Tell Congress: Stop the rush to erode our civil liberties

I'll clarify this too... something tells me that an SUV-driving, W2 sticker bearing, Iraq War supporter cares just as much about personal privacy as anyone else if not more. (I'm only one out of those three btw.)

I think the disagreement lies in whether or not people feel that the act detracts from our rights and liberties. Some feel this way and some don't. In my case, I'm still waiting to get into a discussion about what parts of the act are bad and why they are bad or should be changed.

We've done that debate at least two or three times in recent threads. Below is a list of common concerns/objections:

• Permit the Attorney General to indefinitely incarcerate or detain non-citizens based on mere suspicion, and to deny re-admission to the United States of non-citizens (including lawful permanent residents) for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment.

• Minimize judicial supervision of telephone and Internet surveillance by law enforcement authorities in anti-terrorism investigations and in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.

• Expand the ability of the government to conduct secret searches -- again in anti-terrorism investigations and in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.

• Give the Attorney General and the Secretary of State the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and block any non-citizen who belongs to them from entering the country. Under this provision the payment of membership dues is a deportable offense.

• Grant the FBI broad access to sensitive medical, financial, mental health, and educational records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime and without a court order.

• Lead to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes and use of intelligence authorities to by-pass probable cause requirements in criminal cases.

• Put the CIA and other intelligence agencies back in the business of spying on Americans by giving the Director of Central Intelligence the authority to identify priority targets for intelligence surveillance in the United States.

• Allow searches of highly personal financial records without notice and without judicial review based on a very low standard that does not require probable cause of a crime or even relevancy to an ongoing terrorism investigation.

• Allow student records to be searched based on a very low standard of relevancy to an investigation.

•Create a broad new definition of "domestic terrorism" that could sweep in people who engage in acts of political protest and subject them to wiretapping and enhanced penalties."

I don't know if you have any teenage children, but if and when you ever have any Garoad, I hope you never have the opportunity to have to answer this question for yourself when the FBI sneek and peek into your house because your teenager is associating with someone at school who is selling marijuana.

Worse yet, I hope your teenager is never the poor sap they choose to make an example of because they found a couple of joints in his room and decided to slap the extra 20 years that they now can hit them with for such an offense.

Paolo: I may have missed those earlier posts, but if you're talking about posts of other lists like that--I've seen incorrect and misleading information in such types of lists. The only way to know for sure what the act does is to quote the actual wording of the section of the act. (Which is admittedly a pain since it's amending another act and it's done in a very difficult to read way...)

Your list is a good starting point for a discussion on the topic but it's impossible to discuss anything meaningful unless we break it down and take one part at a time, otherwise like I tried to say before, it's just a useless debate of abstract ideas.

I'd like to know why actual text isn't used very often, because somehow alot of misinformation is getting out on the topic. I've read things that say the total opposite of some parts of your list. For example, as opposed to the list item you have listed, this is actual text in the PA:

‘‘(5) the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that—
‘‘(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are
a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or
of any State;
‘‘(B) appear to be intended—
‘‘(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
‘‘(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
‘‘(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by
mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
‘‘(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction
of the United States.’’.

(Note: It's not the ENTIRE section that defines terrorism, there are some other minor changes that alter the wording of another act, this is why I say it's tough to read without the other act's text in front of you.)

Now looking at that, doesn't it eliminate an organization such as Greenpeace from being designated as "terrorist"? The DOJ thinks it does (hey they're the lawyer-heads):

The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act "expands terrorism laws to include 'domestic terrorism' which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy." They also claim that it includes a "provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as 'domestic terrorism.'" (ACLU, February 11, 2003; ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor in "UnPATRIOTic," National Journal, August 4, 2003)

Reality: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. "Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy" without breaking laws cannot be targeted. Peaceful political discourse and dissent is one of America's most cherished freedoms, and is not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of "domestic terrorism" is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Therefore, peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy will obviously not come under this definition. (Patriot Act, Section 802)

By the way, I'm not just trying to win a stupid argument here. I couldn't care less about that. I'm trying to get to the bottom of this topic like anyone else is...the problem I have is that I'm unable to easily trust the second-hand words of others who "sum up" the Patriot Act which may be incorrect or inaccurate summarizations...such as in this case. The ACLU is a good organization that I am often able to agree with but I'm not going to take their word for anything either--they are fallible too.

