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…
Read moreNarrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Zipcode:
@9MDG7SNRepublican1yr1Y
No, and abolish the Patriot Act, Dept. of Homeland Security, and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@9LVZMZLRepublican1yr1Y
No, abolish Homeland Security and the Patriot Act and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@9J4LRVPRepublican2yrs2Y
No, abolish the Patriot Act and Dept. of Homeland Security, limit funding of the IRS, limit the powers of the FBI, NSA, and OIGs, and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@9HNBNK9Republican2yrs2Y
That's a very controversial Act and very controversial question that requires a deep understanding of why the Act was put in place. I do think it was necessary at the time after the 9/11 attacks, but I also think the actions that the government did were unacceptable. I also think the Act was very vague
@9GSLXJMRepublican2yrs2Y
No, because it violates the 4th Amendment. Congress cannot simply amend the constitution by passing a law. Such a notion is in and of itself unconstitutional.
@9DXYPYNRepublican2yrs2Y
yes,it has many benefits.
@9D84D5BRepublican2yrs2Y
Since we are no longer at war with anyone in the middle east, the act is no longer need and should be rescinded.
@9D5Y385Republican2yrs2Y
no, the government should not be spying on its citizens without due process
@9YN4J9JRepublican 11mos11MO
I believe in the premise but the government has abused it. Needs to be rewritten to provide more safeguards.
@9RT54YKRepublican1yr1Y
Yes, but the 4th amendment on the constitution should still not be broken by law enforcement and the government
@9FNPL37Republican2yrs2Y
Yes, however there have been cases where the governement has taken it to far. The Patriot Act was intended to be used under probable judgement, not just randomly on someones Grandma.
@9DTX3TPRepublican2yrs2Y
No, but yes in the event that we become victims of aggression and a war breaks out or a state of emergency occurs.
@957R3GMRepublican3yrs3Y
Only in times of deep emergency, the farther the government is away from us the better we’ll probably be.
@933DQMWRepublican3yrs3Y
Most of the act’s provisions have expired anyway. I would only hold over the most necessary details of the Patriot Act into the future.
@8ZC6H3VRepublican4yrs4Y
No, we need to repeal the PATRIOT Act.
@8X883ZZRepublican4yrs4Y
No, it gives the government an excuse to conduct surveillance on citizens and their opponents such as a president-elect they don’t like.
@8WVCDSXRepublican4yrs4Y
Regardless, pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@8TF8QG9Republican4yrs4Y
No, but only as it applies to U.S. citizens, the government can surveil non-citizens all they want
@8SVC468Republican4yrs4Y
Yes, but reform it by passing strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant.
@8R7F5Y7Republican5yrs5Y
Yes, but must gather evidence that support if someone is a terrorist or not
@wmrhinersonRepublican5yrs5Y
No. The federal government should not be spying on it's citizens without a warrant or probable cause.
@8P9TMF2Republican5yrs5Y
Not enough knowledge on it to give an opinion.
@8P2BBWSRepublican5yrs5Y
Yes, but require a lot of evidence before deporting immigrants
@8NVCNXRRepublican5yrs5Y
Yes, but we should pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant.
@8HW7TLYRepublican5yrs5Y
The fourth Amendment does not give us an express right to privacy. If America changed the definition of privacy to the 4th amendment than I wouldn't support the patriot act.
@8FWL5JFRepublican5yrs5Y
Yes, only with actual probable cause
@8F96HKJRepublican5yrs5Y
No, and the Patriot Act should be replaced
@8DLDJ8JRepublican5yrs5Y
I dont really understand this.
@9C84FDHRepublican2yrs2Y
Yes, but it should be modified.
@9BVLWTLRepublican2yrs2Y
Yes, but the scope should be largely reduced
@9BHLMF9Republican2yrs2Y
Yes, but it should only apply to foreigners. Citizens should keep their constitutional rights.
No, but limit the scope of the government’s powers there-in & the sections involving surveillance and criminalization are too broad, therefor reforming the Patriot Act would be good.
@97RGFRMRepublican3yrs3Y
overall yes but i think there is things that i dont agree with
@97LF5HWRepublican3yrs3Y
The democrats abused it against the Republicans and Trump in 2016
@95BLN4WRepublican3yrs3Y
I do not have enough knowledge
@8YNTY7YRepublican4yrs4Y
No, the Patriot Act is and was unconstitutional when originally proposed and passed.
@9B5CG66Republican3yrs3Y
No, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and is unpatriotic and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant but the sections involving surveillance and criminalization are too broad and limit the scope of the government’s powers
@93CK7FFRepublican3yrs3Y
I did but no longer as needed
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
