UN, Human Rights, Welfare, Republicans and War in Iraq…

[Anguirel]

I've got a half-formed post that's been mulling around in my head, so I thought I'd just start it and maybe it'll be intelligible enough to foster some sort of a discussion.

A short time ago a thread on Human Rights came up, in which FlameBlade kindly posted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Now, I had readthrough this document several times previously, but not for the last few years... After reading it again, I realized it seemed to apply quite directly to some of the discussions held previously, most notably those primarily between Cain and 3278 on Welfare. In one such thread I seem to recall it being asked why we needed to have Welfare, Unemployment Insurance and the like at all. The answer, of course, is in Articles 23, 25 and 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Being drafters and signators to this document, and having even reaffirmed our commitment to it in 1993, the U.S.A. is honor and duty bound to attempt to uphlold it. This document is meant to be an idealtowards which we should strive, and it is one which we could reach, I think, if the country as a whole worked to that end.

The problem, of course, is that we are not all striving to acheive this end. In fact, I'd say about half of the country is against it. That half is also known as Republicans, who consistently strike down attempts at providing food, housing, education, welfare, and universal health insurance. They are not alone, though I'd like to make them out as the villains here... The Democrats and the ACLU, in their over-zealous crusade against religion and to separate church and state, are running rough-shod over Article 18 and 26.3. Even so, the Republicans have stated platform policies that are directly counter to some of these Human Rights, in particular those that allow for those in need to starve or be unable to receive adequate healthcare as well as those which remove power from trade unions.

Now we get to the conspiracy... If the U.S. is required to uphold these policies and the Republican platform runs counter to it, how can the Republicans reasonably continue? Simple. Sever ties with the United Nations, something they've been attempting for quite some time. President Bush and his Warawks have, perhaps quite shrewdly, utilized the War on Terrorism and, much more powerfully, the War on Iraq to effectively begin the process by which those ties would be broken, freeing the U.S. of the obligation to uphold these Human Rights.

Of course, I don't think this is the case, but it was a fun mental excercise. Feel free to chime in as desired. And, if I get you to at least read the UDHR, I'll be happy.

[Marius]

That half is also known as Republicans, who consistently strike down attempts at providing food, housing, education, welfare, and universal health insurance.

They consistently strike down bad attempts at providing those things, yes. They consistenly strike down attempts to provide those things when those attempts are not necessary. They consistently strike down attempts to provide those things when those things are not necessary.

Even so, the Republicans have stated platform policies that are directly counter to some of these Human Rights, in particular those that allow for those in need to starve or be unable to receive adequate healthcare as well as those which remove power from trade unions.

No, in fact they have not. Not even close.

If the U.S. is required to uphold these policies and the Republican platform runs counter to it, how can the Republicans reasonably continue?

They probably couldn't, but it doesn't matter, since the Republican platform does not run counter to the UN Declaration on Human Rights.

Simple. Sever ties with the United Nations, something they've been attempting for quite some time.

No, they haven't.

[FlameBlade]

To my knowledge, US hasn't been paying its dues to UN for a while now...

So I would say, in a way, yes, US has severed its ties in UN, yet remain in power in UN...

Then again, this knowledge is few years old.

[Marius]

Yeah, we paid most of it.

[FlakJacket]

The problem, of course, is that we are not all striving to acheive this end. In fact, I'd say about half of the country is against it. That half is also known as Republicans, who consistently strike down attempts at providing food, housing, education, welfare, and universal health insurance.

Paging Salvation, paging Salvation.

This should be good.

[Psykoguy]

oh joy, another post criticizing the republicans while barely mentioning Democrats and other groups just to make themselves seem unbiased. If you're so pissed off at Republicans* then why not try to do something about it besides complain? How about coming up with some solutions that are cost effective and can actually work







*and democrats, but mostly republicans since you're so biased

[MooCow]

That half is also known as Republicans, who consistently strike down attempts at providing food, housing, education, welfare, and universal health insurance.

As Marius pointed out, it's debatable whether such things are needed. And even if they are, most attempts in the US to do them are poorly designed programs that will fail to do the job, while sucking up resources that could go elsewhere.

Personally, it strikes me that Universal Human Rights is kinda counter-intuitiive to Capitalism. Seems to me that Capitalism fundamentally has no problems letting people starve if they can't be bothered to provide for themselves.

