What does the word Freedom mean to you in Genenral Terms??
This is not designed as a Political Question but a simple basic question, the question was purposely left this general in context
Printable View
What does the word Freedom mean to you in Genenral Terms??
This is not designed as a Political Question but a simple basic question, the question was purposely left this general in context
The meaning of freedom changes every day because we lose so many of them it is sad. I hate to think what it will mean 50 years from now as I remember that past 50 years and how many of our rights and freedoms we have lost over that time. Think of what you are going to lose when we all must have secure IDs. Scary and I shudder to even think of it.
Oh, very difficult question. To make it somewhat easier to consider, I like to use the distinction between positive and negative freedom. These terms were first used 50 years ago by Isaiah Berlin, and in no way mean one is good and the other bad, they are merely names.
Negative freedom could be defined - simply - by the options you have as a person. If you've got lots of options, you have much negative freedom. Any rule you have to live by (at least, any rule not imposed by yourself) limits negative freedom.
Positive freedom is a much wider concept, and defines how much you are in control of the person you want to be. Using your positive freedom means being able to say "I did this and this because of the person I want to be".
For positive freedom it is important to know who you are and what all your choices are. For example, if someone would love to be a great writer, but never has found out because he/she can't read or write, this does not limit negative freedom: you still have the choice, you just don't know you do. It DOES limit positive freedom: you have less possibilities then you would have had if you were forced to learn (which limits negative freedom).
So it is sort of a trade-off. Most people, when talking about freedom, only think of the negative kind and think it's important. For example in BDSM, mostly negative freedom is restricted. I can't imagine why a Dom would limit positive freedom, limit the subs' choices of what kind of person they want to be. Personally I like adding to it, giving more options.
So I guess freedom to me means freedom to be educated and thus knowing who you are and what freedom of choice you really have.
PS: Sorry if this is hard to follow. English is not my first language. :)
When I was younger, my family was stationed overseas in Germany. Back then, Armed Forces Radio and TV network provided the only English language programming. They only had about two hours of kids programming a day and that included weekend cartoons.
We flew back to the States and were living on base in Ft. Dix (New Jersey). It was early on a Saturday and my sister and I snuck down to the common area and turned on the TV. We were awestruck. There was station after station of cartoons. More than any one kid could possibly watch. There were the older, traditional Looney Tunes and weird animations from Japan and poorly drawn ones on Public Television and sophisticated cartoon mixed with live action on Nickalodean. There was even an entire network dedicated to cartoons.
And that is what freedom means to me: having more choices than I could possibly use with everything for any taste available.
Somebody with nothing left to lose.
I have read many of your threads and have learned a lot from these. I sense you have a great more meaning behind your statement. Would you please elaborate more on this statement. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
Freedom and the feeling of freedom are relative.
As any law abiding citizen, we are only fee, if we obey the laws or don't get caught breaking them. If there were no laws it would be anarchy, and that doesn't work well, as people want standards of behavior enforced.
Think of it from a submissive in a TPE relationship point of view. They have a feeling of freedom because they submit to the rules the Dominant sets. The same is for any of us who function within a society.
So then within those laws, your question really becomes what laws would you rather not have, and still have a civilized society? Freedom of the press I always thought was pretty important, as is free commerce. Though we have restrictions on both of those in America. Freedom of the press is restricted by prohibiting certain groups or individuals from writing or publishing things that the government considers state secrets. Free commerce is restricted in that we don't want companies to be so effective, and so prominent that it tramples the chances for competing companies.
There are other laws that are restrictive that affect freedoms that we take for granted but don't think about. Gun laws, speed limit laws, traffic laws, it goes on and on.
Though we don't tend to agree on much, we do agree on this. As old farts, we've watched our rights eroded away. If we paid attention to our parents, we know it's even worse than we've seen for ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warbaby1943
Yes, but this is traditionally the answer for someone who is finally free to revolt against his oppressors. Has it come to that? I don't feel it yet... but then... I wonder if my grandparents ever came to that conclusion or if they still thought there was hope... you know... just before the Nazi's hauled them off.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
For me... freedom is the right to choose for myself so long as my choices don't cause harm to others.
That's a broad statement and begs the question, who decides what causes harm to others. Even that's difficult because of cultural differences... something as simple as the age of consent differs between most of the USA and Britain for example.
Take up with a 16 year old in Britain (as I understand it) and you are involved in an adult relationship. If your company transfers you to the USA and she moves with you, you're a pedophile.
anything in the bill of rights.
most importantly the right to free speech and the right to bear arms (i like the guns).
any way along the free speech thing we need to get rid of the patriot act.
Freedom to me is to be alive and healthy, to be able to get up in the morning and look oustside my window at the world around me, and know that the day is mine.
It's a quote from Janis JoplinQuote:
Originally Posted by wmrs2
http://www.bluesforpeace.com/lyrics/bobby-mcgee.htm
The deep answer:
"Freedom" is a relative statement. Just philosophising about the word freedom us such is a bit pointless. If we want to be harsh about it none of us is free because we're all locked in a trajectory away from the Big Bang. Anybody saying they're free is always talking about it simplified. If it isn't explained what they mean, the term is worthless. We always need to state, free from what or free to do what. It can also be a goal, to increase various specific freedoms. But freedom by itself is just a pretty word.
We're all painfully aware that even in the most egalitarian democracy we're still pretty fucking far from free. Democracy if anything is just an endless list of compromises. Compromising is another word for not-being-free.
