Tell Congress: Stop the rush to erode our civil liberties

Oh, see that's what I mean by getting carried away...the Patriot Act isn't cancelling out the Bill of Rights. If anything was blatantly unconstitutional, the courts would probably have taken care of this by now. I only know of one or two parts of the act that have been eliminated. By design, the act allows parts to be eliminated without the entire PA being undone. Given that things like delayed notification of searches haven't been declared unconstitutional yet, it's not likely to happen. I can't say more won't be declared unconstitutional in the future but it's looking less likely with time.

I'm not going to defend things like holding a US citizen indefinitely for no known reason. There needs to be something official to be able to do that. But, I'm not convinced that we're getting the full story either. Can anyone identify which section of the PA that allows this to happen? And WHO specifically is doing this? I get suspicious when I hear "the administration" being accused of doing stuff when it could easily be some totally different group who was also doing the same job under the last administration.

Applications of the PA that have nothing to do with terrorism--(terrorism as defined in the PA, not some bullshit definition that could be interpreted to include copyright violators or some rubbish)--should not be allowed. I've heard the ACLU say that parts of the act should more specifically target terrorists rather than being general, that weren't objected to by R Muller and A Gonzalez..(I think I've said this before..)

Alot of people seem to think that government organizations like the FBI are another arm of the administration, doing whatever they want no matter what, not abiding by any laws or constraints if the pres says to get something done...or breaking laws just because they can. Well, it's not really like that. The people doing those jobs aren't super-human robots with no conscience who obey the will of Big Brother at all times. The vast majority can be trusted, sure there's bad apples, but that's why there's a system (improved recently) in place to catch such types, and a good screening process to ensure that those hired at least start out with good intentions. It's not like they hire liars and sneaks, there's high standards. And there's more oversight than people seem to think...why do you think government is so slow to get everything done? There's a ton of bureaucracy and documentation to deal with, to pretty much an anal level. Sometimes they can be arrogant, which is a good argument for checks and balances, but there's at least an equal number (if not more) of decent gov employees looking out for others. This should be obvious, but maybe I'm wrong and it's not.

For the courts to strike down a law it has to be brought to trial first.

So saying it hasnt been struck down yet has nothing to do with whther its unconstitutional or not .

Also depending on the politics of the judge(s) involved things can pass that are violations of a strict interpretation of the Bill of rights

I don't participate in the forums quite so much any more and this is probably a good example of why. How many people here have actually read the act or any part of it? How many people here are reacting to calls from others (who you no doubt trust) that the act is full of things that should have you worried?

There are many things going on in todays culture that have me worried about privacy, but most of them pre-date and have nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

For some reason the notion that people would dance naked in the desert, display their bedrooms on live webcams, pay for everything online with credit cards, blog/chat their innermost feelings and then turn around and worry about their privacy strikes me as a bit comical.

Anyway. Do some reading. I'd be interested in specifics. If you can find the time. Some of my blogged comments follow...

USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)

Handy non-PDF version, although I don't know how up to date it is. I got a kick out of this:

"SEC. 418. PREVENTION OF CONSULATE SHOPPING.

(a) REVIEW- The Secretary of State shall review how consular officers issue visas to determine if consular shopping is a problem.

(b) ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN- If the Secretary of State determines under subsection (a) that consular shopping is a problem, the Secretary shall take steps to address the problem and shall submit a report to Congress describing what action was taken. "

How many of us know people who would be aghast at the thought that our country would ban SHOPPING! (**)

Looking for items that have the left all up in arms I find it difficult to find all that many. Which is not to say there are not some.

If anyone wants to seriously debate the act, who not start with some specifics. Once debated, why not end with an amended act?

Of course if your aim is to bash Bush, you don't have time for all this work. Easier to equate the entire act to "digging though our panty drawers".

(**) NB: Consulate shopping (or consular shopping) is the practice of making multiple attempts to obtain a visa to enter the US in the hopes that you will stumble upon a consulate or consular officer who is not doing their job properly. Nothing about the act changes anything happening over at the Department of State. This represents no more than a "goosing" of the DoS to focus on one of their existing activities with renewed enthusiasm. Much of the act in fact is along this same line.