I'd look into more of your list, but obviously I don't think anyone would appreciate a novel here, so we can discuss further from here if you're so inclined.

An interesting example, but I don't think it's possible under the act. And if it IS, that is the kind of thing I would want changed. I've never said I'm 100% supportive of all aspects of the act like the president appears to be. I think it should be improved, taking away dangerous or unimportant aspects and leaving intact the very important parts.

The "sneek and peek" thing... are you 100% positive that it even effects the example you just gave? The Supreme Court may be the authority to speak to on this issue.

*Delayed notification warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography.

Section 213 of USA PATRIOT Act simply codified the authority law enforcement already had for decades. Because of differences between jurisdictions, the law was a mix of inconsistent standards that varied widely across the country. This lack of uniformity hindered complex terrorism cases. Section 213 resolved the problem by establishing a uniform statutory standard. Section 213 is a vital aspect of our strategy of prevention - detecting and incapacitating terrorists before they are able to strike.

*The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant." In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous." Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979). In yet another case, the Court said, "officers need not announce their purpose before conducting an otherwise [duly] authorized search if such an announcement would provoke the escape of the suspect or the destruction of critical evidence." Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

Do you really think the FBI is that interested in searching the house of a teenager for such a reason though? I guess it'd be stupid to say it has never happened, maybe it even happens often...but if it does, it is not something that I support either. Not in that particular theoretical case. Yea I think the 20 years for pot stupidity is insane. I'm kinda borderline on whether or not it should even be legal, but even if it shouldn't be, it's certainly one of the most minor types of crime in existance. Selling it is a little worse, but I'm still not sure that anything more than a few months of jail time in the big cases is appropriate. I'm no expert on the subject...

Suffice it to say that my list is derived -- verbatim -- from one of the most respected and vocal opponents of the act.

My biggest concern with your response, Garoad, is that it hinges upon a premise that the US government consistently acts with good faith and full disclosure. Even if all of these provisions can be specifically restricted to suspected "terrorism," you can't honestly tell me that some bureaucrat somewhere won't find a plethora of "creative" applications for this law, can you? Remeber RICO??

Here's a link to the H.R.3162 text, btw. The most troublesome provisions seem to be grouped under Title II.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR:

He didn’t order any one killed in Iraq. If any one did that was ANY one that let Sedum Husan stay in power. He killed allot more people then this Iraq war going on now.

At least Bush didn’t order a Aspirin Factory to be bombed.

Well,

The consiquences of the patriot act going to far and the government havind unchecked power are extrememly severe.

The benifits the act gives to law enforcement in investigating terrorists are marginal at best.

My take on the 9/11 report basically that it was a lack of communication , not authority to spy on people that led to the inability to prevent the attack.

Being able to detain non citizens indefinitely on just suspicion is totally unjustifiable. Charge them or call then Prisoners of War.

Being able conduct unreasonable search and seizure is wrong - thats why it was in the constitution. Whether the court upheld certain instances or not.

It should not take a "patriot" act for someone to go to a judge and explain why they need to inviestigate certain individuals.

Confirm more federal judges, maybe that help.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is all begining to have the feel of a bad dream >>>>>>>

Anyone who dissents is a Traitor and helping the terrorist

Anyone who suposedly "helps" the terrorists should be investigated.

We have Patriot Laws to ensure everyone is patriotic and waving the flag.

People want to outlaw flag burning becuase the flag is too important a symbol and everyone should be a patriot.

Were invistigating groups like the ACLU as potential domestic terrorists?

We are going to start legislating morality - ban gay marriage, ban abortion on religeious grounds ...

So the ideal American is going to be a highly religeous , straight , conservative - who doesnt question their government, and considers the flag sacred. Who decries any disenter a Traitor and helping the terrorists. Who thinks we need to tell the UN to take a hike.

We have a Nationally organized all inclusive "security" force called the Office of Homeland Security - which apherently answers primarily to the President.

ALL this in the name of FREEDOM

I included an (inaccurate) ACLU quote up there too.

But I wouldn't go as far as to say they're flat out WRONG, they're right on some areas if not many IMO. The ACLU spokesperson I saw on CSpan awhile back sounded pretty reasonable to me (so did Robert Muller and Alberto Gonzalez), he gave me the impression that one of the biggest beefs he/they have with it is that it can be applied to non-terrorism related cases. RM and AG didn't disagree that certain changes (about something being more specific, I forget what) should be put in place. They're interested in having the tools needed to stop terrorists, not spying on ordinary people.