Every time I see the term I tend to get nervous because it's probably the most abused term in political propaganda there is. If any politician in Sweden would use it, I'd vote for the opposing party out of principal. In politics it's without exception accompanied by an endless stream of platitudes, full on bullshit and all out lies. It's in the same bag as "justice" and "equality". They're all relative and are worthless standing alone.
But it's a very poetically powerful word. I get this image in my head of a butterfly breaking free from its cocoon. It's a wonderful feeling. But freedom is nothing concrete we can put a finger on. It's all feeling. We're always constrained by something.
How about this definition: It's that feeling we have after breaking out of one prison, and before we understand the nature of the bigger prison we broke out into.
Wonderful!
Just wondering! Why the Patriot Act?Quote:
Originally Posted by DOMLORD
This is a NON Political reply, meaning I am not taking side on this issue one way or another, but simply replying to your question of what The Patriot Act Is, hope this helps and answers your question on it
The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the "Patriot" Act, is an Act of Congress that President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. The acronym stands for: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law Pub.L. 107-56).
The Act expanded the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. Among its provisions, the Act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone and e-mail communications and medical, financial and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhanced the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include "domestic terrorism," thus enlarging the number of activities to which the Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
Although the Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress, it has been criticized from its inception for weakening protections of civil liberties. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.
Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[1] The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by President Bush on March 9, 2006.
The Patriot Act made a number of changes to U.S. law. Key acts changed were the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Act itself came about after the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon. After these attacks, Congress immediately started work on several proposed anti-terrorist bills, before the Justice Department finally drafted a bill called the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. This was introduced to the House as the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001, and was later passed by the House as the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act (H.R. 2975) on October 12.[2] It was then introduced into the Senate as the USA Act of 2001 (S. 1510) [3] where a number of amendments were proposed by Senator Russ Feingold,[4][5][6][7] all of which were passed. The final bill, the USA PATRIOT Act was introduced into the House on October 23 and incorporated H.R. 2975, S. 1510 and many of the provisions of H.R. 3004 (the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act).[8] It was vehemently opposed by only one Senator, Russ Feingold, though Senator Patrick Leahy also expressed some concerns.[9] However, not all parts of the Act are seen in this light, with many parts being seen as necessary by both detractors and supporters.[10][11][12] The final Act included a number of sunsets which were to expire on December 31, 2005.
Due to its controversial nature, a number of bills were proposed with which to amend the Patriot Act. These included the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act,[13] the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act,[14] and the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE),[15] none of which passed. In late January 2003, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, Charles Lewis, published a leaked draft copy of an Administration proposal titled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.[16] This highly controversial document was quickly dubbed "PATRIOT II" or "Son of PATRIOT" by the media and organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[17] The draft, which was circulated to 10 divisions of the Department of Justice,[18] proposed to make further extensive modifications to extend the USA PATRIOT Act.[19] It was widely condemned, although the Department of Justice claimed that it was only a draft and contained no further proposals.[20]
[edit] Titles
[edit] Titles I and X: Miscellaneous provisions
Main articles: USA PATRIOT Act, Title I and USA PATRIOT Act, Title X
Title I authorizes measurements to enhance the ability of domestic security services to prevent terrorism. The title established a fund for counter-terrorist activities and increased funding for the FBI's Technical Support Center. The military was authorized to provide assistance in some situations that involve weapons of mass destruction when so requested by the Attorney General. The National Electronic Crime Task Force was expanded, along with the President's authority and abilities in cases of terrorism. The title also condemned the discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans that happened soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The impetus for many of the provisions came from earlier bills, for instance the condemnation of discrimination was originally proposed by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) in an amendment to the Combatting Terrorism Act of 2001, though in a different form. It originally included "the prayer of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington in a Mass on September 12, 2001 for our Nation and the victims in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist hijackings and attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania reminds all Americans that 'We must seek the guilty and not strike out against the innocent or we become like them who are without moral guidance or direction.' "[21] Many believed the act would allow the government to surveil people such as political figures and opposition leaders.Further condemnation of racial vilification and violence is also spelled out in Title X, where there was condemnation of such activities against Sikh Americans, who were mistaken for Muslims after the September 11th terrorist attack.[22]
Title X created or altered a number of miscellaneous laws that didn't really fit into the any other section of the Patriot Act. Hazmat licenses were limited to drivers who pass background checks and who can demonstrate they can handle the materials.[23] The Inspector General of the Department of Justice was directed to appoint an official to monitor, review and report back to congress all allegations of civil rights abuses against the DoJ.[24] It amended the definition of "electronic surveillance" to exclude the interception of communications done through or from a protected computer where the owner allows the interception, or is lawfully lovely in an investigation.[25] Money laundering cases may now be brought in the district the money laundering was committed or where a money laundering transfer started from.[26] Aliens who committed money laundering were also prohibited from entering the U.S.[27] Grants were provided to first responders to assist them with responding to and preventing terrorism.[28] US$5,000,000 was authorized to be provided to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to train police in South and East Asia.[29] The Attorney General was directed to commission a study on the feasibility of using biometric identifiers to identify people as they attempt to enter the United States, and which would be connected to the FBI's database to flag suspected criminals.[30] Another study was also commissioned to determine the feasibility of providing airlines names of suspected terrorists before they boarded flights.[31] The Department of Defense's was given temporary authority to use their funding for private contracts for security purposes.[32] The last title also created a new Act called the Crimes Against Charitable Americans Act[33] which amended the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act to require telemarketers who call on behalf of charities to disclose the purpose and other information, including the name and mailing address of the charity the telemarketer is representing.[34] It also increased the penalties from one year imprisonment to five years imprisonment for those committing fraud by impersonating a Red Cross member.[35]
