Talk:Patriot Act/Archive 1

message: The last bullet point under "Alleged Abuses Under The Patriot Act" directly quotes a Slashdot story without making it clear that a direct quote is being used. The last sentence in that bullet point, "Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?", seems really out-of-place in a Wikipedia article. Someone ought to rewrite this bullet point to be more NPOV and to avoid quoting Slashdot word-for-word. - Brian Kendig 13:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Slashdot quote

message: I just reverted someone who completed a sentence with "a wild orgy on Thursdays." However, that sentence does abruptly end - can someone loook at it and fix it? ugen64 02:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd sentence

message: The current version of this entry has a section on changes brought about by the Patriot Act that purports to be from an Associated Press story.  However, that story was about changes to the law post-9/11 generally, not the Patriot Act specifically; only one of those even attempts to relate to the Patriot Act; and the one that attempts to relate to the Patriot Act (the one about library subpoenas) is simply incorrect.  To be blunt, none of the information in the section on Patriot Act changes is actually true; the Patriot Act does none of the things that the section says it does.  Given that, I recommend it be deleted.
(posted by Orin Kerr, Associate Professor, George Washington University Law School)
:I have restored your edit to USA PATRIOT Act. Please include edit summaries when you are deleting text in articles because otherwise it looks like vandalism. Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 02:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1986 law gave the FBI power to use National Security Letters only for securing the records of suspected terrorists or spies. Section 505 of the Patriot Act greatly expanded its power to obtain confidential data about anyone - just as long as the FBI believed the information could be relevant to a terrorism or espionage investigation.  "Before PATRIOT, the FBI could use National Security Letters only for securing the records of suspected terrorists or spies," says EFF attorney and Equal Justice Works Fellow Kevin Bankston said recently. "Now the FBI can use them to get private records about anybody it thinks could be relevant to a terrorism or espionage investigation, without ever having to show probable cause to a judge."--The lorax 21:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in the Patriot Act 

message: I moved the article to USAPATRIOT Act from USA PATRIOT Act to make it less POV.  IMO the creator of this article was trying to express a POV—that the act is patriotic and supported by patriots of the USA—by using a space in that position (or else made a typo by accidentally inserting a space).  I didn't move it to the full name because I thought it was a bit long.
--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 17:52, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
:The Act's official name is "USA PATRIOT Act". While I personally think the Act is horrible legislation, there is no POV in using what is both it's official name and how it is most commonly referred to. "USAPATRIOT Act" is simply an abberent spelling. older≠wiser 18:03, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
::There is no clear division at that point in the phrase, "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001".  The fact that you think it is a spelling at all, indicates you are being POV.  I'm not reverting it back as you'll simply revert it again (and it is only one character).
::--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib
:::You left off a crucial parenthetical phrase. Look at the text of the bill  where it says "SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001'" Look at that--right there in the official name--"USA PATRIOT ACT"--how about that? Well, discounting the official sources, let's check Google. 1,020,000 for "USA PATRIOT ACT" vs 3,470 for "USAPATRIOT ACT". Looks like a no-brainer to me. And I'd appreciate it if you apologized for accusing me of pushing a POV with the spelling. older≠wiser 18:39, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
::::I wasn't aware of that.  However, just because an act passed by the US congress says something, it doesn't meant it is NPOV.  Also, notice it does not say that the short title is `USA PATRIOT ACT'; it says the short title is `Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001' which of course contains `USA PATRIOT Act'.  I will, nonetheless, leave the name as is, because it is arguably currently NPOV and it is a minor detail.  (Aside: IMO Google says nothing about whether something is POV.)
::::--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 19:05, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
:::::What Google can give is an indication of the name by which something is most commonly known. In a case where one name is overwhelmingly more common than another, it is rather perverse, if not POV in itself, to argue that the less well-known name should be used simply because of theoretical concerns about possible bias in the more well-known name. older≠wiser 19:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
::::::Maybe I am missing something, but how the heck is leaving a space out POV?  USA PATRIOT Act works way better anyhow, no doubt about it, never seen it spelled USAPATRIOT Act.  Just wondering how in the world you got the idea that it somehow showed POV.  Don't go overboard with the whole POV thing, you changing it because you thought it showed a POV was done from your POV anyhow.  abomination 18:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: This article repeatedly makes mention of the "Bush Administration".  With the broad use made in this article, Hillary Clinton, being in Congress while Bush is President, is a member of the Bush Administration.  
: No, she's part of the Legislative Branch of the US government.  The term "Bush Administration" is generally understood to relate to the Executive Branch of the government under Bush.
:Septegram 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is common practice to reply below an entry, not in the middle of it.  However, you apparently missed the point of this comment.  When it was made, the article was full of references to "The Bush Administration", as in: The Bush Administration passed the act.  The Bush Administration investigated innocent Americans.  The Bush Administration falsified reports on their use of the act.  I was pointing out that the Bush Administration is not the entire government and every act of each member of the government is not an act of the Bush Administration.  Since I made this comment, there has been less use of the phrase "The Bush Administration" to refer to Congress, the Supreme Court, and Federal investigators. --Kainaw (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the "Bush Administration"

