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:
Political theme:
Voting for candidate:
Zipcode:
@ISIDEWITH13yrs13Y
No, and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@9FRHMLC2yrs2Y
If someone is screaming in a home or in dire need of help, I believe they have reasonable cause to go inside no matter what, but i think the laws on the patriot act are good
@9FRHCCC2yrs2Y
Goes against the constitution, if one part of the constitution falls, the rest of it will follow and our country will fall and become nothing
@Sharar 2yrs2Y
Warrantless Surveillance and Data Collection:
Under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, also known as the "business records" or "library records" provision, the government can collect a wide range of records, including library records, medical records, and financial records, without requiring a warrant based on probable cause.
This provision has raised concerns that it allows the government to engage in mass data collection, potentially impacting the privacy of innocent individuals.
Use of National Security Letters (NSLs):
The Patriot Act expanded the use of National Security… Read more
@ISIDEWITH13yrs13Y
No
@9FV23H62yrs2Y
If someone has a spouse and children, imagine the nightmare you would see when the FBI is knocking on the door saying they need to search your house. When completely innocent, they could have found a crumb, paper work, or guns and they try and make it a case. "Its drugs, or this classified information that no citizen should have eyes one, or this is "unlicensed"." Tell me how that's fair to the families who are innocent.
@9HFBYDK 2yrs2Y
If the government passed this people that were innocnet would be killed. They could think that some random person is a terrorist or a killer, when in reality you can't fully tell.
@99NCX8NRepublican2yrs2Y
It infringes on our privacy and gives the government too much power over people.
@ISIDEWITH13yrs13Y
Yes
@PantiusIndependent 2yrs2Y
The patriot act is a blatant abuse of power and against the 1st and 4th Amendments and was a scapegoat to get the government to control people's lives
@9FVJ9XYRepublican 2yrs2Y
The Government’s number one priority is to protect our citizens. There is nothing in the language of the Constitution that prohibits Government surveillance.
@PantiusIndependent 2yrs2Y
The fourth protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, the patriot act actively allows the government to wiretap or secretly conduct a physical search of a citizen without a warrant.
@GiddyInd3p3ndentPatriot2yrs2Y
While it's true that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, it's important to remember that the Patriot Act was established in a post-9/11 world, when the threat level was incredibly high. The Act doesn't permit random and unwarranted invasions of privacy. Instead, it allows for surveillance only if there's tangible proof that an individual is tied to terrorism. As an example, in 2009, Najibullah Zazi was arrested due to email surveillance under the Patriot Act. He was planning to bomb the New York subway, which could have resulted in num… Read more
@Sharar 2yrs2Y
While the Patriot Act was implemented with the intention of enhancing national security and preventing terrorism, its provisions have the potential to infringe on the civil liberties and privacy rights of individuals. The act allows for the collection of vast amounts of data, including phone records, financial records, and internet communications, without requiring a warrant based on probable cause. This is a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Furthermore, the secretive nature of some surveillance activities, such as those conduc… Read more
@9FV23H62yrs2Y
Why should they have the right to come into your house, look through your things, take valuables, and try and get you in trouble when you did nothing? Unless there is evidence they should have no rights to search your home. The evidence needs to be reliable, not sloppy. What they are doing can ruin lives, families, and relationships all for nothing. No kid should have to see they're home being searched because the FBI is bored. Irs childish and needs to be stopped.
@9HFBYDK 2yrs2Y
It would be nice to be able to prevent terrorism from the world, but no one can just look at someone and tell that they're a terrorist.
@ISIDEWITH13yrs13Y
Yes, but limit the scope of the government’s powers
I have a lot of concerns about how the Patriot Act infringes on US citizen rights and thus am generally skeptical of it.
@8F9BXYWConstitution5yrs5Y
No, thw gov' should have zero business in spying on you. its a violation of a basic human right to privacy, so yes there should be stricter laws on government for thid
@9HKX6M62yrs2Y
No, abolish the Patriot Act and Dept. of Homeland Security and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@9H98WW72yrs2Y
No, abolish the Patriot Act and Dept. of Homeland Security, and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@4QBFGKK5yrs5Y
No, many parts of it including section 215 completely undermine the constitutional rights of U.S citizens
@52YJQ555yrs5Y
The Constitution works just fine if it is used properly.
@4TXVWDS5yrs5Y
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 luxurie… Read more
@8M7WLY45yrs5Y
Yes the sections regarding communication between agencies. No regarding the surveillance and searches.
@4S3TY7P5yrs5Y
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
@4S4KFX85yrs5Y
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...
@4ST4KNB5yrs5Y
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.
@5BXFFJZ5yrs5Y
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.
@9MDG7SNRepublican1yr1Y
No, and abolish the Patriot Act, Dept. of Homeland Security, and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@9GYTGHDIndependence 2yrs2Y
Yes, but limit the scope of government powers and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant.