[edit] Title II: Surveillance procedures
Main article: USA PATRIOT Act, Title II
Title II is titled "Enhanced Surveillance Procedures" and covers all aspects of the surveillance of suspected terrorists, those suspected of engaging in computer fraud or abuse, and agents of a foreign power who are engaged in clandestine activities. It primarily made amendments to FISA and the ECPA, and many of the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act reside in this title. In particular, the title allows government agencies to gather "foreign intelligence information" from both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, and changed FISA to make gaining foreign intelligence information the significant purpose of FISA-based surveillance, where previously it had been the primary purpose.[36] The change in definition was meant to remove a legal "wall" between criminal investigations and surveillance for the purposes of gathering foreign intelligence, which hampered investigations when criminal and foreign surveillance overlapped.[37] However, that this wall even existed was found by the Federal Surveillance Court of Review to have actually been a long-held misinterpretation by government agencies. Also removed was the statutory requirement that the government prove a surveillance target under FISA is a non-U.S. citizen and agent of a foreign power, though it did require that any investigations must not be undertaken on citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First Amendment.[38] The title also expanded the duration of FISA physical search and surveillance orders,[39] and gave authorities the ability to share information gathered before a federal grand jury with other agencies.[40]
The scope and availability of wiretap and surveillance orders were expanded under Title II. Wiretaps were expanded to include addressing and routing information to allow surveillance of packet switched networks[41] — EPIC objected to this, arguing that it does not take into account email or web addresses, which often contain content in the address information.[42] The Act allowed any district court judge in the United States to issue such surveillance orders[41] and search warrants for terrorism investigations.[43] Search warrants were also expanded, with the Act amending Title III of the Stored Communications Access Act to allow the FBI to gain access to stored voicemail through a search warrant, rather than through the more stringent wiretap laws.[44]
Various provisions allowed for the disclosure of electronic communications to law enforcement agencies. Those who operate or own a "protected computer" can give permission for authorities to intercept communications carried out on the machine, thus bypassing the requirements of the Wiretap statute.[45] The definition of a "protected computer" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) and broadly encompasses those computers used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including ones located outside the United States. The law governing obligatory and voluntary disclosure of customer communications by Cable companies was altered to allow agencies to demand such communications under U.S.C. Title 18 provisions relating to the disclosure of electronic communications (chapter 119), pen registers and trap and trace devices (chapter 206) and stored communications (121), though it excluded the disclosure of cable subscriber viewing habits.[46] Subpoenas issued to Internet Service Providers were expanded to include not only "the name, address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a subscriber" but also session times and durations, types of services used, communication device address information (e.g. IP addresses), payment method and bank account and credit card numbers.[47] Communication providers are also allowed to disclose customer records or communications if they suspect there is a danger to "life and limb".[48]
Title II established three very controversial provisions: "sneak and peek" searches, roving wiretaps and the ability of the FBI to gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens. The so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants. The period before which the FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act — the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard"[49] — and it may be extended at the court's discretion.[50] These sneak and peek provisions were struck down by judge Ann Aiken on September 26, 2007 after a Portland attorney, Brandon Mayfield was wrongly jailed because of the searches. The court found the searches to violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[51][52]
Roving wiretaps are wiretap orders that do not need to specify all common carriers and third parties in a surveillance court order. These are seen as important by the Department of Justice because they believe that terrorists can exploit wiretap orders by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones,[53] while opponents see it as violating the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment.[54][55] Another highly controversial provision is one that allows the FBI to make an order "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution."[56] Though it was not targeted directly at libraries, the American Library Association (ALA), in particular, opposed this provision. In a resolution passed on June 29, 2005 they stated that "Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to secretly request and obtain library records for large numbers of individuals without any reason to believe they are involved in illegal activity."[57] However, the ALA's stance did not go without criticism. One prominent critic of the ALA's stance was the Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald, who argued in an article for the New York City Journal that "[t]he furore over section 215 is a case study in Patriot Act fear-mongering."[58]
The title also covers a number of other miscellaneous provisions, including the expansion of the number of FISC judges from seven to eleven (three of which must reside within 20 miles (32 km) of the District of Columbia),[59] trade sanctions against North Korea and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan [60] and the employment of translators by the FBI.[61]
At the insistence of Republican Representative Richard Armey,[62] the Act had a number of sunset provisions built in, which were originally set to expire on December 31, 2005. The sunset provision of the Act also took into account any ongoing foreign intelligence investigations and allowed them to continue once the sections had expired.[63] The provisions that were to expire are below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warbaby1943 View Post
The meaning of freedom changes every day because we lose so many of them it is sad. I hate to think what it will mean 50 years from now as I remember that past 50 years and how many of our rights and freedoms we have lost over that time. Think of what you are going to lose when we all must have secure IDs. Scary and I shudder to even think of it.
And OZme52 replies "Though we don't tend to agree on much, we do agree on this. As old farts, we've watched our rights eroded away. If we paid attention to our parents, we know it's even worse than we've seen for ourselves."
I am not sure it is possible to say what freedom is. I strongly agree with what TomOfSweden said about freedom and also with Ozme52, DOMLOARD, IDCrewDawg, and WarBaby43. The common element among us all is that freedom, regardless what it is called by each of us, is protected by law, that is by the Constitution of the United States.