message: I removed "As of November 16, 2004, the USA PATRIOT Act has been used to charge 372 suspected terrorists and convict 194 of them." from the intro because it's BS, parrotting the White House propaganda machine. And, yes, the BS is coming from the "Bush administration".
Niteowlneils 16:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not disagree that the Bush Administration is quoting the 372/194 figures.  I disagreed with the phrase "as claimed by the Bush Administration".  Backtracking through the muck and grime of the media, those numbers first pop up in an op/ed piece by Deroy Murdock.  While he probably voted for Bush, he is not a member of the Bush Administration.  When pressed, Murdock claims a Congressional study backs his numbers.  I have not been able to find the study.  Regardless of the validity of Murdock's claim, I feel it is purposely misleading to write that the numbers are "claimed" by the Bush Administration when the Bush Administration is merely repeating what someone else said. Kainaw 17:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PATRIOT has been used in very few 'terrorist' cases

message: When repeating news articles about what Congress has done, there are some things to remember.  Neither the Senate or the House comprise Congress all alone.  The combination of the two comprises Congress.  A vote by one or the other does not pass a law.  Even when both agree, it must go to the President.  Didn't anyone pay attention to School House Rocks?
Also, news media does not like to report news as is.  They slant it.  So, when you read that Congress voted on something, go to either senate.gov or house.gov.  Then, you can see what they voted on.  For example, the AP has an article claiming that the House voted down section 215 of the Bush's evil Anti-Terrorism law.  Go to house.gov.  The vote mentioned was a vote to ammend a funding bill so that it couldn't be used to fund section 215.  I know that it is correct in the new media sense to link and repeat the half-truth AP article, but I really want Wikipedia to be more dependable and go straight to the source.
So, all I'm asking is that news articles that claim "Congress did ..." be checked against senate.gov and house.gov to remove the pro or con slant. Kainaw 17:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reporting about Congress

message: you guys honestly can't compare the Reichstag Fire Decree to the PATRIOT act. That's just silly. - the preceding was unsigned by an anonymous editor. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - that is one similarity that applies to literally thousands of laws throughout history.  Where's the "many" that you refer to?  How many are unique to the Patriot Act and teh Reichstag Fire Decree?  Or - are you just another person trying (idiotically) to find ways to claim Bush is exactly the same as Hitler?  Why can't he just be a bad President?  Why does he have to be Hitler? --Kainaw (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is painfully obvious that you have no clue what is in the Patriot Act.  Nowhere does it give the President the option of suspending Congress and the Supreme Court, regardless of national threat.  Just implying that it does demonstrates a complete ignorance of the subject. --Kainaw (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Silly