I won't claim that I've read it cover to cover, but I have thoroughly read the sections that have been called to my attention as being specious at best.

Personally speaking as the thread originator, this is not an anti-Bush crusade. It is part and parcel with my personal campaign to promote and reiterate civil rights in an era of illogical reactions to illogical acts of terror; a campaign that began shortly after 9/11. Have you not read through all seven pages of this thread? Plenty of specifics have been batted about, and the Off Topic forum hosted at least two previous threads on this topic, as well. So, don't go making the same generalistic logical fallacies that you claim we "leftys" are committing. And for the record, I am not a liberal, but rather, a Libertarian.

In the Padilla case, George W. Bush signed an order to Donald Rumsfeld authorizing detention without charges. The PATRIOT act was not invoked; rather the President claimed that the Authorization for Use of Military Force gave him the authority to suspend Padilla's constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial. Whether this was Bush's idea or Rumsfeld's is subject to debate.

Again, Padilla may well be guilty of a crime and may deserve to be in prison. But by sending him directly to jail with no charges and no trial, we damage our own system of justice and undermine efforts to spread democracy.

There's no direct relationship between Padilla and the PATRIOT Act, save that the men that took shortcuts in the former are the same men who authored the latter.

doesnt the mere name "The Patriot Act" raise any alarm bells for anyone?


How can anyone be against "The Patriot act" - then they wouldnt be patriots? So they must be traitors

this strikes as pure manipulation
----------------------

I wish i still had my copy of '1984' it seems to me enforced 'patriotism' was part of the book. Has been so very long since i read it , however.

Interesting quote im reminded of though in reveiws online of it -


"War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength"

Excellent point, I completely agree. The neo-cons have co-opted the term 'patriot' to serve their own purposes.

Exactly--so, even though PA opponents allege that many parts of the act are unconsititutional (yet remain untouched), all these years have passed and only in one (maybe two) instances have a part of the act been backed out of? Not once have laywers been seen jumping in to fight against more parts of one of the most publicised controversial laws in history? I don't buy it. And the more time that passes, the less "unconstitutional" the PA looks.

As for the NAMING of the law--if such a name was so bad why didn't any of the liberals who voted for it say so initially? I don't really care if "it was thought up by" conservatives or whatever rubbish... it was voted in, it was agreed upon. It's lame to hear it complained about at this point...besides I have yet to actually HEAR anyone be called unpatriotic because they don't support the act. (If there's loon-case right wing extremists going around doing that, it hardly counts...you can't expect extremists to behave rationally in any case. They'll call you a traitor for asking a simple question.) The name does mean something specific by the way. It's a fancy unneeded name, I guess they thought it was cool or something.

Mac: You've repeated alot of what I've been trying to communicate, much of which--I think--has been accepted. (Mainly that the PA as a whole should not be struck down entirely, and that it should simply be amended. Although I have yet to hear anyone really say they are ok with this.) You're right though, there's tons of misinformation about the act out there. I've been saying 'specifics specifics specifics' with regard to the PA for at least months now.

Welcome back by the way. lol
I might be due for an OT forum political break myself.
(Which just means I'll be posting meaningless spam instead of course.)

This is exactly the kind of thing that bothers me. I don't remember how this (slightly) off topic tidbit got into this Patriot Act thread, but I'm sure someone will read and think that the PA had something to do with this (as I initially thought was being suggested) but not be inquisitive enough to learn otherwise. I'm not pointing any fingers but it's worth pointing this out again.

There's no "law enforcement can do whatever" section in the Patriot Act.

Garoad - Are you a legal and/or a constitutional scholar? I'm not so sure that even a face-value read of the PA supports your assertion. Even if I am wrong, is this not the realm of US code (aka law)? Are laws not based on very technical language? With that in mind, each seemingly innocuous word in the PA could potentially connote many things beyond that which the layperson would be able to cull from the highly encoded text. Are you willing to bet your future liberties on an elemental understanding of this piece of legislation?

I am certainly no such scholar, but I am a very healthy skeptic. I am not willing to accept the PA as the panacea for all that ails us until it is clearly proven otherwise.