Every presidential candidate that I have heard speak about freedom for the last 50 years has always said that we are a nation of laws. What we see as our freedoms eroding away is actually people unwilling to follow the law. A quick example was given by someone here of the 35 MPH speed limit. It is the law that keeps everybody's right to pursue happiness alive, especially if you walk in or near the streets. A 100 MPH speeder is threatening your right to walk in the street.
There are always people unwilling to follow the law. Some may say the law is unfair and choose to disobey it, Civil Disobedience. Some say the law does not mean what it says and restates the law in modern, pragmatic terms and follow that line of action by saying they are following what the law should say. Others say if you want to drive faster than 35 MPH, amend the law to 45MPH but the speed limit is as it is posted. There you have the differences in how the Courts interpret the law that governs our freedoms. There you have the difference between Strict Constructions and Liberal interpretation of the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmrs2
As in life EVERYONE will interpret everything differently, i do not beleive it is just split in views between Liberals and Convervatives, is simply they way ANY person,he/she and the way a PERSONS interprets the law, i d not blieve thier potical views have alot do do with it i know alot of hard core conservative that believe that Patriot Act is a waste of time know a lot of convervatives that love it, same with Liberalsalot love love it others do not, so it is not a political issue as far as if you are Conservative it is your baby or a Liberal it is your baby it is up for individual Perception
Alsi if there is a spped liited posted of 55 mph, i do not blieve tickets rae split betwene Liberals drivr and Conservative drivers, most people today ar in such a hurry to get some place that they drive as fast as they can get away with, thier politcal affliations have nothing to do with wether they speed or not
ifi miunderstood your point, my aplogies
This is a NON Political reply, meaning I am not taking side on this issue one way or another, but simply replying to your question of what The Patriot Act Is, hope this helps and answers your question on it
Very good, Mkemse!
You must have spent a lot of time in preparing a very well written report on the Patriot Act. Keep up the good work. You used 63 footnotes. Are you posting the sources of the footnotes?
there were there when posted yes i do not plagorize not that anyone has accused me of it, i have all the time in the world no money but lots of time :)
References For my post
^ "SAFE Act Co-Sponsors say PATRIOT Act Conference Report Unacceptable."
^ H.R. 2975, THOMAS
^ S. 1510, THOMAS.
^ U.S. Government Printing Office. S11020 (October 25th, 2001) Congressional Record.
^ U.S. Government Printing Office. S11021 (October 25th, 2001) Congressional Record.
^ U.S. Government Printing Office. S11022 (October 25th, 2001) Congressional Record.
^ U.S. Government Printing Office. S11022 (October 25th, 2001) Congressional Record.
^ H.R. 3162, THOMAS
^ a b U.S. Government Printing Office. S10991 (October 25, 2001) Congressional Record.
^ "'Trust me' just doesn't fly", News, USA Today. Retrieved on 2007-10-07. "The conspiracy indictment disclosed Tuesday of three men already awaiting trial in England is a reminder that terrorism is a real threat, and most of the law is non-controversial."
^ Steranko, Anastasia. "PATRIOT Act inspires discussion of civil liberties", The Pitt News, 2003-09-19. Retrieved on 2007-10-07.
^ Haigh, Anna. "Debate around Patriot Act increases", News, The Daily Pennsylvanian, 2004-02-13. Retrieved on 2007-10-07.
^ THOMAS, S.1552.
^ H.R. 3171, THOMAS
^ S.1709, THOMAS
^ PBS (February 7th, 2007), Now with Bill Moyers, transcript.
^ EFF Analysis of "Patriot II," Provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 30th August, 2007.
^ Control Sheet of the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003", retrieved August 30th, 2007.
^ Singel, Ryan. "A Chilly Response to 'Patriot II'", Politics : Law, Wired News, 2003-03-12. Retrieved on 2007-10-17.
^ United States Department of Justice (February 7th, 2007), Statement of Barbara Comstock, Director of Public Affairs
^ U.S. Government Printing Office. S9368 (September 13, 2001) Congressional Record.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1002.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1012.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1001.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1003.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1004.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1006.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1005.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1007.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1008.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1009.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1010.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (a).
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (b).
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title X, Sec. 1011 (c).
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 218.
^ Andrew C. McCarthy, "Why Section 218 Should be Retained", accessed January 23, 2006. The Patriot Debates.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 214.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 207.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 203.
^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 216.
^ Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Pen Registers, the Internet and Carnivore, Electronic Privacy Information Center. Accessed December 4, 2005.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 219.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 204 & 209.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 217.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 211.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 210.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 212.
^ Field Guidance on New Authorities (Redacted), Federal Bureau of Investigation (hosted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center). Accessed 2007-09-24.
^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 213.
^ a b Singel, Ryan. "Court Strikes Down 2 Key Patriot Act Provisions", Surveillance, The Courts, 2007-09-26.
^ a b Keller, Susan Jo. "Judge Rules Provisions in Patriot Act to Be Illegal", The New York Times, September 27, 2007.
^ United States Department of Justice, The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty, pg. 2. Accessed 2007-09024.
^ James Dempsey, "Why Section 206 Should be Modified" (undated), accessed January 7, 2006.
^ EFF, "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 206: 'Roving Surveillance Authority Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978'", accessed December 28, 2005
^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 215.
^ American Library Association, Resolution on the USA PATRIOT Act and Libraries, enacted June 29, 2005
^ Mac Donald, Heather. "Straight Talk on Homeland Security", City Journal, Summer 2003.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 208.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 221.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 205.
