5 ms·

> In 2020, efforts to extend the provisions were not passed by the House of Representatives, and as such, the law has expired. The wording is confusing. Two pr

• bilbo0s 1y ago
  The wording is confusing. Being confusing, I'm almost certain, was the entire point.
• nostrademons 1y ago
  The Wikipedia article is quite confusing, and seems to imply that those two provisions expired because they were the only two provisions not sunsetted already. The table indicates that most of the law sunsetted on March of 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#Section_expirations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#Section_expiration... But then they say "The first act reauthorized all but two Title II provisions. Two sections were changed to sunset on December 31, 2009" But the first act was passed in 2005, and so it's unclear whether it reauthorized provisions only until 2006 or a longer term.
• calibas 1y ago
  I looked into this a little more, and these were the final two provisions of the Patriot Act, so the did law expire. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean a whole lot, as many of the provisions live on in the USA Freedom Act.
  • virtue3 1y ago
    Was not aware of the USA Freedom Act details on it: Reauthorization of Other Patriot Act Provisions: The USA FREEDOM Act extended two other provisions from the Patriot Act that were set to expire: "Lone Wolf" Provision: Allows for surveillance on individual terrorists who may not be directly linked to a foreign power. "Roving Wiretap" Provision: Enables surveillance to follow a suspect even if they change their communication methods or devices. Everyone should be super clued in whenever the government chooses to classify something as 'terrorism' because of these provisions. There appeared to be a lot of "good things" associated with this Act but also... as things go. Not great things such as above.
    • lazide 1y ago
      It is no accident that the current admin is classifying suspected drug runners as ‘terrorists’, for example. Namely, the precedent of the Obama era droning of even US citizens under the same label.
      • mc32 1y ago
        If they are going to go to war at least go to war over something that immensely benefits Americans (such as decrease of deaths due to overdosing and consequences of addiction). Definitely better than acting as the enforcers for other nations who are too pussy to do their warring on their own.
        • mikeyouse 1y ago
          If we’re going to war over anything it should be authorized by Congress and not just a disinterested president carrying out extrajudicial drone strikes with absolutely no legal authority in US or international law.
          • mc32 1y ago
            Oh, wait, did I miss it? Did we declare war in the ME all these last twenty years without me knowing? If we’re going to do shit like this at least let it be something we get direct benefits from and not some sheiks and others in the ME or Caucasus.
            • mikeyouse 1y ago
              Perhaps you did miss the AUMF, but it was pretty prominent. While Obviously falling short of a declaration of war, it provided a legal basis to be held against. Regardless, we’d finally stopped basically all drone activity in Afghanistan and the ME before the current warmongering admin showed back up with unrestrained drones, bluster about Jihadists in Africa, drone strikes in the Caribbean, F35s over Mexico and B2s flying around the world to drop bombs in Iran. This is the Department of War you know. Ignoring that all the existing ‘wars’ are still ongoing and pretending like this is some more narrow focus is just silly. https://archive.is/3ZNCO https://archive.is/3ZNCO