The Protect America Act of 2007 & The Patriot Act I & II

[NattPang]

Can someone tell me if these acts are still active,
and if so, do/did they or did/do not infringe on our 4th Amendment rights?

Thank you.

[NattPang]

1. There are many constitutional scholars on this site

that know what the current bill will do,
so if someone could help me out on this bill,
I would be grateful.

This is what I got from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007

[woolldog]

2. haha.

Some of us are still trying to understand the complexities of the new FISA bill. Now you're giving us more homework? No fair. ;)

[johnaries]

3. It expired in February.

Hence the need for the new FISA bill.

[Breeze54]

4. There is no need for a 'new' FISA Bill. That's the point of this fight! n/t

[NattPang]

6. So is the Patriot Act still in force?

Today, however, the federal government is exploiting this once-narrow exception to make an end-run around the Constitution. The USA Patriot Act, passed by Congress in 2001 and re-authorized in 2006, expanded FISA to allow the government to obtain the personal records of ordinary Americans from libraries and Internet Service Providers, even when they have no connection to terrorism. Recent amendments in the Protect America Act authorized the government to use FISA to get around the constitutional requirement that it show a judge that it has probable cause of involvement with a foreign country or terror group before it eavesdrops on a communication.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/fisa.html

[NattPang]

5. So we are back to where we were

when Bush circumvented
the Original 1978 FISA Bill?

The PAA seemed to give
Bush pretty much the store
while it lasted.

It seemed to lack a lot of the
provisions that are in
the current bill.

[vaberella]

8. Yup... That's what I gathered as well.

[Breeze54]

7. The Patriot Act II, is alive and well and goes hand in hand with FISA

:puke: :grr:

[NattPang]

9. So is our 4th Amendment rights going away

with tomorrow's vote,
or are they technically
already gone by way of the
Patriot Act I & II?

[Breeze54]

10. They'll be gone tomorrow...have you called your Senators yet?

There's still time for more calls to be made.

Click Here and make a FREE CALL to You Senators!

Tell them to vote FOR the Feingold/Dodd Amendment and say NO to Retroactive Immunity!!
http://tools.advomatic.com/7/fisa

I promise you that your voices are being heard in the halls of the Senate.

I promise you that I will continue to fight alongside you until the last vote is counted.

Help me now to ensure that my next email to you will be a celebration of our commitment to the rule of law.

Thanks once again,

Chris Dodd

[NattPang]

11. So the Patriot Act II still in force?

Sorry, but I late to the game
on this.

Looking it up, if it is still in place,
it gutted our 4th Amendment Rights when it was passed,
as did the first Patriot act-

Here's Patriot Act II -

Executive Summary
USAPA II, like its predecessor, is a grab bag of provisions spread throughout the legal landscape. One clear difference exists however. Unlike USAPA, USAPA II has no provisions that "sunset" after a certain time. All of its changes are permanent.

The breadth of USAPA II does make it difficult to break the bill down into neat categories. Nonetheless, many of the changes do fall into general areas. These are: 4

Privacy Invasions. USAPA II dramatically widens the powers of government to invade the privacy of Americans and others living here. This includes:
Broad new authority to compel information from ISPs, friends, relatives, businesses and others, all without informing you.

Immunity for businesses that voluntarily turn over your information to law enforcement.

Extra punishment for use of cryptography-- no connection to terrorism needed.

Instant police access to your credit reports upon certification that they are sought "in connection with their duties" -- again, with no connection to terrorism needed.

Relaxed requirement of specificity for warrants for multi-use devices like PDAs and computers with telephonic capabilities.

DNA collected from all terrorism suspects/DNA database information open to all law enforcement.
Less judicial oversight of surveillance.

More "End Runs" Around Limitations on Surveillance and Information Sharing. Federal, state and local officials can now freely share information, regardless of the original reason for gathering it. This includes information in your credit reports, educational records and visa records. It also includes information obtained by administrative subpoenas of any business, from your ISP to your credit card company to your grocer. It also includes DNA database information and information obtained through the secret court processes of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Much of this sharing need not have any relationship to terrorism investigation.

Gag Orders and Increased Governmental Secrecy. The "sunshine of public review" is a key check on abuses of governmental power. But USAPA II makes it even harder for the public to evaluate what the government is doing with its broad new powers. USAPA II allows gag orders for subpoenas that force third parties to turn over information about their friends, loved ones or customers while making it unlawful for them to tell anyone except their lawyers about the subpoena. In a similar vein, the law creates broad new exceptions to the Freedom of Information Act for terrorism detainee information, prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from warning the public about environmental dangers from chemical releases and reduces the ability of judges to force the government to present its evidence in open court.

Expanded Reach of Powers under the Control of Secret Courts. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted more than 20 years ago to handle the special problem of non-criminal investigation of foreign intelligence activities in the United States. For this limited purpose, Congress established an unprecedented secret court system. USAPA expanded the reach of FISA and the secret court dramatically, and USAPA II goes even further. Under USAPA II, the secret court will be able to authorize searches of individuals with no connection to foreign governments or even terrorist organizations. It will increase the length of surveillance and decrease court oversight from the already low levels set by USAPA.