^ O'Harrow, Jr., Robert. "Six Weeks in Autumn", The Washington Post, 2002-10-27, pp. W06. Retrieved on 2007-10-17.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 224.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 311.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 314.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 317.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 312, 313, 319 & 325.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 327.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 313.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 312.
^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 319.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 325.
^ Amendment made to 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(ii) — for some reason an extra parenthesis was inserted into 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(B)(iii), according to Cornell University, this was probably mistakenly added by law makers
^ Illegal export of controlled munitions is defined in the United States Munitions List, which is part of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. § 2778)
^ See 18 U.S.C. § 922(l) and 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)
^ Defined in 15 CFR 730-774
^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 315.
^ Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 541
^ Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 320. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 981(A)(1)(B).
^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 323. Amended 28 U.S.C. § 2467
^ Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(j)
^ 28 U.S.C. § 2467(d)(3)(A)
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 328.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle A, Sec. 330.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 356.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 365.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 359.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 352, 354 & 365.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 361.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 362.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 352.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 354.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 353.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 364.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 360.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 371.
^ So defined in 31 U.S.C. § 5313, 31 U.S.C. § 5316 and 31 U.S.C. § 5324
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 372. Amended 31 U.S.C. § 5317(c)
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 371. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1960.
^ "The Patriot Act: Justice Department Claims Success", National Public Radio, 2005-07-20.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 374. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1960.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 376. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(D)
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title III, Subtitle C, Sec. 377.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 401.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 402.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 404. Amended the Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 2001.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 403. Amends 8 U.S.C. § 1105.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Sec. 403. Final regulations are specified in 22 C.F.R. 40.5.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle A, Sec. 405.
^ National Institute of Standards and Technology, November 13, 2002. "Use of Technology Standards and Interoperable Databases With Machine-Readable, Tamper-Resistant Travel Documents" (Appendix A)
^ NIST Image Group's Fingerprint Research, see the section "NIST Patriot Act Work" (accessed June 28, 2006)
^ a b c d USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 411.
^ As specified in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989; see 22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)
^ a b c d e USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 412. A new section was created by the Act — 8 U.S.C. § 1226a
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 414.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1372(a)
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 416.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 417.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 418.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IV, Subtitle C.
^ Office of Patrick Leahy, USA PATRIOT Act Section-by-section analysis
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 501.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended 22 U.S.C. § 2708(b)(5)
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended 22 U.S.C. § 2708(b)(6)
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 502. Amended 22 U.S.C. § 2708(e)(1)
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 503. Amended 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(d)(2)
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 503. Amended 50 U.S.C. § 1825.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 506.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 507.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title V, Sec 505. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 2709(b); Section 1114(a)(5)(A) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. § 3414(a)(5)(A)) and Section 624 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681u).
^ a b c Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.Supp.2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) source
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177) Title I, Sec. 115 & 116
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle A, Sec. 611.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle A, Sec. 614.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 621
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 622.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 623. Amended 42 U.S.C. § 10603(b)(1).
^ 42 U.S.C. § 10603b
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VI, Subtitle B, Sec. 624.
^ 42 U.S.C. § 3796h
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VII, Sec. 701, (1).
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VII, Sec. 701, (1)(d)
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 802.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 813. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 814. Amended 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e).
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 801.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 817.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 803. Created 18 U.S.C. § 2339.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 806. Amends 18 U.S.C. § 981.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Section 805(a)(2)(B).
^ a b Humanitarian Law Project et al. v. John Ashcroft, Findlaw
^ a b Humanitarian Law Project (2004-01-26). "Key Patriot Act provision ruled unconstitutional under the First Amendment". Press release. Retrieved on 2007-07-24. “January 26, 2004: The Center for Constitutional Rights announced today that a federal court in Los Angeles has declared unconstitutional a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, enacted six weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This is the first judicial ruling in the country declaring part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. In a decision issued late Friday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that a ban on providing "expert advice and assistance" to terrorist groups violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution because it is so vague that it "could be construed to include unequivocally pure speech and advocacy protected by the First Amendment."”
^ a b Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (U.S. S. 2845, Public Law 108-458), Title VI, Subtitle F, Sec. 6603.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 814.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title VIII, Sec. 816.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 901.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 905.
^ a b USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 903.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 906.
^ Senate Report 107-149 - "To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 for Intelligence and Intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Disability System, and for other purposes.", see the section "National Virtual Translation Center"
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 907.
^ Senate Report 107-149 - "To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003 for Intelligence and Intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Disability System, and for other purposes.", see the section "Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center"
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 904.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title IX, Sec. 908.
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title II ("Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement")
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title III ("Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports")
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title IV ("Combating Terrorism Financing")
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177) Title VI ("Secret Service")
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title VII ("Combating Methamphetamine Epedemic Act of 2005")
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 106
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 3.
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 115
^ a b USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 116
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 4.
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. S. 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 5.
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 118
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 108
^ American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU Letter to Congress Urging A "No" Vote On the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act Conference Report (Dec. 12, 2005), accessed on October 6th, 2007.
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 114
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 107
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 109
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 105
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 104
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 112
^ Yeah, Brian T. & Doyle, Charles (2006-12-21), USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005: A Legal Analysis, Congressional Research Service, p. 24, <http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/78416.pdf>. Retrieved on 7 October 2007
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 110
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 111.
^ USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 127.