But whatever. Why should I care about a bunch of hmeless bums anyways?

[Anguirel]

Marius: Ok, yeah, I shouldn't have said Republicans in general. I should have singled out those particular republicans who have been quoted, in proper and correct context, that they: a) desire to end all present welfare programs and do not wish to resume any such programs in the future and if some people die due to bad luck or lack of work or whatever, tough; b) get the US out of the UN and, under no uncertain terms, stop any and all foreign aid, get all those countries to start paying back their loans and generally sever all ties with the outside world; c) end present versions of public education and instead allow private institutions to flourish with, possibly, some sort of voucher system for the poor so that all children have the opportunity to be educated. But, as I said, this was a half-formed post and I hadn't finished digging up the appropriate quotes. I'll further grant that these aren't the high-level republicans, but more of the state representatives who can talk the issue up but have no power to do anything about it. But the sentiment certainly exists in the country (I've seen enough "Get us out... of the UN" bumperstickers) and I know some staunch republicans who agree with that idea and perhaps I incorrectly associated those bumperstickers and the ideas of some republicans with being slightly wider spread within the party. Or maybe it's a Capital District of New York thing. But MooCow just stated the opinion which I was attempting to identify, one that I generally associate, perhaps incorrectly, with Republicans.

oh joy, another post criticizing the republicans while barely mentioning Democrats and other groups just to make themselves seem unbiased.

Actually, I really am upset with the ACLU about that particular issue. I really think they've gone too far with their anti-religion stance and their absolute separation of church and state. They've gone beyond simply making sure that no single religion is supported by the state in general to the point where they refuse to allow parents the ability to educate their children as they desire... and for the completely hypocritical reason that "you shouldn't have to pay your tax money for an education with which you don't agree." As if people in Kansas who didn't want Evolution taught weren't being forced to pay for such. As if everyone agrees with the present secular curriculum, but some might not like religious ones. It's bullshit and I think they need to realize they've gotten what's right and proper and now they're carrying it on too far. I just happened to get justification for why they should stop harping so strongly on it in the Declaration, so I dropped that into my above post...

If you're so pissed off at Republicans* then why not try to do something about it besides complain? How about coming up with some solutions that are cost effective and can actually work

There already are solutions that are cost effective and can actually work. I'm annoyed with some Republicans because they keep gutting the programs that I think will work. Teach For America is one such program, and it was working. Working really well. And Republicans slashed funding for it and several other good programs under the Corporation for National and Community Service in order to pay for their taxcuts and the war.

That isn't to say that the Congressional Democrats have been particularly stand-up members of society in the last few years. They didn't exactly voice much opposition over the PATRIOT act which seems to encroach on Articles 12, 13 and 14. To their credit, many did oppose the DMCA which I believe actually violates such statutes in the case of allowing for subpoenas for personal information to be issued without a lawsuit being filed or even reasonable evidence being presented prior. Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican from Kansas, is heading up the reversal on that issue. Not really because he thinks its the right thing to do, but because some gay pornographers are able to use the same clause to get the same personal information as RIAA did, for the same reasons, using it. But at least it is being done, and I support that though I'd rather it happened for the right reasons, at this point I'll take what I can get.

But whatever. Why should I care about a bunch of hmeless bums anyways?

Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly. Yes, it is somewhat counter to capitalism. In fact, I'd say it's downright socialist. But why should you care? Well, I could ask why you should have cared about a bunch of Jews burning in ovens during World War 2, which is likely where a lot of the language for this document originated between 1946 and 1948 as it was being drafted*. Or why you should care about, really, anyone besides yourself. There isn't any reason, inherently, that you should. As 3278 has noted, there is no absolute good or absolute evil and therefore, there cannot be any absolute goal or absolute reason to care. However, one might say its the humane thing to do. According to Pirates of the Carribean, the Pirate's Code says when a pirate fell behind, he got left behind. But that isn't how the military works. If a team member is injured, everyone works together to get him out alive. There's no reason for it, no reason they should care. If the situation is really hot, they should kill him mercifully because logically all he'll do is slow the group down. But that isn't what happens. If you can explain why they don't leave anyone behind, perhaps you'll find your answer.

* this is really not an invocation of Godwin's Law, I'm attempting to give context to the document.