Partially for the same reason you present (the possibility of the PA being misused in the future), I do not think the temporary parts should be made permanent. I think they should be continuously renewed, as long as they are seen to be serving the greater good and not being abused.

Unfortunately your link isn't working for me, in any browser, not sure why.


Colette: I'm tempted to complain that you're going overboard with alot of that above, but I'll refrain from a tired OT discussion. I do want to point out two (on topic) things:

1) "My take on the 9/11 report basically that it was a lack of communication , not authority to spy on people that led to the inability to prevent the attack."

This is part of the PA, so they say, although I havn't yet looked at this part of it myself. It's probably the single biggest argument for not saying "Down with the (entire) Patriot Act! Boo!" If the PA is eliminated, the "wall" goes back up, at least as far as I understand it.

2) "Were invistigating groups like the ACLU as potential domestic terrorists?"

Unless you're talking about something totally unrelated that I'm not aware of, if you're referring to the Patriot Act here, that's a misconception being spread around by I don't know who:

(This is an exact repeat of a quote above for anyone who hates themselves enough to have punished themselves to read this entire thread, so don't re-read it. Unless you just really want to punish yourself...)

The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. "Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy" without breaking laws cannot be targeted. Peaceful political discourse and dissent is one of America's most cherished freedoms, and is not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of "domestic terrorism" is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Therefore, peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy will obviously not come under this definition. (Patriot Act, Section 802)

ACLU = peaceful, and therefore can't be designated as a terrorist group.

I gotta give you credit for searching out the source of my list. As you probably guessed, I withheld the source for the same reasons conservatives might withhold the source of a Heritage Foundation list -- a desire to avoid strawman arguments.

Doesn't mean that the Fed won't figure out a way to apply the PA to "spy" on the ACLU or other moderate-to-liberal advocacy groups.

As for the link, the URL is correct. Try cutting and pasting, instead:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR:

Don't know why it has the colon on the end, but be sure to include it.

Well said, except I dont think I have ever heard of anyone in any American administration going after Jews as a group, at least not since WW II.

All the other categories mentioned however were targeted for illegal domestic surveilance in the 70's and there is no reason to think that they are not still being targeted. It is only through the disclosure of old (previously classified) documents that these things are ever discovered. The fact that intervening administrations deny that this takes place is meaningless in that context.

IMO this is not a future possibility but more likely a current state of affairs. With the greatly increased powers of the security community today it is only logical that illegal domestic surveilance of American citizens is also much greater in scope than it was then, (and it was over the top then).

I think it also quite likely that the so-called "Big Brother" project of recording *all* cell phone calls and *all* emails on a daily basis was actually approved and is currently happening. Again, the denials of the administration, given the history of such things is really meaningless. Since the heads of most security agencies think this is a good thing to do and since it is technically possible to do it why wouldn't it be done? Because it's illegal? Yeah right!

There is truly no one "watching the watchers" in the US today. Anyone who has read any history at all should see the impllications in that.

.

One also might wonder why if the only justification for the act at all was 9/11, it was planned so long in advance, *before* the act sort of speak. To me that says that they planned to turn the US into a police state and were just looking for an excuse. A more paranoid person might wonder if the "excuse" was manufactured by those that it was the most use to.

I more am comenting on the general trend and the feeling the patriot act, its supporters and the implications of them give off.

If you follow an errosion in civil liberties thats the path were on, if some of it seems like its "overboard" thats probably the stuff that has the most potential to ring true someday.

It is not off topic. The arguement against the patriot act is it uneccesarily denys us civil liberties , while providing only unmeasurable and dubious increases in security.

Its not freedom if you lose your freedom to stay safe. And it wont help us at all in our efforts to make the mid-east safer.

Is it not ironic that one of the resons we cling to for invading Iraq was for regime change of a totalitarian government. We laud replacing it with a freedom. - Then at the same time allow congress to vote away some of ours.

For the record, I don't believe the government of the United States is planning the imminent mass murder of dissidents.

On the other hand... few in Germany in the days leading up to World War II believed in the final solution. Even today, there are revisionists who can't accept that the Holocaust ever happened.