message: Why is the title in upper case?  It's not an acronym, and I can see no other reason.  It doubtless appears in capitals in certain places in certain official documents, but this is the first time that I've seen it in capitals anywhere else. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to USA PATRIOT being in upper case?  It is an acronym. Kainaw 23:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism", clumsy, but an acronym. Uber nemo 01:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Good grief, it's even worse than I'd thought (it's also obvious that it's an acronym back-engineered to fit the 1930s-style name and purpose of the legislation, but I suppose that that's irrelevant to the typography in the article). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typography 

message: I tested it out here. Looks nice, doesn't it? I was wondering if someone could make it into a template.
By the way, I am absolutely OPPOSED to the Patriot Act (as it's an authoritarian piece of shit), I was just testing this template out. Revolución 02:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you add to your template the legislation that is absorbed into new legislation.  For example, the USA PATRIOT Act contains the USA Act and the FISA.  That is very important to know.  Then, people can get informed easier and stop making really stupid uninformed comments such as, "The USA PATRIOT Act gives the government too much power, so we should get rid of it."  Only by understanding that the USA PATRIOT Act contains the USA Act and the FISA will those people realize that getting rid of the USA PATRIOT Act will increase the governments power, not decrease it.  Therefore, having it in the template would be a nice place for it. Kainaw 15:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

text: In Firefox, the word "allows" in the phrase "section 216, which allows" intersects with the top left of the table. However, in IE the table does not appear at all! --pile0nadestalk | contribs 12:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New legislation template 

message: A person calling themselves JVB (we cannot be sure) added some good content to the article.  Unfortunately, she also deleted a lot of information that was good.  I do not want to revert the changes, but it will take some time to integrate the new information with the old information.  Anyone have suggestions for merging the old and new versions (other than copying both into Word and doing a lot of copying and pasting). Kainaw 19:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed that the J.D. meant Justice Department.  There were errors of fact, as well as P.O.V. blanking, so I reverted it.  I hope she comes in to discuss this because her ideas are very interesting and her knowledge is very informative.  --Zephram Stark 17:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: JVB edits

message: The Patriot act has some simmalarites to the 1796 sedition act. Anyone think so??? 
Check at these:
*The Patriot Act
*Alien and Sedition Acts
: Good observation.  Yes, they do and I wrote about these laws and their similarity to the PATRTIOT Act in part two of my article "Repeal the Patriot Act" in April 2002. 66.32.72.157 15:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriot Act / Sedition Act 

message: I'm very sad to say that this article is next to useless. Neither the USA Act or USA PATRIOT Act detail the various clauses. There is tantalising detail here about what the Act contained: for instance, it allowed the FBI to employ translators! 
I notice that the actual text of the Act has ten titles, each with their own important subsections. Hardly any are covered in this article. This makes it impossible for me to evaluate the criticisms levelled at the Act. I find that this is sad, especially in the light of the following sentence (from the article): "According to The Gallup Organization, the public is wary but ignorant about the USA PATRIOT Act." This article doesn't do much at all to assist with informing anyone about the scope of the Act!
Surely we can do better than this? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking over the article, Ta bu shi da yu has a good point.  Given the length of the article, it's surprising how little I knew about the Act at the end of it.  Of course, that means that an article that did provide the information would be huge; is there any sensible way to subdivide it? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 11:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a start on the titles. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I heartily endorse this effort.  The Act is immense and there is no real overview here of all that it covers.  In fact, your earlier version that I deleted said only that the Act was an amendment of FISA which is so erroneous it's embarrassing, esp. when you consider the ten titles.  Ta bu shi da yu, I'm glad you are working on it.  66.32.106.144 12:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next to useless 