[Marius]

Ok, yeah, I shouldn't have said Republicans in general. I should have singled out those particular republicans who have been quoted, in proper and correct context, that they: a) desire to end all present welfare programs and do not wish to resume any such programs in the future and if some people die due to bad luck or lack of work or whatever, tough;

Good luck finding some.

b) get the US out of the UN and, under no uncertain terms, stop any and all foreign aid, get all those countries to start paying back their loans and generally sever all ties with the outside world

Yeah, good luck finding politicians of any creed that have advocated that.

c) end present versions of public education and instead allow private institutions to flourish with, possibly , some sort of voucher system for the poor so that all children have the opportunity to be educated.

Well that, if you can find someone who advocates it, isn't at all in conflict with any U.N. agreement, much less with any kind of moral imperative or with common sense.

But, as I said, this was a half-formed post and I hadn't finished digging up the appropriate quotes. I'll further grant that these aren't the high-level republicans, but more of the state representatives who can talk the issue up but have no power to do anything about it.

So -- do I get this right -- you plan to dig up a bunch of wild, nonsensical quotes from a bunch of reactionary nobodies, and pass it off as "what the Republicans want to do"?

Congressional Democrats have been particularly stand-up members of society in the last few years. They didn't exactly voice much opposition over the PATRIOT act which seems to encroach on Articles 12, 13 and 14.

Perhaps seems to, but probably doesn't, when actually read and considered.

In fact, I'd say it's downright socialist. But why should you care?

We should care because socialism is morally wrong.

As 3278 has noted, there is no absolute good or absolute evil and therefore, there cannot be any absolute goal or absolute reason to care.

As 3278 has also noted, (not) he (nor anyone else) has (n)ever actually succeeded in acting as if moralitiy were absolute, nor as if ne had no reason to care.

[Anguirel]

Well that, if you can find someone who advocates it, isn't at all in conflict with any U.N. agreement, much less with any kind of moral imperative or with common sense.

It depends on exactly how they want to approach it, but the plans I had in mind definitely weren't going to get every child equal access to a good education which would be in violation.

So -- do I get this right -- you plan to dig up a bunch of wild, nonsensical quotes from a bunch of reactionary nobodies, and pass it off as "what the Republicans want to do"?

I might. I might even find some quotes from reactionary somebodies. They might even be Democrats, like Strom Thurmond (who, though a Democrat, I don't think I ever really agreed with). I haven't decided whether its worth it yet. How about, rather than attempting to find politicians who might have said something (that could, of course, always be interpreted differently), we take a look at prevailing views from the republican core constituency. Their duly elected leaders are supposed to represent them and their opinions. MooCow has eloquently stated almost the exact opinion I had in mind. Would that opinon be one held by the core constituency of the Republican Party, in your estimation? Alternately, is it held as extreme even within the party? Is it somewhere inbetween with some large minority of vocal Republicans, perhaps, holding that view?

[Marius]

They might even be Democrats, like Strom Thurmond (who, though a Democrat, I don't think I ever really agreed with).

He's hardly a model Democrat, particularly when you consider the rather large amount of time (most of his Senate career) he spent as a Republican.

Would that opinon be one held by the core constituency of the Republican Party, in your estimation?

That's not an attitude that can be used to describe any "core constituency." To my knowledge, there are no political parties anywhere specifically aimed at ignoring homeless bums.

Alternately, is it held as extreme even within the party? Is it somewhere inbetween with some large minority of vocal Republicans, perhaps, holding that view?

What, do some Republicans think that way? Yes. So do some Democrats. Go polling in black neighborhoods or in union halls and find out how many people care about homeless bums, more than just getting them off the streets and out of sight. But no, no "large minority of vocal Republicans" think that people unfortunate enough to be without a home should be left to rot.

[MooCow]

If you can explain why they don't leave anyone behind, perhaps you'll find your answer.

It's fairly easy, so I'll go ahead and take your bait. They never leave a man behind, because obviously they don't want anyone to leave them behind.

Now, you're gonna try to take that and extrapolate it to why I should care about Bums. But you see, your analogy will fail. I'm not a bum, and I never will be. "How can you know what the future holds" you'll say. I don't, but I know that I will always have a job, I will always have a clean bed, and I will always have food to eat. Why? Because I will do /whatever/ I have to to ensure that I have it. I'll be a garbage man, clean bathrooms, deal drugs... whatever I have to. Obviously, homeless bums aren't like this.

