[shooterx10]

Isn't this all a crock of ??????

Ashcroft pushes Patriot Act in Jacksonville speech

Thursday, September 25, 2003

By RON WORD, Associated Press

JACKSONVILLE — The Patriot Act is helping the United States win the war on terrorism, Attorney General John Ashcroft said Wednesday, defending the law from increasing criticism that it is a threat to the freedoms and civil rights of innocent Americans.

Ashcroft noted that there have been no acts of terrorism on U.S. soil for two years and serious crime also is down.

"Our success is reflected in the fact that America is more secure today than it was two years ago," Ashcroft told a group of about 150 law enforcement officers and prosecutors. "America is safer than it was two years ago and America is freer today than it has been in any time in the history of human freedom."

His visit here is part of an intensive effort — which began in August with a 16-city tour — to defend the Patriot Act as essential in combating terrorism. Ashcroft also spoke Wednesday morning in Columbia, S.C. and later in Tallahassee.

Civil liberties groups and an increasing number of Democrats and Republicans in Congress say the Patriot Act allows law enforcers to flout the Constitution and trample privacy rights. Furthermore, they say, it doesn't provide much help in the war on terror.

"The myths about the Patriot Act are that, they are myths," Ashcroft said. "There have been no reports of abuse by the Patriot Act." :cuss:

The law, enacted a few weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, expanded government surveillance capabilities, toughened criminal penalties for terrorists and allowed greater sharing of intelligence information. The administration is asking Congress for still more investigative powers, including expansion of a type of subpoena that would allow the FBI to seek business records without approval by a judge or grand jury.

But lawmakers are exploring ways to scale back the law amid concern it was rushed through while the country was in a panic. In Washington on Wednesday, U.S. Reps. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Ron Paul, R-Texas, introduced legislation intended to correct some of the most contentious provisions of the Patriot Act.

"We now know that the Patriot Act and other measures went too far, too fast," said Gregory T. Nojeim, associate director and chief legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington. "This bill stays true to Benjamin Franklin's call for a balance between security and liberty."

The ACLU has filed federal lawsuits in Detroit challenging the act, claiming it is unconstitutional. Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York and lead attorney in the challenge of the law, was critical of Ashcroft's tour.

"We think this entire road show is clearly Ashcroft's last gasp to garner support for the Patriot Act," Beeson said. "A growing number of Americans and members of Congress are opposed to it."

In his speech in Jacksonville, Ashcroft listed three facts that show the Justice Department is winning the war against terrorism and crime:

# Despite an upswing in worldwide terror, there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.

# The nation's crime rate is at a 30-year low.

# There has been a 32 percent reduction in gun violence over the past two years.

Ken Tucker, director of the Jacksonville Regional Operations Center for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, agreed with Ashcroft that the Patriot Act is an effective tool in protecting citizens.

"I appreciate what he had to say about the good things we are doing," Tucker said.

Here is the URL: http://cfapps.naplesnews.com/sendlink/printthis.cfm

[DaveB]

Free, eh? Take yer pick...

This one,

http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/adclass/1984-7.jpg

Or
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/1415926.jpg

db

[TallPine]

America is freer today than it has been in any time in the history of human freedom

Uh, what ....?

So how come I can't buy any gun I want mail order and have it shipped directly to my house?

There was a time that I was free to do that.

( well, my mom might have objected :) )

[bountyhunter]

You just don't understand what Mr. Ashcroft means by the word "free". What he means is America (that is the wealthy Republicans) are freer from the chances that the poor rabble (us) would have any hope of defending themselves against tyranny. Truth is, I have not seen tyranny become so stylish as it has in the current reign of King George II since a couple of hundred years back when we had that little disagreement with King George the Third over the tax issue.

[Danimal]

So specifically, what freedoms or constitutionally afforded rights have you lost since the Patriot Act was signed into law?

C'mon now...I want specific examples of freedoms and rights YOU have lost as a result.

We can sit here all day long, adjusting our tinfoil and talking about library card records, but until someone gives me an example of how the Patriot Act was abused and THEY were denied their rights, this is an exercise in conspiratorial panic.