message: My article on the designation and material support provisions is not yet available online.  The journal promised to post it, but it isn't up yet.
However, there is another article that looks very good on similar questions.  It's at http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jol/vol42_1/chesney.php.
This, of course, covers only a tiny corner of the PATRIOT Act provisions.
The best book on all the titles is C. William Michaels' book "No Greater Threat: America After September 11."  He has sections on each title and has an updated version coming out that covers more recent legislation that amends or complements the Act.  
I will post these sources on the wikipedia entry, too. 66.32.106.144 12:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ten Titles & a Few Sources 

message: I've started a miniproject, mainly because I really can't be stuffed making a Wikiproject (too much work). Anyone who wants to assist can contribute their and on the articles themselves. Wikipedia:Miniproject USA PATRIOT Act. Let's get this article up to speed! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miniproject started 

message: There is almost nothing in this article concerning the detention of non-citizens, which is another debated provision.  I believe it is mentioned in the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act article, but I see little about it in this one.  I am not sure if there has been many abuses of this but it deserves some mention. - 12.201.16.126 16:57, November 18, 2005
:I don't believe the PATRIOT Act covers the detention of non-citizens... however, I've been steadily working through summarising the act so I may find I am wrong about this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, I am wrong. See section Section 412: MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS. When I get to title IV I will summarise. I'm working backwards, writing up about each title in detail - then I'll come back to this article and start sorting it out. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Info. About Non-citizen Detentions?

message: Could someone design a template to be added to all legislation that gives a caveat along the lines of "this does not constitute legal advice - seek appropriate qualified advice, legislation can change and this article may not be up to date etc etc." Otherwise this is a lawsuit waiting to happen! User:AndrewRT
:No. We don't do that. We have a general disclaimer that is all we need, and if anyone takes this article for legal advice, to be frank they are a fool. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On further investigation I noted the disclaimer on the bottom of the page which seems adequate and the template Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer which I'll use in future AndrewRT 17:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No additional disclaimers are necessary. Our blanket legal disclaimer for the project is sufficient. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting Wikipedia 

message: Must "Patriot" be ALL in capitals? It think it makes it look horrible. It would seriously look better if it was just: "USA Patriot Act". --Kilo-Lima 15:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "PATRIOT" is a backronym, and traditionally acronyms are spelt in capital letters. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Name 

message: It's getting better, but it still has a long way to go. My thoughts later. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of this article 

message: ... I have temporarily semi-protected this page to stop a particularly insistent editor who keeps adding Benjamin Franklin quotes. I might have noted it on the talk page, but I didn't mean for it to be added to the article! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stopping a persistent POV pusher... 

message: I'd just like to make the point that FISA was not a predecessor of the Patriot Act (at least not an Act that was incorporated into the Patriot Act at any rate). Title II did a lot of amending of it, however. I'd also like to point out that the article Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is rather incomplete, and something I'd like to see expanded upon. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessors 

message: When are these sections going to be put up? Zachorious 07:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold, give it a try! Assawyer 07:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer: when I finish Title II :-) Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's taken me four months, but I have finally read and understood Title II and Title III. You can read about Title III in USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, though I still have to write its history. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International money laundering abatement and anti-terrorist financing act of 2001 and Miscellaneous 

message: Reichstag Fire Decree should not be in the See also section for two reasons:
# it is already dealt with in the comparisons to other laws section, and
# it is really nothing like the Patriot Act.
I have removed it from the section. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What part infringes on civil liberties? Give me a section, and tell me why. The translation of the the decree is nothing like the Patriot Act - I doubt you'll be able to tell me the exact section where they impinge upon civil liberties. So if 2) is the best you can give me, then that's not too good, I feel. I again emphasise, however, that this Decree is already covered in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alien sedition act and such are already covered in the comparison section, yet are also linked in the see also section.  Proof Patriot impinges on civil liberties?  Have you watched the news for the past few years?--KrossTalk 04:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed I have. Name an instance. We should be removing those other links, I'll get to it. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I reverted your link removal before I noticed this discussion.  Can you please include "see talk" in your edit summary next time?  Thanks! Monkeyman 19:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you should be checking the talk page before reverting anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also entry 