It took over 90 years for many civil rights violating laws to be declared unconstitutional.

Police werent required to Miranda rights until the 50's or 60's - the 7th ammendment was passed in the 1780's

I think judicial reveiw on a laws unconstituionality can take MUCH longer than you are suggesting.

It hasnt even been 4 years of the Patriot Act.

My additional point is even if it passes Judicial reveiw , it doesnt make it RIGHT - like I said before theres too much politics in the judicial branch. In the libertarian veiw a very strict interpretation ESPECIALLY of the bill of rights should be followed.

Do you honestly beleive the men who framed the Bill of Rights would have supported the sorts of things in the PAtriot Act?



Were you gone those weeks? Didnt the teacher send home your school work?

Congress HAD to vote for the patriot act - to not do so would have been political suicide. Thats the reason there were the "temporary" clauses.

As far as the name - its a media manipulation. literally how can anyone who claims to be a patriot be against "The Patriot Act"? in 1984 i believe it was called Newspeak.

They didnt think it was to be "cool" - If you remember what the US was like immediatly following 9/11 its pretty easy to realize why they chose the name.

There was a shortage on American flags - everyone wanted one, Patriotism was a huge grass roots up swell. Bush's popularity was incredibly high.

In this nationalistic fervor - not surprising considering what had happened - The administration Pressured these changes , if you remember the news was big on pointing out how Bush was wanting Congress to hurry.

In this climate , had someone spoke out against the Patriot act they would have been the target of All sorts of negative press.

I think it was me, and I'm looking at a broader trend of which the USAPATRIOT Act is a part (and yes, it's an absurdly strained acronym). I think there are two important questions in this debate, 1) does the Act contain the potential for abuse, and 2) has this administration, and specifically the highest officials of this administration up to and including the President, displayed the capacity for abuse?

My example speaks more to the second point. The courts may or may not vindicate Mr. Padilla, but the fact remains that he has spent the last three years in a cell, in violation of his constitutional protections, on direct orders from the President of the United States.

That bothers me more than the specific provisions of the Act, because I don't think the President or his inner circle believe themselves to be bound by the same laws that the rest of us are subject to. I think it's an attitude that allows a great deal of mischief to be wrought, only a small portion of which we ever know about.

Is a very interestinf observation.

I think many of the same things could have been said about Nixon.

Very interesting parallels, indeed. However, I think in Watergate New Millennium Edition, Cheney and Rove would be calling the shots and shredding the docs, not GW.

Colette: Civil rights laws aren't a good analogy, that happened because of racism and bigotry. The PA effects everyone, it's totally different, and I know at least one case (probably alot more) have already been brought up with respect to parts of the act but only in one or two cases has anything been overturned. Yet, since we have had at least one part of the act declared unconstitutional obviously there has been enough time for it to happen. How long do we need to wait, 10 years? 20? 40? 80? There has to be a point where you accept that a law isn't contrary to our basic laws (Bill of Rights etc), let alone a long list of parts of the Bill of Rights. I know that time period is nowhere near a lifetime. The only argument is that maybe another few years are required, that's about the only argument I'd buy. You implied the Patriot Act trashes the constitution, I said otherwise...I never said that a court decision in favor of a law makes the law "right" (but I was saying the courts are our best tool to determine whether a law is in conflict with the constitution). So either you assumed I was saying this or I wasn't clear enough. Which sorts of things in the Patriot Act would the founders support? I don't know, but I'm sure they'd be okay with alot of it.