Well, I could ask why you should have cared about a bunch of Jews burning in ovens during World War 2

Funny thing is, I don't. If people are stupid enough to allow themselves to be thrown into an oven, it's none of my concern. Had those six million people stood up and said "Excuse us, we'd rather not go into an oven", then they wouldn't have. They allowed themselves to be herded like so much cattle. It's much the same as Slavery in the united states, in which africans allowed themselves to be enslaved. Not my fault, and I don't really care.

[ak404]

Marius, you say that socialism is morally wrong. Not to invoke the "religion equals morality" thing here, but isn't one of the precepts of Christianity, associated with the GOP and the conservative, that every man (or groups of men) capable of helping the less fortunate or capable (or groups of the less fortunate) is obligated to do so? IIRC, socialism has its foundations in this belief of community and support (I believe Europe practices a limited form of socialism, somebody from Europe correct me if I'm wrong), whereas capitalism - at least the capitalism that I see the Republicans envisioning - is more or less a selfish, competitive philosophy, dedicated to leaving the less fortunate to rot?

Or am I misunderstanding something here?

[3278]

I'll be brief, since I'm usually not. Fuck the UN Declaration on Human Rights. I don't know of a country that upholds the letter of every Article, and I don't think we should uphold Articles which remove my property to protect someone else's lack of employment for a period of time exceeding that which is reasonable, i.e. forever, as the article implies.

The document is also transparently ageist in multiple ways, and is clearly based on a Western European/United States agenda for the development of nations. What is supposed to be a document outlining what rights everyone should have is instead a manner of excluding countries and governments which do things differently from hanging out with the "in crowd."

Everyone has the right to employment? No, everyone has the right to a /chance/ at employment. Everyone has the right reject membership of any group? Yeah, except government. Free worship of any religion? Sure, unless we don't like your religion's practices; then we'll make it illegal and put you in prison for it, removing your right to freedom, and ignoring your right to asylum, because no one who signed this document thinks your religion is true. And if you don't have a religion, but only a philosophy, well, you're just screwed.

It's not the document's fault, nor the drafters, nor the signitaries; they've all tried to do the impossible: to innumerate all human rights, when human rights are arbitrary, set by culture and society, hardened by time and practice. There are no universal human rights, and there never have been.

[Anguirel]

I found an interesting article, but didn't think it warranted a separate thread... First, to set this up in the light of this thread...

They didn't exactly voice much opposition over the PATRIOT act which seems to encroach on Articles 12, 13 and 14.

Perhaps seems to, but probably doesn't, when actually read and considered.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

U.S. Uses Terror Law to Pursue Crimes From Drugs to Swindling

Published: September 28, 2003

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — The Bush administration, which calls the USA Patriot Act perhaps its most essential tool in fighting terrorists, has begun using the law with increasing frequency in many criminal investigations that have little or no connection to terrorism.

The government is using its expanded authority under the far-reaching law to investigate suspected drug traffickers, white-collar criminals, blackmailers, child pornographers, money launderers, spies and even corrupt foreign leaders, federal officials said.

Justice Department officials say they are simply using all the tools now available to them to pursue criminals — terrorists or otherwise. But critics of the administration's antiterrorism tactics assert that such use of the law is evidence the administration has sold the American public a false bill of goods, using terrorism as a guise to pursue a broader law enforcement agenda.

Justice Department officials point out that they have employed their newfound powers in many instances against suspected terrorists. With the new law breaking down the wall between intelligence and criminal investigations, the Justice Department in February was able to bring terrorism-related charges against a Florida professor, for example, and it has used its expanded surveillance powers to move against several suspected terrorist cells.

But a new Justice Department report, given to members of Congress this month, also cites more than a dozen cases that are not directly related to terrorism in which federal authorities have used their expanded power to investigate individuals, initiate wiretaps and other surveillance, or seize millions in tainted assets.

For instance, the ability to secure nationwide warrants to obtain e-mail and electronic evidence "has proved invaluable in several sensitive nonterrorism investigations," including the tracking of an unidentified fugitive and an investigation into a computer hacker who stole a company's trade secrets, the report said.

Justice Department officials said the cases cited in the report represent only a small sampling of the many hundreds of nonterrorism cases pursued under the law.

