
Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigations - 001sky
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/surprise-controversial-patriot-act-power-now-overwhelmingly-used-in-drug-investigations/
======
remarkEon
There's a case before the SCOTUS right now that was argued back in October
that has to do with something similar, where "forgotten law" (the police
officer allegedly forgot what the law was for a broken tail light and pulled
the person over anyway) led to a traffic stop, which led to a cursory search
of the vehicle, which led to the discovery of a substantial amount of cocaine
(relatively speaking). While one might argue that the court could easily rule
for the government in this case given that the defendant consented to the
secondary search (perhaps out of ignorance of the law), what's troubling for
me in this related case is the government's position outright: namely, that it
doesn't matter if the police officer does or does not know the law as long as
a stop is "reasonable." To me that sounds like a pretty awful precedent to
set. My law professor loved to ask us, somewhat condescendingly and to
paraphrase John Adams, "are we a Nation of men, or are we a Nation of laws?"

Indeed.

[1][http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_604](http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_604)

~~~
joesmo
From the police actions and ruling in this case, I'd say the answer is
neither.

~~~
remarkEon
Thankfully the Court hasn't ruled on it yet. Probably looking for a June
opinion release. Given the precedent set in Riley v. California [1] (cellphone
warrant case) I think the personality of the court is inclined to agree that
police do in fact need a legal justification to pull someone over. I was more
concerned that the Federal Government was arguing to the contrary.

[1]
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf)

------
hyperion2010
I really do not understand why some people argue that slippery slope arguments
are fallacious. If there is no compelling force and no oversight that prevents
an organization from doing something then by entropy alone you would expect
that it will eventually be done, much less when there is a huge incentive to
use it because it requires less work and red tape.

~~~
csallen
Slippery slope arguments aren't necessarily fallacious. Their quality depends
on how strong of a case you can build for why/how <initial-event> will lead to
<predicted-stopping-point> rather than <alternative-stopping-points>.

EDIT: Don't know why I'm being downvoted. Wikipedia seems to back me up here
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)).

~~~
bunderbunder
You're being downvoted because there's a certain passive-aggressive subset
who'd rather take the easy way out and just suppress an opinion they disagree
with by pushing it into graytext territory than attempt to do the constructive
thing and type out a thoughtful response to it.

Anyway, you're correct that slippery slope arguments aren't necessarily
fallacious. A well-crafted one which demonstrates that sliding down the slope
is inevitable can be quite compelling. One that I've always thought was
particularly impressive is the line of reasoning that the political
philosopher Robert Nozick employed in his book _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_ to
argue that an anarchist political system would not be viable.

------
rbcgerard
Just as powers granted for terrorism are, and will continue to be used for
more mundane crimes. History has shown us that the technologies and tactics
deployed on the battlefield will be be brought home, and be be deployed
against the civilian population.

------
chuckcode
And civil asset forfeiture was supposed to be just for fighting drug dealers
but now being used in all sorts of cases [1]. Governments and other
organizations will use all of the powers given to them and then some. The
populace will continue to be deceived by the classic divide and conquer for as
long as people allow it. The courts don't seem to be stepping up to the plate
on these laws which seem very unconstitutional on the face of it from my naive
standpoint.

[1]
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/10/06/john_oliver_o...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/10/06/john_oliver_on_civil_forfeiture_with_jeff_goldblum_he_creates_new_law_order.html)

------
crazy1van
Another example of why legislating in a fit of passion is generally a bad
idea.

~~~
colordrops
I'm going to be cynical here and suggest that there was no emotion involved
for the legislators themselves - they knew the consequences from the
beginning. They wait for constituents to become emotional and irrational to
push through shitty legislation.

~~~
themartorana
You're assuming that the power-grab of government is all-encompassing, and
that all parties collude equally. I doubt this is true.

Even congressmen are human, and at least some were caught up in the emotion.

Cynically (and I expect downvotes) I even imagine Bush caught up emotionally,
as old-school Cold War vets Cheney and Rumsfeld finally saw a chance to pounce
on popular fervor to increase executive power. Perhaps I'm wrong, but history
seems on my side.

------
aburan28
I am sure our democratic system will sort this sort abuse out right away...but
in reality most people in this country won't bat an eye at issues like this or
mass incarceration unfortunately

~~~
smtddr
This doesn't help either....

[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/prison-black-
laws-...](http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/prison-black-
laws-080614.html)

~~~
AlexandrB
Wow, if I'm reading this right, this seems like evidence of widespread
(possibly sub-conscious) racism.

~~~
coldtea
Not sure if sarcastic...

Of courses there's widespread (systemic) racism. And sub-conscious only in the
sense that people don't care to speak about it, because they know it alright.

~~~
aburan28
I think people are conscious of things such as the disproportionate African-
American incarceration rates but rather feel powerless to change that fact

------
judk
Please capitalize PATRIOT. It's a tacky initialism, not the word "Patriot".

~~~
ipsin
+1. The full acronym is USA PATRIOT, which, every time I read it, causes me to
throw up in my mouth a little bit.

So far from protecting the actual ideals the US claims to stand for.

~~~
pluma
As a German, every time I hear Americans openly embrace unquestioning
patriotism (or equate patriotism with blind loyalty to the government -- and
no, conservatives ragging about the "nanny state" and questioning Obama's
nationality or religion don't count if you also sport "Support Our Troops"
bumper stickers and pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth), I cringe a bit.

Over the years I've learned to pay less attention to it, but especially with
Bush the rhetoric was exactly the kind that rang all the alarm bells. Every
time I see a new president be elected into office my only thought is "Please
don't become Hitler".