And...if you're going to start getting condescending to me, I'm done with this discussion right now. But since you seem to have completely misunderstood what I was saying before about the naming of the act--I was not criticizing anyone about voting for the act, the topic was the naming of the act. Just because it was going to be passed doesn't mean the name is set in stone. If it's of such dire importance that the name be different, nobody seemed to care at the time. I think the real reason that apparently there wasn't any discussion of it is because nobody gave a shit about it's name. Whatever though, we're all just guessing anyway. Unless there's some story about it out there somewhere how can we know what the true motivation was for picking the name? It's like arguing why Bob gave his friend vanilla ice cream instead of a Klondike bar. Was he trying to support his vanilla ice cream industry because he owns stock in it??? Surely there was an ulterior motive.. Maybe it was named for the reasons you imply, but there's no proof either way and it's just an opinion. Even if you're right, "it's just politics"--the other side of the isle would do the same thing if they had the opportunity. My opinion is that it wasn't anywhere near that well thought out by "the vast right wing conspiracy"--remembering, as people like to point out, how they were rushing to get the act passed. So there's my conclusion, we're talking a stupid argument because there's no hard evidence that I've seen to support any view.

I'm confused about what assertion you're referring to.

We could make the same argument with virtually any legislation out there. Maybe you give them more credit that I do, but I think there's plenty of dumbasses in congress that aren't much more familiar with law than an informed lay person. If they are all semi-lawyers maybe that explains why things seem so scewed up to everyone. But while I'm sure there's little technicalities in there, alot of it seems pretty clean cut and easy to follow.

You present a good question though. Hmm, I might ask--are you willing to bet your future safety with only a basic outsider's understanding of the tools law enforcement needs to be able to protect people and do it's job? I think it can go both ways...but like you I'm unwilling to just concede that "it's over my head" and thus it isn't worth bothering with trying to form an opinion. I'm equally skeptical of the information out on the "oh-so-reliable" Internet regarding this topic.

I don't think the PA is a panacea for anything, others may say otherwise because they want to look good, but the truth is obvious. ...I do think the PA helps law enforcement overall though. I also think that the only way to truely solve all of our Islamist terror problems is to reform and modernize the mideast. Unfortunately this will take a minimum of at least a generation, assuming it continues to happen. That's the only "panacea" I know.

After thinking about your two questions, I'm not sure I think they're the right ones to ask.

With #1--don't alot of acts and laws contain potential for abuse? It's probably impossible to make anything air-tight. I agree certain parts should be locked down better but this isn't the same as saying we need to entirely take away certain tools from law enforcement.

With #2--how much does the administration really have to do with the act? It seems to me it relates more to law enforcement in general, esp federal. But they're not appointed by the president, even the directors are only nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. I find it hard to believe that such organizations are indeed an instant pawn of whatever administration is in power at any given time. Are there any instances where the PA was invoked specifically by some authority under strong control of the administration? Maybe this is a bad question since it's hard to agree on who has practical authority over what.

Ha, that was like 24 hours ago. How would I know what assertion I was referring to?

No, actually I think I was countering your point about there not being a "law enforcement can do anything anytime" clause. Thing is, someone much smarter (or more eloquent, perhaps) than me, on one of those meet-the-press shows, made a number of compelling points in direct opposition to that assertion. Problem is, I don't have a photographic memory, and couldn't begin to recite that laundry list of concerns. Stoopid human am I.

Regarding law enforcement, I would hope that they are at least marginally well informed about the law in comparison to the rest of us slugs. However, even with that in mind, law enforcement ultimately takes its cues from the courts. Someone at a "management" level has to interpret policy and create tactical procedures to enforce policy.

Ultimately, what I was really trying to stress is that technical language may read one way to the layperson, but mean something altogether different in a court of law. If you were, in fact, a legal or constitutional scholar, your opinions would, of course, carried much more weight. As it is, we are both average Joe citizens trying to make sense of a complex piece of legislation, and not surprisingly, arriving at different conclusions.

lol...Ahh, okay. Well, like I've said, if there are things remaining (which there probably are) that need to be made more specific and "closed up" from being loopholes, that's the list of amendments needed to the act. I'm more confident obviously that law enforcement...at least the higher level more professional individuals...won't abuse their powers in the mean time while flaws are ironed out. Which hopefully they will be..

Point taken. Keep in mind the fact that I live in Texas and you'll understand why I don't necessarily trust the judgment of law enforcement to protect my civil liberties.

Lemme throw this blog into the mix. It's source is decidedly anti-PA, so feel free to post a counter blog. Anything to help widen the debate, I say.

http://blog.reformthepatriotact.org/

Civil liberties are so last century. Just like religion

Sounds like you might be one of those commie nazi types.