message: This section should be updated to include information about the latest extension (to March 10th) and information about the compromise that may have been reached ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act;_ylt=At1yLTxbvFcEMD7gUMPk99qs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY- ).  I am not familar with what the sticking points were so I shall leave it to someone more informed. 70.161.91.189 23:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Congressional Action

message: Does the article express the civil liberties concerns of Americans (and others) who worry that the Act gives too much power to the Executive branch? 
*That the current (or next) Administration might abuse the Patriot Act to spy on its domestic political opponents for partisan advantage?
Should the article balance this concern against the concern of others that overseas phone calls (between US numbers and, say, numbers in Pakistan) might be used to coordinate hostile acts against the U.S.?
Which people or parties oppose / support the Patriot Act, and for what reasons? It's not clear at a glance, and I don't think our readers should have to comb through every word of the article to get the answer to this. --Uncle Ed 15:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil Liberties concerns

message: Obviously, the Wikipedia article should be as objective as possible. However, for a student that's only trying to get an overview, the article has too many facts and too little perspective. I tried to read through the article, but also kept getting stuck on the legal (?) jargon. 
Would it be going against any rules/codes of conduct to post links to various editorials (with different persepectives) concerning the Patriot Act? (A lot of Wiki articles have a "related links" section).   
xxcerise@yahoo.com
Thank you.
:The problem here is that the Patriot Act is vast. Have a look at USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, I wrote this and I got an article that was 4 times larger than anything I've written before. And that's just one title! However, I take your point on board. What I'm doing is documenting what the Act says title by title, then I'll start working on this article. Editorials, incidently, are fine: however they won't necessarily make things clearer. There is a lot of misinformation about the Act (regrettably, we perpetuated some of it in earlier revisions). - Ta bu shi da yu 12:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriot Act: GOOD or BAD? 

message: As a citizen of the United States, regardless of whether I agree with this act or not, I'd like to NOT have to spend an hour of my day removing reverences to the "Galactic Senate" and "Supreme Chancellor of the United States" from an article which should ALWAYS be neutral.  It's disturbing that I just had to do that and it lowers my opinion of Wikipedia.  I don't want it to lower other people's opions as well.
:Someone from "Merrimack Educational Center" was responsible, which gives the impression that a bored or delinquent schoolboy/girl was responsible. I had to fix some more of the same. Frankly it was one of the most destructive vandalisms I'd seen in that other people made legit contributions over top of it, which made it impossible to just revert. I'm going to check and see if I missed anything now... 68.39.174.238 00:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to mention, I got so disgusted after a little bit that I just reverted the whole page. Sorry guys. 68.39.174.238 02:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage this in a lot of ways. I think it was fine. Always make sure you keep doing what you are doing though - note your revert on the talk page to give people a chance to reverse you revert, or at least discuss it. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars References 

message: I have removed the NPOV tag that an anon added as nothing has been stated on the talk page before it was added. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Just read this news report about an amendment to the renewed Patriot Act that targets those who synthesize the drug: The law also takes aim at the methamphetamine trade by imposing new restrictions on the sale of over-the-counter cold and allergy medicines, which contain a key ingredient for the drug. Customers will be limited to buying 300 30-milligram pills in a month or 120 such pills in a day. The measure would make an exception for "single-use" sales -- individually packaged pseudoephedrine products. By Sept. 30, retailers will be required to sell such medicines from behind the counter and purchasers would have to show ID and sign log books. --Howrealisreal 15:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Methamphetamine]] 

message: Feel free to contribute! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: currenlty reviewing the below history section, as have been informed I'm offbase somewhat. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The USA PATRIOT Act modifies FISA (1977 I think), so shouldn't that be in the history? --Kainaw (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Research