^ History of the Patriot Act. Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved on 2007-10-07. “Though the Act made significant amendments to over 15 important statutes, it was introduced with great haste and passed with little debate, and without a House, Senate, or conference report. As a result, it lacks background legislative history that often retrospectively provides necessary statutory interpretation.”
^ EFF Analysis Of The Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act That Relate To Online Activities. Electronic Frontiers Foundation (October 31, 2001). Retrieved on 2007-10-12. “...it seems clear that the vast majority of the sections included were not carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate it or to hear testimony from experts outside of law enforcement in the fields where it makes major changes.”
^ Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 (documentary). Timestamp: 01:01:39–01:01:47.
^ Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 (documentary). Timestamp: 01:02:02–01:02:15.
^ Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 (documentary). Timestamp: 01:02:35–01:02:43.
^ Lithwick, Dahlia. "A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 1", Jurisprudence, 2003-09-08.
^ "USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll results", USA Today, 2006-10-01.
^ Locy, Toni. "Patriot Act blurred in the public mind", USA Today, 2007-02-27.
^ Murray, John C.. "NCIS: the parody that chills", Entertainment/TV & Radio, The Age, 2004-07-01.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 206.
^ Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Expanded Dissemination of Information Obtained in Criminal Investigations. Analysis. Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved on 2007-10-08.
^ Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 206: "Roving Surveillance Authority Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978". USA PATRIOT/Sunset. Electronic Frontiers Foundation..
^ Cole, David, The Patriot Act Violates Our Civil Liberties, Microsoft Encarta, <http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_701713501/Is_the_Patriot_Act_Unconstitutional.html>
^ Rosenzweig, Paul, Terrorism is not just a crime, American Bar Association, <http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/206-2#rebuttal>
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 209.
^ James X. Dempsey, "Why Sections 209, 212, and 220 Should be Modified" (undated), accessed October 15, 2007.
^ EFF, "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 209: 'Seizure of VoiceMail Messages Pursuant to Warrants'", accessed December 29, 2005
^ Orin Kerr, "Why Sections 209, 212, and 220 Should be Modified" (undated), accessed October 12, 2007.
^ USA PATRIOT Act (U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56), Title II, Sec. 220.
^ a b c EFF, "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 220: 'Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for Electronic Evidence'", accessed October 12, 2007.
^ Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Authority to Conduct Secret Searches ("Sneak and Peek"), Electronic Privacy Information Center. Accessed December 5, 2005.
^ American Civil Liberties Union (September 10, 2003). "Uncle Sam Asks: "What The Hell Is Going On Here?"in New ACLU Print and Radio Advertisements". Press release.
^ ACLU Ad On "Sneak-and-Peek" Searches: Overblown, FactCheck.org, September 21, 2004, <http://www.factcheck.org/aclu_ad_on_sneak-and-peek_searches_overblown.html>
^ Heather Mac Donald (undated), "Sneak-and-Peek in the Full Light of Day". American Bar Association, accessed October 12, 2007.
^ "Apology Note from the United States Government", The Washington Post, 2006-11-29.
^ EFF, "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 201: 'Authority to Intercept Wire, Oral, and Electronic Communications Relating to Terrorism,' and Section 805, 'Material Support for Terrorism'", accessed 2007-10-12.
^ National Security Letters main page of the ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
^ Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT Section 505 - National Security Letters (NSLs). Electronic Frontiers Foundation. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
^ EPIC: National Security Letters (NSLs). Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
^ FBI Unbound: How National Security Letters Violate Our Privacy. Bill of Rights Defense Committee. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
^ Dunham, Richard S.. "The Patriot Act: Business Balks", BusinessWeek, 2005-11-10. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
^ American Civil Liberties Union (2007-09-06). "Federal Court Strikes Down National Security Letter Provision of Patriot Act". Press release. “NEW YORK - A federal court today struck down the amended Patriot Act's National Security Letter (NSL) provision. The law has permitted the FBI to issue NSLs demanding private information about people within the United States without court approval, and to gag those who receive NSLs from discussing them. The court found that the gag power was unconstitutional and that because the statute prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review of gags, it violated the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers.”
^ Eggen, Dan. "Judge Invalidates Patriot Act Provisions", The Washington Post, 2007-09-07, p. A01.
^ Neumeister, Larry. "Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act", The Guardian, 2007-09-07.
^ C. McCarthy, Andrew. Why Sections 214 and 215 Should be Retained. American Bar Association. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
^ "No Patriot Check Out At Libraries", CBS News, 2003-09-18.
^ Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Related Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library Users. American Libraries Association (2003-01-29). Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
^ Kasindorf, Martin. "FBI's reading list worries librarians", USA Today, 2003-12-16. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
^ Murphy. "Some Librarians Use Shredder to Show Opposition to New F.B.I. Powers", New York Times, April 7, 2003. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
^ "Libraries Rally Against USA Patriot Act", Politics, Fox News, 2003-05-07. Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
^ Graham, Judith. "Libraries warning patrons: Federal government may be spying on you.", Chicago Tribune, 2003-04-03.
^ Mac Donald, Heath. "Straight Talk on Homeland Security", City Journal, Summer 2003.
^ Ramasastry, Anita (October 5, 2001), Indefinite detention based on suspicion: How The Patriot Act Will Disrupt Many Lawful Immigrants’ Lives, FindLaw, <http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011005_ramasastry.html>. Retrieved on 15 October 2007
^ Feingold, Russell (2001-10-25). Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism Bill From The Senate Floor. Retrieved on 2007-10-15.
^ Resolution Passed at the May 6, 2004 Special Meeting of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate (PDF). University of California. Retrieved on 2007-10-15.
^ Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act > Non surveillance provisions. American Civil Liberties Union (April 3, 2003). Retrieved on 2007-10-15.
The question I asked was to DOMLORD. I was curious to why he did not like the Patriot Act as it seems many here do not think the Act is necessary for whatever reason. However, I do accept your apology for misunderstanding what I was saying in my previous response. I still think your report on the Patriot Act was excellent. Anybody who wants to argue politics will find the information you provided very helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
Keep an open mind and relax. Enjoy different opinions.
Never thought you did.:wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
thanks never assume you thought i did, hope that also answesr you reference questionQuote:
Originally Posted by wmrs2
my wish now is just to get our elections over with, get rid of all the debates ads on TV ect i have had enough from BOTH parties at this point:wave:
One of my favorite authorities on freedom is Viktor Frankl. “The one thing you can’t take away from me is the way I choose to respond to what you do to me. The last of one’s freedoms is to choose ones attitude in any given circumstance.” is undoubtedly his most famous quote. For those of you who do not know Viktor Frankl, he was an Austrian psychiatrist and neurologist whom the Nazis saw fit to intern in a concentration camp from 1942 until his liberation in 1945. His book “Man’s Search for Meaning” outlines this time in his life for any who are interested so I won’t go into that here.
What is interesting to me is the only freedom we have in any society or culture is a God given freedom, one we all get no matter our social status, financial status or any other status. That is the freedom of choice of ones attitudes. No government in the history of mankind has devised a way to overcome this freedom. Granted many millions of people have given up this freedom but it simply can not be taken. That is amazing when I think of it. Which I think leads to more of a philosophical discussion than one of a political nature. What is freedom?
I think most of the world looks to the “Western World” as the standard ideal of what freedom is, and of course here in the United States we treasure our freedom as much as any I suppose. But really what is freedom at a personal level? And does freedom guarantee happiness? I happen to believe that most of us in this world compromise our freedom of our own accord simply because we are afraid to make a choice…afraid to fully utilize the one gift we were all born with to its maximum potential the choice of how we view the world. When I look at freedom from this angle I know that my freedom ends where your nose begins, because I have no control over how you view me or the rest of the world.
I think most of the world's democrats (not the political party) would agree with this point of view. It is how one views the world or ones world view, that determines how we feel about freedom.Quote:
I am very interested modern political philosophy. It sounds to me that every person who is interested in the search for freedom needs to read “Man’s Search for Meaning” by Viktor Frankl. Thank you for the following statement.
I think most of the world looks to the “Western World” as the standard ideal of what freedom is, and of course here in the United States we treasure our freedom as much as any I suppose. But really what is freedom at a personal level? And does freedom guarantee happiness? I happen to believe that most of us in this world compromise our freedom of our own accord simply because we are afraid to make a choice…afraid to fully utilize the one gift we were all born with to its maximum potential the choice of how we view the world.
What Americans call Truth most of the world calls a great lie. Most of the world is still a Communist thinking world. Most of the world rejects democracy and what the democrat world calls freedom. But we know, doon't we?
"It took me a long time and most of the world to learn what I know about love and fate and the choices we make, but the heart of it came to me in an instant, while I was chained to a wall and being tortured. I realised, somehow, through the screaming in my mind, that even in that shackled, bloody helplessness, I was still free: free to hate the men who were torturing me, or to forgive them. It doesn't sound like much, I know. But in the flinch and bite of the chain, when it's all you've got, that freedom is a universe of possibility. And the choice you make, between hating and forgiving, can become the story of your life."
Gregory David Roberts
That moment of choice, that split second where we decide who we are and what we want to be, that instant where the entire universe is open to our personal whim; THAT is freedom. Regardless of the circumstances around us, there is ALWAYS a choice inside and that is what makes us uniquely and beautifully human.
J-Go, you're absolutely correct.
Freedom....
Be able to wake up in the morning nothing to fear..
Free to say what u think..
Be treated equally...
Problems put aside and just have fun...
Rip into that, Tom !Quote:
Thomas Hobbes:- THE right of nature, which writers commonly call jus naturale, is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgement and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.
By liberty is understood, according to the proper signification of the word, the absence of external impediments; which impediments may oft take away part of a man's power to do what he would, but cannot hinder him from using the power left him according as his judgement and reason shall dictate to him.
Hobbes theory is that the nature of man is to use their freedom to infringe upon others freedom if they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
Hobbes didn't have any love for freedom. He thought man needs his freedom quashed by living under a dictatorship to have any peace. Just one for all humans would be best.
The Leviathan theory is basically any despot. And all the rulers he used as a template for the time, were all ten times worse than Adolf Hitler.
Hobbes is important because his philosophical ideas were the stepping stone for Locke and Hume. The parliamentary democracy we got in the west, was an update of Hobbes Leviathan. But I wouldn't say Hobbes thoughts on freedom have any place in the modern western world.
His biggest contribution to philosophy I'd say is that he thinks humans behave predictably, ie we don't have free will. I think he was the first philosopher to question whether man's will is free. Which was a huge step forward in creating a large number of institutions we all take for granted today, like mental health, legal courts and election processes.
Freedom means to me> To be able to Live the Life I Choose, in the ways in which I Choose to Live it, providing I do no intentional harm to anyone or anything else. Keeping in the Pagan Spirit of "Do as Ye will, harm Ye none".Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
Respectfully~SidheWolf
well say what yu will, but for me freedom, true freedom only came after i was collared.
Well TomOfSweden, all I can say is you beat me to it.