The authorities have also used toughened penalties under the law to press charges against a lovesick 20-year-old woman from Orange County, Calif., who planted threatening notes aboard a Hawaii-bound cruise ship she was traveling on with her family in May. The woman, who said she made the threats to try to return home to her boyfriend, was sentenced this week to two years in federal prison because of a provision in the Patriot Act on the threat of terrorism against mass transportation systems.

And officials said they had used their expanded authority to track private Internet communications in order to investigate a major drug distributor, a four-time killer, an identity thief and a fugitive who fled on the eve of trial by using a fake passport.

In one case, an e-mail provider disclosed information that allowed federal authorities to apprehend two suspects who had threatened to kill executives at a foreign corporation unless they were paid a hefty ransom, officials said. Previously, they said, gray areas in the law made it difficult to get such global Internet and computer data.

The law passed by Congress just five weeks after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has proved a particularly powerful tool in pursuing financial crimes.

Officials with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement have seen a sharp spike in investigations as a result of their expanded powers, officials said in interviews.

A senior official said investigators in the last two years had seized about $35 million at American borders in undeclared cash, checks and currency being smuggled out of the country. That was a significant increase over the past few years, the official said. While the authorities say they suspect that large amounts of the smuggled cash may have ultimately been intended to finance Middle Eastern terrorists, much of it involved drug smuggling, corporate fraud and other crimes not directly related to terrorism.

The terrorism law allows the authorities to investigate cash smuggling cases more aggressively and to seek stiffer penalties by elevating them from what had been mere reporting failures.

Customs officials say they have used their expanded authority to open at least nine investigations into Latin American officials suspected of laundering money in the United States, and to seize millions of dollars from overseas bank accounts in many cases unrelated to terrorism.

In one instance, agents citing the new law seized $1.7 million from United States bank accounts that were linked to a former Illinois investor who fled to Belize after he was accused of bilking clients out of millions, federal officials said.

Publicly, Attorney General John Ashcroft and senior Justice Department officials have portrayed their expanded power almost exclusively as a means of fighting terrorists, with little or no mention of other criminal uses.

"We have used these tools to prevent terrorists from unleashing more death and destruction on our soil," Mr. Ashcroft said last month in a speech in Washington, one of more than two dozen he has given in defense of the law, which has come under growing attack. "We have used these tools to save innocent American lives."

Internally, however, Justice Department officials have emphasized a much broader mandate.

A guide to a Justice Department employee seminar last year on financial crimes, for instance, said: "We all know that the USA Patriot Act provided weapons for the war on terrorism. But do you know how it affects the war on crime as well?"

Elliot Mincberg, legal director for People for the American Way, a liberal group that has been critical of Mr. Ashcroft, said the Justice Department's public assertions had struck him as misleading and perhaps dishonest.

"What the Justice Department has really done," he said, "is to get things put into the law that have been on prosecutors' wish lists for years. They've used terrorism as a guise to expand law enforcement powers in areas that are totally unrelated to terrorism."

A study in January by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, concluded that while the number of terrorism investigations at the Justice Department soared after the Sept. 11 attacks, 75 percent of the convictions that the department classified as "international terrorism" were wrongly labeled. Many dealt with more common crimes like document forgery.

The terrorism law has already drawn sharp opposition from those who believe it gives the government too much power to intrude on people's privacy in pursuit of terrorists.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, "Once the American public understands that many of the powers granted to the federal government apply to much more than just terrorism, I think the opposition will gain momentum."

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said members of Congress expected some of the new powers granted to law enforcement to be used for nonterrorism investigations.

But he said the Justice Department's secrecy and lack of cooperation in implementing the legislation have made him question whether "the government is taking shortcuts around the criminal laws" by invoking intelligence powers — with differing standards of evidence — to conduct surveillance operations and demand access to records.

"We did not intend for the government to shed the traditional tools of criminal investigation, such as grand jury subpoenas governed by well-established precedent and wiretaps strictly monitored" by federal judges, he said.

Justice Department officials say such criticism has not deterred them. "There are many provisions in the Patriot Act that can be used in the general criminal law," Mark Corallo, a department spokesman, said. "And I think any reasonable person would agree that we have an obligation to do everything we can to protect the lives and liberties of Americans from attack, whether it's from terrorists or garden-variety criminals."