@TruthHurts1012yrs2Y
Abolish the PATRIOT Act now
@99MFTPG2yrs2Y
Yes, and expand the scope of the government’s powers
@4QC43PP5yrs5Y
Yes, but do away with detainment and deportation because it violates due process.
@4R2SYPD5yrs5Y
The Patriot Act should be subjected to a constitutional test as should be all legislation. It should have a sunset clause.
@B5LPDLN1mo1MO
No, abolish the Act, DHS, ICE, and NSA, and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@B5HWDCK2mos2MO
No, and abolish the Patriot Act, DHS, and NSA, and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@9S2PG4311mos11MO
The patriot act was implemented after September 11 and it was an act that was intended to help us be better prepared to respond to another active terror, or to simply prevent another one from happening again. But it has been clear and recent years of the patriot act has provided to the federal government too much power with not enough accountability. I believe the patriot act is still essential to guarantee national security, but I also believe it should be revisited, re-drawn, and redefined, this way to protect the rights of American citizens and to guarantee that national security
@9GZ3BK82yrs2Y
No, abolish the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@9GZDTYYIndependent2yrs2Y
No, the government should not have free reign to conduct searches of these sorts of things without probably cause or a warrant for the activity.
Yes, and increase the scope of the government’s powers
@4WGZZJKRepublican5yrs5Y
Yes, but with sunset provision requiring Congressional approval every 2 years.
@4QT6B3K5yrs5Y
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.
@8XJ9Q7P4yrs4Y
Yes, but make more specific the list of activities that qualify for terrorism charges.
@8VS2G9N4yrs4Y
No, while I support using video surveillance in public spaces, Americans should not have to give up personal liberties in our private life.
@9DGB99H2yrs2Y
No, but also repurpose police departments to have more advanced and efficient investigative capabilities for when crimes do happen.
@9D7T5XF2yrs2Y
I don't have enough knowledge about this.
@8CLNMZW5yrs5Y
Yes, but with specificity on why immigrants are suspected of terrorism
@8CLLKSW5yrs5Y
In a way I can support it but I think it’s morally wrong to deport an immigrant SUSPECTED of terrorism.
@8CK3SR95yrs5Y
Yes, but trials or military tribunals (in case of classified materials or processes) should be given to people prior to deportation. The government needs to prove a terrorism connection in order to protect the rights of the individual and public image of the government. Immigrants are an important part of the US.
@8CGK5DS5yrs5Y
Yes but it needs to be redesigned to not violate our constitution.
@8SMYYT24yrs4Y
No, and end all government surveillance
@B5YDH2G2 days2D
Yes, but only when if it REALLY Necessary (like for the sake of the country to not collapse and be taken over by terrorists)
@B5Y825BIndependent3 days3D
I have mixed feelings about the Patriot Act. On one hand, it was designed to protect national security and help prevent terrorism, which is important for public safety. However, some of its provisions raise concerns about privacy and civil liberties because they give the government broad surveillance powers. I think it’s crucial to find a balance, keeping the country safe while also protecting individual rights. Oversight and clear limits on government power are needed to make sure the Patriot Act doesn’t overreach or violate people’s privacy unnecessarily.
@B5Y72XQIndependent3 days3D
Yes but regulate it more and there should be a process to ensure that actions being taken are made in good conscience
@B5XXTLCLibertarian4 days4D
Needs to have language that states stiff and severe penalties if it is in any way shape or form or action, abused by politicians and law enforcement.
@B5THPG73wks3W
Not anymore, and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@B5RMCMR3wks3W
No, abolish the Patriot Act, DHS, NSA, and ICE and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@B5LPDLN1mo1MO
No, abolish the Patriot Act and Dept. of Homeland Security, restrict ICE,. and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@B5LGJVP1mo1MO
No, abolish the Patriot Act and DHS and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@B5L7HKM1mo1MO
Abolish the Patriot Act, DHS, and NSA, and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@B5KS23R1mo1MO
No, abolish the Patriot Act, DHS, NSA, and pass strict laws prohibiting government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant
@B54QCBL2mos2MO
Yes and no because it protects us from terrestrial and helps who is going against the United States but at the same time i am against it because its going against our law and rights to have our own privacy and it would be exposed.
@B4VKL9R2mos2MO
Yes, but only with stricter controls, more openness, and boundaries to safeguard people's privacy and stop government abuse
@B4S4QRZ2mos2MO
No, searches of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents must be backed by probable cause and a warrant or recognized warrant exception. Federal law enforcement may obtain a warrant on a case-by-case basis to conduct private searches in this matter.
@B4PJ9HB3mos3MO
No, but many of the measures of the act are important and anti-terrorism requires sufficient government power.
