not in and of itself fallacious. That is to say, obviously, sometimes, one thing leads to another. The fallacy only comes into play when there are wide gaps between A and B without any proof given. For example, saying 'allowing gay people to marry will eventually lead to people being able to marry goats' is absurd and fallacious. But, something like, "allowing the gov't to criminalize one form of drug will likely see them to criminalizing other drugs down the line" is not fallacy because, it's a fairly simple concept that once you empower a gov't in a certain area, you have given them jurisdiction in that area. Likewise, 'arming cops with tazers will lead to more people getting tazed' is not fallacy.

At the core of the issue is the intersection of freedom, security, and privacy. Some people don't value their privacy (anyone who says 'i have nothing to hide, for example). Some people don't value their freedom, because they're not using it anyway. But anyone who truly values and understand freedom realizes that to have it, we must have a degree of privacy as well as sacrifice some safety.

That is to say, if everything we say will be broadcast over the internet with our name attached, we may be tempted not to speak our mind for fear of retribution. These concepts are interrelated, and, yes, any attack on freedom does lead to a slippery slope of issues. It's not fallacy to suggest that if you allow the gov't to search homes without warrant to "fight terrorism", then eventually law enforcement will use those same laws under other circumstances -- against suspected drug dealers, for example. That's a fair concern. Or, if you allow the gov't to keep files on suspected criminals, soon those files will grow very, very large.

Gov't is often like a weed. If you give it jurisdiction in an area, it will, over time, tend to try to increase it's power. Is there some level of slippery slope to that statement? Sure. But I don't trust anyone who claims differently.

[Sola_Fide]

In what way? Also, I edited my OP cuz I missed a couple.

It harms me because I would have otherwise been free from government agents sifting through my bank records or gun registrations.

That is injurious to us. Harm is not only physical, like what the guy you are debating is implying. If my person, property, effects, or privacy are invaded, then I have been injured in some way because my rights have been violated.

When the real tyranny begins, these security-hawk conservatives are in for a real surprise.

[Pericles]

You can't show harm because that would violate the secrecy part of the patriot Act.

How convenient for the .gov.

[Anti Federalist]

When the real tyranny begins, these security-hawk conservatives are in for a real surprise.

Shit, they'll cheer it on...

[AZKing]

Tell him he's an idiot who is willfully ignorant of the world around him. The rights protected by the Constitution are afforded to everyone -- citizens and non citizens. No reason to be a fan of a guy like that. One of many, many examples:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFVQ0HZz2mc

He should also watch this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EiY7AarMoI&feature=related

[Sola_Fide]

Tell him he's an idiot who is willfully ignorant of the world around him. The rights protected by the Constitution are afforded to everyone -- citizens and non citizens. No reason to be a fan of a guy like that. One of many, many examples:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFVQ0HZz2mc

He should also watch this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EiY7AarMoI&feature=related

Great video.

[AZKing]

More.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOmJYAW-EUo

[AlexanderY]

Shit, they'll cheer it on...

Sad, but true.

If you disagree? You're an America-hating commie liberal hippie bastard who wants the terrorist Islamofascists to invade the continental United States and take our freedoms away! If we don't fight them over there, they will bring the fight over here! They have the means!

[AZKing]

Nap's rant reveals why the PATRIOT Act went under the radar for many years. It was illegal to tell anyone that you were being held under the act.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNRSs6LsGeI

[ConvertedRepublican]

Talked to a nitwit Republican yesterday about the TSA's patting down a five year old. He said: "Well.....how do we know that TSA 'agent' wasn't an Iraqi war vet and had a flashback of a kid with a bomb straped to him"?
My jaw dropped at the absolute stupidity of the question.
If this is the mentality out there, we're in trouble.

[A. Havnes]

Talked to a nitwit Republican yesterday about the TSA's patting down a five year old. He said: "Well.....how do we know that TSA 'agent' wasn't an Iraqi war vet and had a flashback of a kid with a bomb straped to him"?
My jaw dropped at the absolute stupidity of the question.
If this is the mentality out there, we're in trouble.