So when American citizens are declared "enemy combatants" and put away without trial or charge, when other Americans are labeled as "domestic terrorists" and the FBI's number one priority, when traditional and constitutional restraints on espionage and law enforcement are being weakened, when the "battlefield" of the "war" on terror is legally defined as ANYWHERE for the convenience of applying military law and justice...

I see parallels. And I believe that the most important front in the fight for freedom isn't against any foreign dictatorship, but against the excesses of our own leadership.

Let's not wait for the abuses of the Patriot Act to come to light: given the new cult of secrecy, that may take decades. Curb the potential for abuse at the source. The legislative and judicial branches need to slap the shit out of the executive and remind them that there are three equal branches of government, not one president and two rubber stamps.

I would think a HUGE amount of the patriot act is unconstitutional.

Seeing as it has never been placed to Judicial reveiw - is hard to know.

Well said.


All “domestic Terrorists” have been given trials, unless they have not been caught alive. Even ones that should have not gotten US rights were given them. The EX Amirican found in Afghanistan fighting with Taliban should have never gotten US rights. Constition states if you take up arms against the USA with a enemy force you have given up citizenship.
All Terrorists to the US have never been brought in alive, all the “enemy Combatants” are none Afghani or Iraqi in Afghanistan or Iraq fighting us who’s home country does not want them back or if sent back they will be tortured and the US law will not let them be handed over for that. The ones that are given a trial is giving a military one, I don’t know how I feel about that.



I agree, that is why I want less government. The less there is the less there is to have to weary about.


Problem is all three need a slap because all three want power in the hands of the government. They are not robber stamping for one branch they really believe it’s the right this. That is the scary part. Rubber stampers is not as scary.

Seeing U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled on September 29, 2004 that a key component of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to demand information from Internet service providers without judicial oversight or public review, why do we need the Supreme Court to? Any Judge can rule in favor of liberty. If the Supreme court refuses to take the case then so be it there are others.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2004Sep29.html

i imagine though the government will still continue to use the act as they see fit until the supreme court says they cant.

they can apeal lower courts rulings.

is a PR thing also - the president and congress act "above" lesser courts on "national security" issues

Yes they can appeal it, but if the Supreme Court refuses to hear it that is the same as saying they agree with the verdict and it will then still stand. If they use the act in ways that have been declared unconstitional then they go to jail. Not the President mind you because he didn’t brake the law, but the FBI agent that did would at worse go to jail at best (for them) lose there job.

will beleive this if/when it starts to happen.

Have they ever used it against any one in court? If not then how do you know they are using the parts they were told not to use? If they are not using the parts then they are doing it so start believing.

Jose Padilla (aka Abdullah al-Mhajir) has been incarcerated without charge or trial for over three years. He is a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago. As he's never been brought to trial, the government has produced no evidence against him. The case against the government holding him was thrown out by the Supreme Court as originating from the wrong venue, the District Judge decided against the Bush administration, and it's currently in the Circuit Court of Appeals. It appears likely that it will end up in the Supreme Court again, and it also appears that even the conservative wing of the court is going to get medieval on the administration for overstepping their constitutional bounds. In the meantime, Padilla is still behind bars.

Was his arrest justified? Maybe so. But without formal charges, a trial, evidence and a jury verdict, we have no way to judge. In this climate, ANYBODY can be arrested on ANY pretext and held indefinitely, and there is no way for us to know if they were guilty of anything.

The administration is asking us to place absolute trust in them to do the right thing. I don't care if Mother Theresa and Saint Francis are in the White House - that's NOT the way we do business in this country.

And here's a sidenote about creative applications of the Terrorism Act (that's what the 'T' in PATRIOT stands for), from the Wikipedia:

I'll start:

The Patriot Act is to civil liberties as...

...plague-ridden rodents to the citizens of baroque-era France.

(Reasoning: In the seventeenth century, the connection between microscopic pathogens and disease was theoretical, at best. Rodents were innocuous and commonplace, then, and were not a prime suspects WRT the source of the plague. Thus is the Patriot Act - Innocous enough, but packing a covert punch.)

sounds like they dont have to use it against you in court - since they can detain you without cuase - see Arcadia's example



No


----------------------------------------

I have every confidence that History will show the Patriot act in similair light to the Internment camps for Japanese Americans in WW2

A couple of the rights i think the Patriot act in part denies -
They have been given at least superficial passing acceptance over the years as important.


Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article [VI.]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article [VIII.]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.