Hobbes without Locke or Hume is like Socrates without Plato or Aristotle.
Some things just have to be taken, be force if nessesary.
Freedom is like an apple; if you wait for it to fall from the tree it is probably allready rotten.
Freedom for me means "self-ownership" as John Locke said, the individual "has a right to decide what would become of himself and what he would do, and as having a right to reap the benefits of what he did." Or, as stated more succinctly by Locke, "every man has a Property in his own Person."
(read more about self-ownership here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership)
Some excerpts from Dr. Ron Paul taken from his 1987 book “Freedom Under Siege" will clarify how it can be achieved.
I see no conflict between the self “ownership” concept associated with natural rights and those who, for religious reasons, believe their life is “owned” by God. One is a political concept and the other a religious concept. Obviously no one can dictate another’s religious belief. What one does with one’s life and property is a personal decision and it may or may not include religious beliefs. In a free society a person can “turn his life over to God” or squander it as he chooses. The important thing is that the state not be permitted to assume any ownership role of the individual.
A society built on the principle of individual rights rejects the notion that the state should protect a citizen from himself. Government cannot and should not protect against one’s own “unwise” decisions. Freedom is impossible once a government assumes a role in regulating the people’s eating, sleeping, drinking, smoking, and exercise habits. Once government believes it has an obligation to improve or protect the people physically it will then claim it can protect them economically and intellectually. It leads to a regimented society, hostile to individuals who cling to the notion that their lives and liberty are their own. Conservatives certainly must be reminded that “civil” liberty is the same as economic liberty, and present-day liberals must be told that economic liberty deserves the same protection that the written and spoken word under the First Amendment.
Preemptive regulations of either literary commercial activity, for any reason, are prohibited in a free society. Fraud and libel are crimes that, when proven in a court of law, must be punished.
The most important element of a free society, where individual rights held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. Initiation of force is a violation of someone else’s rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it is supposed to be for the benefit of their individual or group of individuals. Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.
This means that all associations are voluntary and by mutual consent of both parties. Contracts drawn up without force or fraud must be rigidly adhered to. This sounds reasonable, and most people would agree this outline of mutually agreed-to associations. But it also means that free people have the right to discriminate – in choosing a spouse, a friend a business partner, an employer, an employee, a customer, etc. Civil rights legislation of the past thirty years has totally ignored this principle. Many “do-gooders,” of course, argue from the “moral high ground” for their version of equal rights, knowing that they can play the sympathies and the guilt of many Americans. Yet the real reason for some of these laws is less than noble. For instance, minimum wage laws are popular, but the proponents rarely admit that this protects higher paid union-jobs and it increases unemployment.
Total freedom of contract and association is what the “pursuit of happiness” is all about. Once this principle is violated, the gradual but steady erosion of our liberties can be expected unless the principle of individual rights is reestablished.
Free choice means that the incentive to produce is maximized, since it’s assumed that we can keep the fruits of our labor. In a free society, an individual benefits from wise and frugal decisions and suffers the consequences of bad judgment and wasteful habits. The state should neither guarantee nor tax success, nor compensate those who fail. The individual must be responsible for all of his decisions. Because some suffer from acts outside of their control, we cannot justify the use of violence to take from someone else to “help out.” People in need are not excused when they rob their neighbors, and government should not be excused when it does the robbing for them. Providing for the general welfare means that the general conditions of freedom must be maintained. It should never be used to justify specific welfare or any transfer of wealth from one person to another.
A free society permits narrow self-interest but allows for compassion and self-sacrifice. Greed, when associated with force or fraud, is not acceptable. A free society is more likely to survive if compassion is voluntarily shown for the unfortunate than if the poor are ignored. A healthy self-interest associated with a sense of responsibility for family and friends is far superior to a welfare state built on foolish self-sacrifice and violent redistribution of wealth.
A society that holds in high esteem the principle of individual rights is superior in all ways to a society that distorts the meaning of liberty and condones the use of government coercion.
Dr. Ron Paul, “Freedom Under Siege”, 1987
Rational Head, there's an old Aristotelian theory which I think is relevant. This theory is formulated about the nature of God. Aristotle is the father of the monotheist idea and what later became Christianity. He pondered about what an all powerful omnipotent God would want. His reasoning was this:
Will stems from needs. Needs stem from lack. The things we lack dictate what we want. An omnipotent God lacks nothing and therefore wills nothing. As far as we know Aristotle didn't apply this to humans, but I think it is possible.
If what we lack dictate what we want, isn't our will just a function of our needs? If our will isn't free, how could anybody ever argue that we freely chose our destiny? How could we have "self-ownership" as Ron Paul formulates it?
There was later philosophers who formulated this much more succinctly but I like quoting Aristotle, just because he's so old.
Anyway, I'm not really trying to push an agenda. As I said earlier, "freedom" is a relative term.
This is a great one on the subject. I saw it a long time but it's an hilarious argument against freedom.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/93
Here is a good one:
Freedom is as freedom does.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VhAD0dMslB8&feature=user
Here's a great lecture from a guy arguing against democracy for the sake of freedom. No, he's not a loony crack-pot.
To quote one of my favorite songs by Disturbed "Tell me exactly what does freedom mean, if i'm not free to be as twisted as i want to be" i believe this is a perfect example of what freedom means and this is not to say that i support like psychopathic murders and what not it just means that i think people have the right to be however bizarre as they want to be without having to worry about societies reaction...... this very much applies to things such as Wiccanism and BDSM.