If there's anything scarier than the US, it's the US at war. And since 9/11,
the US is de-facto perpetually at war.

------
ChrisAntaki
> We were assured at the time that this was an essential law enforcement tool
> that would be used only to protect the country from terrorism.

This describes much more than just the "sneak and peek" power.

------
blazespin
Oops. If true, the utter betrayal of government over the governed. At least in
a fascist state, you know you're going to get screwed. Well, I think we can
all agree now this is proof positive everything Snowden has said is completely
valid.

~~~
smsm42
Well, we can't really know _everything_ he said is valid (he might be mistaken
or deceived, for example) but certainly some of it is. But one doesn't need
Snowden to know government will expand its powers if allowed to do so. You
don't need Snowden, you just need a good history book and a bit of thinking.
Snowden revelations showed how bad exactly it has gotten. But you could
predict that it's going to get bad just because the government has been given
wide powers and no substantial control over them. There's no way it would not
go bad, it always does.

~~~
socceroos
Prior to Snowden's 'revelations' I was accused of being a tin-foil hatter
wherever I expressed my opinion on government spying. Not so much now.

------
confluence
Reminds me of this scene form _The Departed_ (great film):

> _Patriot Act. I love it! I love it! I love it!_

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdqEuLhlexY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdqEuLhlexY)

------
alieas
I knew this would happen because the majority of Federal drug cases are
charged as conspiracy under the Rico Act of 1985.

------
birdpatriot99
Destruction of Wisdom in USA - healthy, wealthy and wise.

similar pattern to destrution of HEALTH by the health care system. How so? BIG
PHARMA and the BIG HOSPITAL Chains make kill all anti-biotics. This wiipes out
ALL bacteria including the friendly ones and it lead to SUIPER bacteria like
MRSA, superbugs, etc.

Most of the doctors are cowards and go with the herd, so for any small
illness, the patient gets a KILL DOSAGE OF Anti-biiotics.

allegedly most of the law enforcemtn are 'somewhat cowards' and go with the
herd, so for nonviolent weed usage, etc, the CRIMINAL THAT IS THE USA CITIZEN
gets a KILL DOSAGE of Anti-Terror indictments via the BIG Pharma factory of
the Patriot Act.

Since our political leaders in Congress have almost NO programming skills and
flunked out of statistics class and it appears thtey are too LAZY TO EVEN READ
THE BILLS of potential law,

this comes as no surprise.

summary conclusion: the housing bubble destroyed the wealth and the tax
structure that sends manufacturers to China. wealth destroyed - check.

the provisional rush through of dangerous pills destroyed the health

health destroyed - check

the 'patriot act' and other civil forfeiture acts is destroying the WISDOM.

wisdom destroying in progress - aided and abetted by the Comcast 'Net
Neutrality'. Tracking direct usage by 'electric meters' will DESTROY
reddit.com, Hacker news, and other

OPEN PUBLIC COMMONS.

The Drug WARS continue as 1.) we learned nothing from Prohibition and the rise
of organized crime 2.) Vietnam War spread drugs using the military

3.)Iran-Contragate Scandal

4.)destruction of the Colombia Drug Cartel in order to promote the power of
the Mexican Drug Cartel and the rise of human smuggling

aka illegal aliens.

5.) small import export business is a bystander CASUALTY OF THE DRUG WAR. Any
anonymous tip and your goods are seized via the power of snooping on your
communications.

6.) HERE IS THE LOOPHOLE OF THE :PATRIOT ACT. Mexican Leader El Chapo Guzman
is a 3rd grade dropout.

He also knows that the great USA has supercomputers and mnay fine
cryptographers on Hacker news.

So, maybe the carrier pigeons and birds are used to carry messages?

thus, anti-aircraft gun batteries should be set up at the border.

GOOD BY Canadian geese flying south. This will also provide plenty FREE food
meals for the law enforcement after proper legal procedures.

Please, bird and animal lovers (especially FEMALES) do not flame me!

------
Yardlink
To those who don't like the use of this law, I think this is OK. Here's why:
You live in a democracy where the popular opinion decides who's in power. You
agree that's a good idea because you aren't moving to an authoritarian or
libertarian country or voting to change the system. The popular opinion
allowed this law, so you should accept that it's the right one according to
the system. Of course there will always be a minority which doesn't like each
law, and you happen to be a member of that minority in this case.

If it does become a bigger problem that affects the majority, they'll
eventually decide to vote it out. Until then, it's nothing to worry about.
This is the self-stabilizing effect of democracy. There can be small problems,
but not big Syria-scale problems.

It's just part of the cost of sharing your country with people who think
differently from you. If you really strongly believe the law is being used for
"bad" purposes, the bad people are the voters who first allowed it, and after
seeing it happen, continued to re-elect the same politicians that passed this
law. Those are the people you should be complaining about - the two wolves
voting on what's for dinner.

You might say those majority voters are ignorant and it's not their fault. No,
they are taking action which you believe is wrong, so they are doing something
wrong. If they aren't competent to decide who to vote for, they're being
negligent by doing it recklessly.

PS I live in an authoritarian country where imagining the police have some
restrictions on their power is only a fantasy. Your police at least do still
have some restrictions, and they always will as long as you have a democracy.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> If it does become a bigger problem that affects the majority, they'll
> eventually decide to vote it out.

Slight problem with that. Candidate Obama promised to repeal the Patriot Act.
People voted for him. He was elected. It has not been repealed.

~~~
pluma
To be fair, there are a lot of other promises he didn't hold. It's unfair to
focus on that one in particular.