message: As i tried to read this article I failed to understand a few simple basics facts regarding the act:<BR>
Except for defining domestic and foreign terror, what does the Act actualy means? What will happen to a person who is charged in terror? what legal procedures will that person undergo? If the Act does not dictates these things, I rather think it would be logical to mention this on the article. anot question that jumped into my head: how does the Act "sits" with The Constitution? 212.179.126.2 09:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All extremely good questions. I am currently working backwards through the Act documenting each of the Titles in turn (Blackcap is also doing this). A good deal of information about Title II — one of the most controversial bits — has already been documented in USA PATRIOT Act, Title II and constitutional arguments are covered. Anyway, once I have finished documenting each of the ten titles, I intend to rework this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikiPEDIA? 

message: :This is a portentious statement, and I think it needs a link to the relevant works of these legal scholars. Λυδαcιτγ 17:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. My suggestion is to remove it from the article until it is sourced. However, given the general low quality of this article, I doubt that it will make the article any worse if you leave it in. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch. Yes, I removed it already. Λυδαcιτγ 17:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I noticed :-) The article will be better one day, I have just finished summarising Title V of the Act, now on to Title VI! - Ta bu shi da yu 18:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: Maybe this article should be shortened to just the basic facts about the usa patriot act because it is too long IMO and that sometimes may makes people not want to read the whole thing.  Just keep it brief.
:I tried long ago, but there are too many people who feel it is a life or death matter that they warn you about Bush's plan to become Supreme Leader of the Universe by using the Patriot Act to see what books you are checking out at the library.  Personally, I'd like an article on Anti-Patriot Act claims that have no basis in reality.  It would fill up quickly. --Kainaw (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you help out then? I have one last article about title X that needs fixing. Once this is fixed, I intend to start research some background history of the Act and the reauthorization act. Once that is done, I'm going to start fixing the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  shorten  the article 

message: Concerning the nomination for Good Article status, I have put the nomination "On Hold" because:
*The article does not contain sufficient references, whole sections lacking citations in some cases. For example, the quotes in the end of the "Provisions" section are not cited.
*The article is marked for clean-up. I don't know how well that tag is deserved, but an article that does not match Wikipedia quality most certainly doesn't deserve GA status.
If those changes are made, I would consider passing the article. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, I would strongly oppose calling this article "good" in any way! It's totally disorganised for one, and almost misleading in many other ways. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the nominator consider such, then he ought to remove his candidacy (... and work on the article). Lincher 20:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid that I actually made a mistake when I listed this article. I should have relisted USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, and not this one. Apologies for any confusion. Is the article still up for nomination? Sorry, I'm slightly out of things while I prepare for my marriage. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nomination 

message: Where is the logig? If the law is ""Signed into law by President Bush on October 26"",  then is quit impobilble that the "Effective Date: February 10, 2001" ? Or somentin is wrong in US legislation! Or it is normal that US law is retroactive? --Alexius Manfelt 08:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was renewed in 2006. It became law in 2001 though. The effective date should read February 1, 2002 though from reading through the act. Sasquatch  t|c 17:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ??

message: With respect to this quote: "Section 2331 also includes the crime of international terrorism, which is identical to domestic terrorism, except that it transcends national boundaries. But this provision predates the Act."  What Act of Congress first defined international terrorism?  I'd like to see that included in the article -- backburner001 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that is FISA.  The USA ACT (which rolled into the USA PATRIOT ACT) expanded who could be a terrorist.  Previously, a terrorist had to be working for a foreign government.  Now, they can be working for any foreign group or all by themselves. --Kainaw (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about Scope

message: I have been unable to get a clear consensus on what sections of the USA PATRIOT Act are still enforceable.  Which ones have been struck down by the court system?  Did Congress' reaffirmation of the act invalidate previous court decisions?  Could somebody in the know please add that information?  Different parts of this article, and other articles on Wikipedia, all seem to contradict each other on this.  Uiop 07:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What sections are still active?