Not Targeted to Terrorism. As with its predecessor, USAPA II contains many provisions that appear to be nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to increase governmental powers in areas unrelated to terrorism. In other areas, while terrorism is included, the provisions are not limited to terrorism-related investigations. These include government access to credit reports, sentence enhancements for using encryption, and sharing of some FISA-obtained information.
http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot-act-II-analysis.php

[Breeze54]

12. YES!!!!!

[NattPang]

13. I edited that post.

It appears that the Patriot Act I & II gutted
our 4th Amendment Rights long ago.

What is in this bill
that makes the Patriot Act II
more in force to shed the 4th Amendment?

[Breeze54]

14. Please Read this! -- "Compromising the Constitution"

Compromising the Constitution

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08tue1.html?hp

Published: July 8, 2008

Congress has been far too compliant as President Bush undermined the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers. It now has a chance to undo some of that damage — if it has the courage and good sense to stand up to the White House and for the Constitution.

The Senate should reject a bill this week that would needlessly expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of President Bush’s unlawful wiretapping.

The bill dangerously weakens the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Adopted after the abuses of the Watergate and Vietnam eras, the law requires the government to get a warrant to intercept communications between anyone in this country and anyone outside it — and show that it is investigating a foreign power, or the agent of a foreign power, that plans to harm America.

The FISA law created a court to issue those warrants quickly, and over 30 years, the court has approved nearly 20,000 while rejecting perhaps a half-dozen. In any case, the government can wiretap first and get permission later in moments of crisis.

Lawmakers are already justifying their votes for making major changes to that proven regime by saying that the bill is a reasonable compromise that updates FISA technologically and will make it somewhat harder to spy on Americans abroad. But none of that mitigates the bill’s much larger damage. It would make it much easier to spy on Americans at home, reduce the courts’ powers and grant immunity to the companies that turned over Americans’ private communications without a warrant.

It would allow the government to bypass the FISA court and collect large amounts of Americans’ communications without a warrant simply by declaring that it is doing so for reasons of national security. It cuts the vital “foreign power” provision from FISA, never mentions counterterrorism and defines national security so broadly that experts think the term could mean almost anything a president wants it to mean.

Supporters will argue that the new bill still requires a warrant for eavesdropping that “targets” an American. That’s a smokescreen. There is no requirement that the government name any target. The purpose of warrantless eavesdropping could be as vague as listening to all calls to a particular area code in any other country.

The real reason this bill exists is because Mr. Bush decided after 9/11 that he was above the law. When The Times disclosed his warrantless eavesdropping, Mr. Bush demanded that Congress legalize it after the fact. The White House scared Congress into doing that last year, with a one-year bill that shredded FISA’s protections. Democratic lawmakers promised to fix it this year.

Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, Christopher Dodd and Jeff Bingaman plan to offer amendments to do that, but there is little chance they will pass. The Senate should reject this bill and start over with modest legislation that makes the small needed changes and preserves Americans’ fundamental protections.

Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for president, has supported the weakening of FISA. Senator Barack Obama vowed in January (when he was still fighting for the Democratic nomination) that he would filibuster against immunity. Now he says he will vote for an “imperfect” bill and fix it if he wins. Sound familiar?

Proponents of the FISA deal say companies should not be “punished” for cooperating with the government. That’s Washington-speak for a cover-up. The purpose of withholding immunity is not to punish but to preserve the only chance of unearthing the details of Mr. Bush’s outlaw eavesdropping. Only a few senators, by the way, know just what those companies did.

Restoring some of the protections taken away by an earlier law while creating new loopholes in the Constitution is not a compromise.

It is a failure of leadership.

Passing this bill is a COVER UP for BUSHs Crimes!!!!!! :grr:

[NattPang]

15. So voting yes or no on this does not change

Patriot Act II?

I am surprised that the NYT
is speaking up on this.
Normally they wouldn't
if this wasn't an election year.

[Breeze54]

16. BS! The NYT is the one who broke the illegal wiretapping by BushCo!!!

FISA is, at it stands and what they want to do tomorrow, is ILLEGAL!!!! :grr:

'When The Times disclosed his warrantless eavesdropping, Mr. Bush demanded that Congress legalize it after the fact.'

Bush is a CRIMINAL!!!!

[NattPang]

17. They were also the ones

that sold us this war.

Anyway,
This Patriot Act II.
Why do I read language
on immunity given to
Businesses who turn over
personal records to the
Government?

Was that taken out of the Patriot Act II?

If you refer back to my post
where I pasted and posted
a summary of what
the Patriot Act II does,
for reference,
I highlighted that portion.

[Breeze54]

18. WTF?! I don't agree!! -- Please read this too!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6473382

[NattPang]

19. You don't agree with what?

Although I read your link.
But I am not clear at what
you disagree with.

Are you saying that
the Patriot Act II
did not gut
our civil liberties?

I have only asked questions,
not made statements of
certainty.