The oath to be taken by the president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to
the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
With that said I am going to begin to rip George W. Bush a new asshole on here. So, after Sept. 11th a provision know as
the PATRIOT Act, this act was intended to strengthen our borders and our securities against terrorist attacks from both the
inside and outside ... a very nobel idea. However, there is a large problem with the PATRIOT Act, it violates several sections
of the Bill of Rights, which is by the way a part of the United States Constitution. The PATRIOT Act was not proposed by members
of Congress, or our legislative branch of government however ... it was proposed by our executive branch. Now, as some of
you may or may not remember from your days of social studies in school the President of the United States is a member of the
Executive Branch. Meaning he knowingly violated the oath he took before taking the position of President of the United States
of America. Now, to provide you with examples of this
source - http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf (please note you must have Adobe Reader for this link to work)
Before the PATRIOT Act was passed the following laws were in place to protect the communication rights of the citizens
of the United States of America: Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 supplies the first level. It prohibits electronic eavesdropping on telephone conversations, face-to-face conversations,
or computer and other forms of electronic communications in most instances. It does, however, give authorities a narrowly
defined process for electronic surveillance to be used as a last resort in serious criminal cases. When approved by senior
Justice Department officials, law enforcement officers may seek a court order authorizing them to secretly capture conversations
concerning any of a statutory list of offenses (predicate offenses). Title III court orders come replete with instructions
describing the permissible duration and scope of the surveillance as well as the conversations which may be seized and the
efforts to be taken to minimize the seizure of innocent conversations. The court notifies the parties to any conversations
seized under the order after the order expires
Under the PATRIOT Act the following things in the previously mentioned law have been changed:
-
permits pen register and trap and trace orders for electronic communications
(e.g., e-mail);
-
authorizes nationwide execution of court orders for pen registers, trap
and trace devices, and access to stored e-mail or communication records;
-
treats stored voice mail like stored e-mail (rather than like telephone
conversations);
-
permits authorities to intercept communications to and from a trespasser
within a computer system (with the permission of the system’s owner);
-
adds terrorist and computer crimes to Title III’s predicate
offense list;
-
reenforces protection for those who help execute Title III, ch. 121, and
ch. 206 orders
So, essentially it has become easier for our federal government to spy on our day to day communications without
really getting any approval from anyone. Do we really want our federal government being able to use a casual political discussion
with a friend as an excuse to put our name on a list of suspected terrorists? Should our day to day lives become our biggest
concern ... should we watch our every step to make sure some pseudo gestapo or member of the "secret police" isn't watching
our every movemnt? Do we really want our government able to at anytime but in on our phone conversations about whatever like
it was their business?
Source - http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html
Before surfing the internet a high school or college student doing a report on Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Ladin
could freely search the internet with no concern that their searches for more information on either of the individuals and
their actions or what groups they affiliated themselves with.
However under the PATRIOT Act this has changed, our Federal Government may now do any of the following in some
cases without even obtaining a court order ... or what is better known as a warrant.
- The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms entered into search engines,
by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing
criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be
granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied upon what it has done.
- FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is
even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap
order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order. The government
need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal
investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even have to report where they served the order or what information
they received. The EFF believes that the opportunities for abuse of these broad new powers are immense. For pen/trap orders,
ISPs or others who are not named in the do have authority under the law to request certification from the Attorney General's
office that the order applies to them, but they do not have the authority to request such confirmation from a court.
- The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their
ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all "non-content"
information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. sec. 212. Second, it expands the records that
the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations,
temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses; means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers.
secs. 210, 211.
- One new definition of terrorism and three expansions of previous terms also expand the scope of surveillance.
They are 1) § 802 definition of "domestic terrorism" (amending 18 USC §2331), which raises concerns about legitimate protest
activity resulting in conviction on terrorism charges, especially if violence erupts; adds to 3 existing definition of terrorism
(int'l terrorism per 18 USC §2331, terrorism transcending national borders per 18 USC §2332b, and federal terrorism per amended
18 USC §2332b(g)(5)(B)). These new definitions also expose more people to surveillance (and potential "harboring" and "material
support" liability, §§ 803, 805).
So, now more questions arise, do we as Americans feel so threatened by these terrorists groups that we are willing
to let the government have a free run at our actions, online activities, and limit our constitutional right to free assembly
and non-violent protest? Does our safety make us free or do the words written on a piece of paper over 200 years ago make
us free? Did two buildings in New York City make us free or is freedom in our minds?
Look, I'm not saying I want terrorists to run this country, however I feel that it is a true act against our
Country to support the current administrations rape of our rights as Americans. If there is no threat of terrorism from the
outside it won't be long before the only threat is from within. Then the government can even further justify spying on its
own people in such a way that the Soviet Union would be shown up. It is time to give the people of this nation their rights
as American citizens back ... please vote for John Kerry.