Yes, though only if the government has reasonable suspicion that said person is doing something that could be considered an act of terror or a crime that would result in the death of another.
The president is doing away with the National Security Agency so this question is no longer relevant
@B4CFVS5Republican3mos3MO
Yes, for the sake of national security and law and order. However, it should still be within reason for the sake of the constitution, the 4th amendment, federalism, weak government, and checks and balances.
@B4B8JRR3mos3MO
Yes, but a person cant be detained indefinitely if the person is innocent the person need to be paid for their detainment.
@B46VFV43mos3MO
No, and abolish the Patriot Act, Dept. of Homeland Security, NSA, government surveillance without probable cause and a warrant, and disarm OIG agents
@B3ZYM5D4mos4MO
Yes, because we need to defend Law and Order and National Security; at the same time, we need to protect capitalism, freedom, checks and balances, federalism, and weak government
@B358HQL4mos4MO
It's more nuanced than just a blanket yes or no. I think if there is probable cause that it's certainly important to prevent terrorism. I also think citizens need privacy. So I think it needs more reigning in. But not eradicated.
@B2Q4PHT5mos5MO
im in the middle as i belive we should fight terrisom while we should not label other people as terrisost
@B2LWRQNIndependence5mos5MO
Yes, but I don's support law enforcement to have the permission to search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s consent or knowledge under certain circumstances
@B2GSYGB5mos5MO
Yes, but the provisions permitting government surveillance without probable cause or a warrant should be repealed
@B2GD82J6mos6MO
Though I do understand the purpose of the act, I don't exactly think it should be as strict as it is. For example, I don't think law enforcement should be allowed to search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s consent or knowledge under certain circumstances
Yes, but only in a time of immediate crisis. Now that the inherent fear and danger of terrorism is over, parts of the Patriot Act should be repealed.
@B2FS9HS6mos6MO
Well I understand the intent of the act, I feel like it is a little to strict. For example, I don't think that law enforcement should have permission to search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s consent or knowledge under certain circumstances
@B2DD7QC6mos6MO
Yes but with reformations on domestic, U.S. citizen policies and practices, cases should still be subject to FISA court approval
@B2D3G9R6mos6MO
Yes, if we are dealing with a non US citizen or an entity proven to be invovled with a non US citizen. Corporations and non US citizens do not have our US Citizen rights.
Depends on which individuals they’re going to search. Some individuals might be selected by bias. They should do a fair search such that it is not unethical. Evenly randomised selections.
@B2C8RWR6mos6MO
I think if they feel like a nig attack is going to happen, then yes, it is okay. But shouldn`t without cause
@B24VGZX7mos7MO
Yes, to foreigners but not for Americans a warrant must be issued by a judge exception of urgent events. Most important thing the defendant can bring criminal charges against the government reverse prosecution not just a probable cause hearing big difference government must proof beyond a reasonable dough that warrant was justified. The government will pay for a public defender and all private criminal defense attorneys’ public defenders with the same budget staff benefits as the prosecutor's office will not be allowed to have private criminal defense attorneys in this country will be assigned using sortation.
@9ZQPHSH7mos7MO
Yes only if it is regulated and rewritten in accordance with strict adherence to constitutional rights
@9ZHYFDJ 8mos8MO
Government surveillance is something that should only be enforced at an amount. Too much focus on it is irrelevant because they never actually catch or recognize terrorism
@9YNLL53Libertarian8mos8MO
Yes, but we should not persecute people based on preconceived stereotypes such as their race & religion just because a crime was committed by someone of that race & religion
@9YN4J9JRepublican 8mos8MO
I believe in the premise but the government has abused it. Needs to be rewritten to provide more safeguards.
@9YBMCJJ8mos8MO
Allow the modernization of intelligence agencies like the CIA and NSA but don't allow them to spy on citizens without probable cause.
@9Y5FLM38mos8MO
Yes, but law enforcement, judges, and the government that abuse it should have extreme consequences for breaking the public trust.
@9XSR4WW 8mos8MO
No, I have a lot of concerns about how the Patriot Act infringes on US citizen rights and thus am generally skeptical of it.
@9XQX7GK8mos8MO
Yes, but it has become corrupt, and bloated and in many situations ineffective. It needs significant reform.
@9X9B6848mos8MO
yes as long as they have complete control over hacking and cannot tell anyone about personal non harmful messages/calls.
@9WHP2DQIndependent8mos8MO
Up to a certain point, yes, but they shouldn't break into people's homes unless they have reasonable suspicion to do so.
@9WGWFTQ8mos8MO
I believe detention of immigrants is good, but law enforcement should not be allowed to search someone's home without the said person knowing.
@9WF4ZTQ8mos8MO
No, but it should be reformed and refocused to domestic terrorism, such as websites promoting political extremism
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