There are hopeful signs of resistance from the CIA. While the Company has a history of playing fast and loose with the rules, they're also very smart and very independent. The Plame affair has stirred up the hornet's nest.

While the FBI projects a more stolid image, the revelation that Mark Felt was instrumental in bringing down Nixon lo these many years ago gives me hope that even the guys in black ties have their limits

But the President's picks for the directorates don't get the scrutiny that Supreme Court justices or UN ambassadors do. Further, bringing other agencies under the umbrella of Homeland Security (under a hand-picked Cabinet member), while admittedly increasing efficiency, also brings enforcement under tighter direct control of the White House. And Bush's team seems to be doing everything in their power to limit the ability of the legislature and especially the judiciary to exercise checks and balances against the Executive branch.

I just really don't trust these guys with that much power. I'm sorry to say it, because it's a sad thing to say, but I'm more afraid of my own government than I am of any terrorists.

there does not have to be any point - where "I" Accept that a law isnt contrary to our basic rights based on any time table.

There become times where its obvious nothing will be done any time soon. But I am convinced that the patriot act will be seen one day as an over-reactionary action taken in a moment when the government lost faith in its principles.

Just like im convinced that the current administration will be included in the evaluations of such presidences as Nixon's as an Era where the Executive weilded too much power. (in the 1880's for example Congress is beleived to have held to much power)




The reason I sounded condescending was becuase I was incredulous that anyone who had experienced what the US was like after 9/11 really believe a POLITICIAN (who wanted to be re-elected) could have taken a stand against the patriot act becoming law.

You made it sound like if the liberals didnt like it all they had to do was say no. I was pointing out that saying NO was very difficult during that time. The Political pressure to pass the patriot act was huge.

Im not speaking of a vast right wing conspiracy - I think more likely was an administration effort to ensure their changes were passed. Frankly I dont like it or the precident it set mixxing laws with patriotism -- Even more so during a time when the public was rallying around the flag.

I personally dont think its a vast right wing conspiracy to turn America into a police state. Of course The Soviet Union wasnt originally intended to be a police state either.

What worries me is each successive generation of leader taking more power and liberties from the people. It is possible to inherit a police state instead of it being imposed on you.

If I offended you with the school work comment , Im sorry.

If it seemed that I was saying that liberals could have simply voted against the Patriot Act, I wasn't really getting at that. It seems like a goofy argument now but (even though I'm not convinced this is the case) I will concede that in the worst possible case, it's possible the name was chosen for political reasons. But it's difficult to prove.

Paolo:

Read a part of that blog about the FBI, since this is one of my favorite subjects (), I was curious enough to look into it a little. I'm skeptical of the information presented, especially with no obvious links to sources that I can see. (Perhaps blogs are a reason why there's so much misinformation about stuff around now.)

I don't know where they found out about a "secret meeting" last June. (Doesn't secret mean we don't know anyway? sounds fishy) But I do know what Director Mueller said a few days ago in a hearing that sounds like what is described...



I guess this is slightly different, but at least here he isn't asking for (as the blog puts it):

"the power to write its own search orders for "any tangible thing" without getting any court approval in advance and without proving to any court that there are any facts connecting the records sought to an agent of a foreign power"

All I gather is that he's asking to speed up the process by not getting advance approval, but there's nothing ruling out documentation, oversight, "delayed approval", consequences or controls for misuse, or anything else. (I don't think it's his job to propose such things.) This request doesn't sound outrageous to me.

Anyway, the point is--courts are slow, and speed is essential for certain investigations, there's two conflicting needs here. The FBI has only recently been tasked with PREVENTION of terrorist attacks, so it only makes sense to provide the new "tools" needed to perform this function, right? It's particularly odd to hear people complain about abilities that the bureau already has with respect to other types of crimes, but seeks to obtain the ability for terror related investigations.

Isn't there a middle ground? This is the type of area that something like the Patriot Act is supposed to come in--provide the means to the FBI to do their job with a dose of oversight just in case. The FBI has been much more open and subject to criticism recently so this is not asking for anything new anyway.