If you looked at my link and got through it, I congratulate you :-) but we're still talking about only title II of the Patriot Act!
FWIW, I personally don't find anything particularly controversial about title III which deals with money laundering. I don't think concentration accounts should ever be allowed, tightening the rules around identifying foreign beneficial owners and a whole raft of measures were actually very effective and fair.
Title IV had problematic aspects around modifications to the INA, particularly around disallowing the entry of family of designated terrorists from entering the U.S. as I feel that's overly broad and discriminatory. I'm particularly cautious about the mandatory detention provisions, even with the safeguards in place.
Title V was the one that introduced NSLs, but that was deemed unconstitutional do it's a moot point now.
Title VI provided for victims of terrorism, public safety officers and their families. Rolling back these provisions would be pretty bad.
I gotta dash, so can't comment on the other titles, from memory there were some issues, but by and large many of the changes were benign.
That's the problem with the Act - firstly, the name causes suspicion ("Patriotism is the first refuge of a scoundrel"), it was pushed through far too quickly and I doubt any members of Congress read it which is why it has large holes in it, and parts as it was enacted were later deemed unconstitutional.
The good citizens of the United States should really insist on smaller, more focussed bills passed separately in future. And those pushing the bills would be better off skipping cute backronyms like the "USA PATRIOT Act".
FWIW, I personally don't find anything particularly controversial about title III which deals with money laundering. I don't think concentration accounts should ever be allowed, tightening the rules around identifying foreign beneficial owners and a whole raft of measures were actually very effective and fair.
Title IV had problematic aspects around modifications to the INA, particularly around disallowing the entry of family of designated terrorists from entering the U.S. as I feel that's overly broad and discriminatory. I'm particularly cautious about the mandatory detention provisions, even with the safeguards in place.
Title V was the one that introduced NSLs, but that was deemed unconstitutional do it's a moot point now.
Title VI provided for victims of terrorism, public safety officers and their families. Rolling back these provisions would be pretty bad.
I gotta dash, so can't comment on the other titles, from memory there were some issues, but by and large many of the changes were benign.
That's the problem with the Act - firstly, the name causes suspicion ("Patriotism is the first refuge of a scoundrel"), it was pushed through far too quickly and I doubt any members of Congress read it which is why it has large holes in it, and parts as it was enacted were later deemed unconstitutional.
The good citizens of the United States should really insist on smaller, more focussed bills passed separately in future. And those pushing the bills would be better off skipping cute backronyms like the "USA PATRIOT Act".