It sounds like the PATRIOT act is being used for a variety of purposes outside its purported scope (though evidently not its actual scope). As oversight is reduced, arbitrary invasions of correspondence and privacy become more likely to occur, and less likely to be noticed or reported. Not necessarily happening, and certainly not anything particularly new here, but its a recent article on the subject and seemed somewhat relevant in here.

As long as I'm posting in here again...

It's fairly easy, so I'll go ahead and take your bait. They never leave a man behind, because obviously they don't want anyone to leave them behind.

Actually, I think it's just part of the ingrained "we need to be a team" propaganda they get subjected to during training, but your answer is good too. I didn't have anything in mind, really, when I said that. I just posted it because it seemed like a reasonable analogy and I was hoping you could point me at the answer. Having had a week to consider it, though...

I'd actually trace it more to societal groupings. There is an inherent biological function that allows for the basis of societies, defense of the familial group. Literally the idea of taking one for the team. Those units function much closer than the average family, and those bonds are so tightly wound that leaving a man behind is simply no longer a considered option. Expanding that, you may not care about a bum in general, but if that bum were, say, your own child (just assume you'll have one, here ) or your friend, you'd give a damn. You'd probably even try to help, though not necessarily directly. The extrapolation is not "What if you become a bum?" but rather "Why not expand your societal group to include more humans?" (Answer: <vc="Agent Smith"> Humans are... a disease... </vc>) It's really simply a matter of expanding your awareness to encapsulate a larger image of society, and seeing how your life can be better when we all cooperate (well, at least assuming life on Earth is not strictly a zero-sum game). That is, if you help that bum on the street now, you'll hopefully start a chain reaction that will come back to help improve your life later. If most people act in a positive fashion, the quality of life for everyone rises, rather than just a few.

This continues on into all sorts of philosophical stuff I'm not quite prepared to write about at the moment, so I think I'll stop here for now. If you'd like an expansion on the potential for the biological evolution of a societal nature and cooperation games, I can go pull up some material on it. It's mostly theoretical, and probably overly-optimistic, but the conclusions from it are the sorts of ideals I try to work towards.

[ak404]

There's another rationale for the "leave no man behind" principle in the military. It minimizes on the chances that the opposition can take enemies, and ensures that soliders are buried in their own country (I believe this was one of the things that torqued off British citizens in the Revolutionary War, that not all British soliders were being taken back to England for burial, but then again, I could be thinking anochronistically here.)

[Paul]

4 years later and are we any further from agreeing than we were?

[Anguirel]

Let's see...

Patriot act still being used to pursue non-terrorist related objectives? Check.
Bush still a total ass? Check.
MooCow still kicking bums on the street? Check.

Nope, I'm pretty sure we're about where we were.

[Marius]

Patriot act still being used to pursue non-terrorist related objectives? Check.

As it was intended.

[DV8]

Patriot act still being used to pursue non-terrorist related objectives? Check.

As it was intended.

How? Please tell me how the Patriot Act was always meant to pursue non-terrorist related objectives? The way this was realised was by claiming it was necessary to pursue terrorist related objectives, as far as I know.

I'm getting so tired of this war and all the related bickering and I apologise in advance to everyone who feels the same way for perpetuating the bickering by asking the above questions.

[Marius]

You're absolutely right that the law was passed based on the argument that it was necessary to pursue terrorism-related objectives. It was primarly an anti-terrorism law, but it was not exclusively an ant-iterrorism law. For example:

However, when the authors of the bill looked at what they might need to pursue terrorism they noticed some things that applied not only to terrorism, but to law enforcement more generally. Many pieces of federal legislation concerning criminal investigation contained language relevant to traditional mail or to old-fashioned telephone networks, but were silent, ambiguous, or simply problematic to apply to modern telecommunications, email, and other forms of communication that are structured differently from traditional mail and telephone systems, but are for all intents and purposes the same in terms of relevance to investigations and in terms of the presumption of privacy that users might entertain.

Thus, while the act was aimed at terrorism, and included an overwhelming amount of content applicable only to terrorism, several parts of the legislation updated the language of existing law to modernize it and make it properly applicable to contemporary (e)mail and telecommunications. These sections were intentionally devoid of specific references to terrorism, and in fact, at times mirror similar sections specifically applicable to terrorism, implying that they were intended to apply more broadly to other law-enforcement activities.