Seriously, that's the first assumption people are supposed to have when being violated by "authority"? That maybe he's a vet and almost got blown up by some kid? Moreover, we're supposed to assume that this illogical reasoning is probable cause to molest kids and possibly give them flashbacks of their own for life? I'm dumbounded.

[A Son of Liberty]

Nap's rant reveals why the PATRIOT Act went under the radar for many years. It was illegal to tell anyone that you were being held under the act.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNRSs6LsGeI

Well done - this was going to be my reply, too. The Judge rips it up, here.

Just tweet him this video, and ask that he respond to it.

[thedude]

Hey, so I am having a discussion on Twitter about the USA PATRIOT Act with a fairly well-known conservative, who I am a fan of. When I asked what his thoughts were on the PATRIOT Act, he replied with:


Have yet to hear of any hard evidence showing even one American unjustly harmed by the PA. Can you name one?



Can he name one terrorist attack that has been foiled because of the USA PATRIOT act?

[HOLLYWOOD]

The PATRIOT ACT forbids one from disclosing ANY information to ANYONE under penalties of Arrest, Imprisonment, and Fines/Seizure of Assets...

THAT's WHY YOU DON'T HEAR ABOUT IT... This Fascist-Totalitarian Act completely nullifies the 1st. 2nd, 4th amendments.

Amazing that CONgress cancel/kill any US Amendment with a simple majority vote (50.1%) yet to have an amendment passed it takes 3/4's of CONgress and ratified by all 50 states. A Librarian was arrested for telling her assistant that the FBI/SS were spying at their library


The Patriot Act Allows the FBI to access your records without a warrant or probably cause. It forces any third party, including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers- to turn over records on their clients or customers.

Forbids disclosure of their seizures. In other words, the FBI can, without a warrant, review what books you are reading and forbid the librarians from informing you that you are being watched.

No longer requires the government to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an “agent of foreign power,” a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.

Frees the FBI from showing reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement to show “probable cause” that is listed in the Fourth Amendment.

Removes judicial oversight, a part of checks and balance. Judges would not have the authority to deny any investigation.

Allows surveillance orders to be issued based on one’s First Amendment activities. You could come under investigation because of the books you read, the Web sites you visit, letters to the editor you write, or even attending this rally.

Forbids disclosure of an investigation, denying the individual the right to challenge illegitimate searches.

Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.

Violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech by prohibiting recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, where there is no real need for secrecy.

Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to conduct investigations of American citizens in part of exercising their free speech.

Violates the Fifth Amendment by failing to provide notice – even after the fact – to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Notice allows one to question irregularities in the warrant and forces law enforcement to operate in the open. Without notice, we have created a secret Gestapo.
Allows wiretaps without warrants for criminal prosecution. It effectively revokes your right to speak without your conversations being monitored. The justice department has regularly acted irresponsibly in this area. The FISA (Federal Intelligence and Security Act) Court noted that federal agents applying for warrants had regularly filed false and misleading information.
Puts the CIA back in the business of sping on Americans. This was outlawed due to abuses in the 1970s and earlier when the CIA engaged in widespread spying of protest groups and other Americans.

Creates the crime of “domestic terrorism” in which those supporting groups such as Operation Rescue, Greenpeace, or PETA could come under investigation. Any non-citizen providing assistance to any such group could be detained or deported.Allows for the indefinite detention of non-citizens, denying them due process.

Chilling. But even worse is Patriot II. It would:

Allow the government to disappear anyone it chooses by not requiring them to identify those being detained.

Allow local authorities to spy on religious and political activities.

Allow chemical plants to operate with no accountability to the communities they occupy. Chemical plants would no longer be required to disclose the public safety threats they pose.

Allow the government to revoke the citizenship of natural born Americans.

Allow property and asset seizures of those participating in civil disobedience.

Allow the deportment to any country of citizens and non-citizens alike, to stand trial before a foreign court without any review from American courts.

Effectively repeal the writ of Habeas Corpus.