The Patriot Act was enacted in direct response to the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, as well as the 2001 anthrax attacks, with the stated goal of dramatically strengthening national security. Opponents of the law have criticized its provision for indefinite detention of immigrants; permission to law enforcement to search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s consent or knowledge under certain circumstances; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (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 court challenges have been brought against the act, and federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.
@ISIDEWITH11yrs
No, and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@ISIDEWITH11yrs
Yes, but limit the scope of the government’s powers
@ISIDEWITH6yrs
Yes, but the sections involving surveillance and criminalization are too broad
@4TXVWDS2yrs
No. I understand the idea, and I'm sure many terrorist acts have been prevented because of survelience. However, we cannot give up our individual freedoms in order to feel protected. You didn't see this scale of "American Infidel" in the past. We were a better country before. We were proud of our country (on the large scale) and there was such a thing as the American Dream. We have deterriorated as a country. There is no "American Dream" unless you county being materialistic, judgemental, and constantly offended. During World War II people gave up luxuries in order to support their country, even when their husbands/sons/brothers/friends were sent fighting. While there is still military support, it is not the same. It is not true support, but rather a support with a side of guilt and disgust to those that oppose it.
@4S3TY7P2yrs
With a warrant for any American citizen. Must have an individualized warrant. Mass survallence on Islamic citizens. Ban refugees for 2 years. Push a propaganda campaign for women's rights in the Middle East and stop lying about Islam for political gain or political correctness
@52YJQ552yrs
The Constitution works just fine if it is used properly.
@4S4KFX82yrs
Well... Not really. They've gone too far with it. I do support placing cameras everywhere and monitoring what people do in public. Are 2 guys carrying satchel charges to the stands of the Boston Marathon? Gosh, maybe that's a problem. Did an unattended bag explode? Gosh, maybe we can see who put it there before it blew up... Is someone mugging your mother in front of the A&P? Gosh, maybe we could alert the cop on the next block...
@5BXFFJZ2yrs
It has been the excuse to enforce the UN Global agenda. 9.11 was an inside job. Create the fear and terror, then work to destroy the country to the point they can call in UN "peacekeepers" who have no affiliation other than to the UN, and would work for their richest elite - not to help us.
@4QBFGKK2yrs
No, many parts of it including section 215 completely undermine the constitutional rights of U.S citizens
@4ST4KNB2yrs
I have a brown skin. Anytime I travel on a plane, I have to endure extra security procedures. I am not middle-eastern, I am an all-American racial mix. Think about that.
@4R2SYPD2yrs
The Patriot Act should be subjected to a constitutional test as should be all legislation. It should have a sunset clause.
@4QC43PP2yrs
Yes, but do away with detainment and deportation because it violates due process.
Yes, but with sunset provision requiring Congressional approval every 2 years.
@4QT6B3K2yrs
Absolutely not this gives big government too much power to spy and pry into citizens private lives. There doesn't need to be a patriot act for the government to protect itself and its citizens. It's called have a pair of balls and let Old Glory fly.
@982ZRFF9hrs
As long as the detainees are treated humanely
@97ZVG9K2 days
Yes, but there need to be serious reforms on who can serve in government, otherwise the authority will be abused.
@97YG26HIndependent7 days
Yes but only with strict laws on government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant.
@97YLK3Y1wk
i unfortunatly dont have enough information to make a stance
@gklewis832wks
Yes, but the sections involving surveillance and criminalization are too broad. Limit the scope of the government's powers.
@97WFFSF2wks
Yes, if someone is displaying risky behavior patterns they should be confronted in person and have a chance at reform instead of stalking them and waiting for a crime to happen.
@97SZ2QN2wks
There must be ways of monitoring traffic to find suspects without invading innocent citizens' rights.
overall yes but i think there is things that i dont agree with
@97S6S322wks
No, it was necessary at one time, but is now obsolete
don't really care for it, it seems stupid.
@97PN7553wks
No need to survey patriotic, tough, good-hearted Americans if the minorities are gone
Yes but they should restrict them to only U.S but don't allow U.S to search on crime in other countries unless it is asked to.
The democrats abused it against the Republicans and Trump in 2016
@97LDWKM3wks
Yes, but the sections are too broad and we need to require probable cause AND warrents
@97LC46J3wks
Not informed enough to make decision
@97J9L8Y3wks
No, and abolish the NSA, TSA, and Department of Homeland Security.
Yes but only used for non US citizens or violent terrorist suspects
@9794GYF4wks
Yes, no tapping phones though :)
@978YGJM4wks
Yes, assuming they actually act on the data they collect
@978KMJV4wks
Yes, I agree with it, but only in exigent circumstances
@977WQL74wks
yes, but if they are proven wrong about their claims they should cover the costs they caused.
@977MJX94wks
Yes, but prohibit government surveillance and search without probable cause and/or a warrant
@977H24J4wks
I dont really know what that is
@977F5RM4wks
It should be done away with, without creating more laws
@977CVWW4wks
I am unsure as I do not know enough about this topic
@9735V784wks
Yes, I hate the process, but is necessary to prevent another 9/11.
@972NZBH4wks
The Government should handle the immigrants.
@972746P4wks
No this is a violation to the Fourth Amendment as it is an issue without warrant and probable clause.
Yes, but inform the individual who is being investigated and the reason why they were investigated after investigation to prevent abuse. (A person can sue for discrimination if the reason is unstated or unsupported)
No, because some parts of this are unconstitutional in regards to the 4th amendment.
@96X9T4F1mo
i dont have a upinyon on this
I need to know more about the current wording of the act and how it is applied to make an informed choice on whether it needs to be updated or repealed.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
