Florida Republican Anna Paulina Luna has introduced a bill, the American Privacy Restoration Act, attempting to repeal the controversial Patriot Act passed in 2001.
Note from LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac: This is an incredibly important initiative. The Patriot Act led to enormous, historic, and unnecessary suppression of Americans' civil rights and privacy. It empowered U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to violate constitutional rights to a degree that essentially turned the United States into a police state. It should never have been passed.
There have been many revelations since 9/11 indicating that the "terrorist" attack on that day was planned to terrify Americans into accepting extreme suppression of their constitutional rights and also support already planned, massive U.S. military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Middle East nations for the benefit of Israel. Americans should contact the president and members of Congress and the Senate urging them to support Luna's bill.
If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net
(Reclaim the Net) -- U.S. Representative Anna Paulina Luna has introduced a bill, the American Privacy Restoration Act, that aims to repeal the Patriot Act, passed in 2001.
The Florida Republican believes that what has in the meantime become the notorious post-9/11 legislation, has been abused by “rogue” intelligence officers to carry out mass surveillance in unlawful ways.
READ: Former US official exposes globalist plan to push Americans into 'digital concentration camp'
Announcing the bill, Luna mentioned that the Patriot Act has over the last decades been used to interfere in elections, violate innocent Americans’ privacy by spying on them, and even “settle personal scores.”
A copy of the bill can be found HERE.
According to the representative, the ability to misuse and abuse the Patriot Act in such a way turned it into a tool for what is known as “the deep state” – whereas her legislative proposal seeks to take away the ability of these permanent power centers to violate the Fourth Amendment, that should protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Like a number of other laws, in particular those supposed to regulate intelligence and broader national security work, on paper, the Patriot Act’s condensed purpose is uncontroversial: to expand law enforcement powers, so as to “enhance the federal government’s efforts to detect and deter acts of terrorism in the United States or against United States’ interests abroad.”
READ: Attorney warns of Big Tech CEO's vision of AI surveillance: 'Ultimate form of tyranny'
However, on closer inspection – even before the law’s subsequent slide into controversy – it quickly became clear that the expanded powers were too broad and went beyond surveillance itself, to allow for warrantless searches in some cases, more “information sharing,” as well as access to business records.
Critics have been saying that since 2001, the Patriot Act has been turned against Americans themselves, and used as an excuse to subject even those not suspected of any wrongdoing to mass surveillance, all the while sidestepping the necessary guardrails and oversight.
Luna believes this has produced “the most sophisticated, unaccountable surveillance apparatus in the Western world.” And she believes it is necessary to act now to rectify this situation.
“It’s past time to reign in our intelligence agencies and restore the right to privacy. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise is using ‘security’ as an excuse to erode your freedom,” the legislator is quoted as saying.
READ: Congress needs to enact laws protecting us from illegal government surveillance
One of Luna’s unlikely – for political and ideological reasons – allies is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has been pushing for reforms of the Act, reminding of the fact that when it was first passed in October 2001, many members of Congress admitted to not having read the bill before voting for it.
According to the ACLU, there were “intimations from the Bush administration that those who voted ‘no’ would be held responsible for further (terror) attacks.”
Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.