Granted, I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act in concept. I'm wary of expanded government powers. But good things have been accomplished with it, and I just haven't seen the oft-quoted and forboding swap of liberty for security. That's not to say that with a change of administration, the Patriot Act could be turned against us. But unless someone has actually been unjustly hurt by the Patriot Act, this is an academic discussion and not a practical one. To treat it otherwise is just silly.

[Danimal]

You just don't understand what Mr. Ashcroft means by the word "free". What he means is America (that is the wealthy Republicans) are freer from the chances that the poor rabble (us) would have any hope of defending themselves against tyranny. Truth is, I have not seen tyranny become so stylish as it has in the current reign of King George II since a couple of hundred years back when we had that little disagreement with King George the Third over the tax issue.


Ahhhhh.....I LOVE the smell of Class Warfare in the morning. Smells like....Victory!

[tyme]

"C'mon now...I want specific examples of freedoms and rights YOU have lost as a result."

You are not treated as a citizen any longer if you commit a crime having some relation to terror. This may or may not include discussing anti-american ideas and buying plane tickets to Afghanistan. It may or may not include selling drugs. It may or may not include having illegal weapons.

[Danimal]

I see you quoted my post, but didn't bother to read it. I said SPECIFIC examples of how you have been denied your rights by the Patriot Act. Unless dealing drugs or selling bombs, or travelling to a country to fight against American troops was somehow legal before, you really haven't given any examples.

"may or may not" is painfully non-specific.

[Jim March]

United States Citizens have been detained for long periods of time (months in some specific cases) without contact with their family OR lawyers, without public notification of the charges, without any public oversight possible and without any chance to defend themselves.

Jose Padilla and that guy from Oregon who worked for Intel are two examples.

That Is A Disaster!

More specifically, those are test cases.

We don't know what the hell the Intel guy went through in the months the Feds had him before he "confessed". Why *months*? To let the bruises heal?

It can happen to me, to you, to ANYBODY.

We are turning into a dictatorship right before our eyes.

[cma g21]

Danimal, while I normally agree with you, I just can't in this instance even though I can not give any specific examples that apply to me personally.
But I would like to ask you two questions.
First, how would you feel about the Patriot Act if it had passed while Clinton was in office?
Second, whatever you think of this law, do you agree with Ashcroft that it has made us freer?

[Danimal]

First, to address Jim...

Since I live in Oregon, I've got a pretty good handle on the case of Mike Hawash, the Intel guy. He was arrested and held on a material witness warrant. That was perfectly legal and not part of the Patriot Act. Turns out he pled guilty to all charges. All the people who took to the streets calling him a model citizen were pretty quiet after he pled guilty and rolled over on the rest of the Portland Seven. You are still shouting "conspiracy!" and suggesting that a confession was beaten out of him. You might want to pick a better example to be a Patriot Act Martyr.

And to address cma...

You make an excellent point. Like I said, I don't like the idea of the Patriot Act and for that reason. Terrorists and Bad Guys still need to suck the pipe, but depending on who is in charge can determine how a law is used.

Now, are we more free? I suppose that depends on how you use the term. I certainly don't have more civil liberties than when we started, but nor do I think I have lost any. We haven't had any terrorist attacks in the US since 9-11, so I suppose I am more free from getting blown up - but that's kinda flimsy. Still, if we had more terrorist attacks in the US, I shudder to think what it would be like. Maybe like DC was in the days after the attack - kind of like an armed camp. In that case, perhaps the Patriot Act has helped to prevent turning us into that armed camp by preventing successful terrorist operations in America.

I want to be objective about this. But I know some people are going to oppose Ashcroft and the P.A. because it fits their personal political agenda. Likewise, there will be those who support it. It's just hard to sort through all the fluff and bluster.

[BigG]

...some people are going to oppose Ashcroft and the P.A. because it fits their personal political agenda. Likewise, there will be those who support it. It's just hard to sort through all the fluff and bluster. That's the most objective thing I've seen on this thread. :)

[saddenedcitizen]

You can NO LONGER check books out of a library that someone
other than a librarian JUST MIGHT consider 'dangerous'.
The DIFFERENCE here is that I never worry about librarians
taking me into custody because of what I read.
If you have had some of your records 'looked at', how would you
know ?? There is no oversight/control/redress in the d**n thing
and THAT'S what makes it dangerous (NO, I got rid of my foil
hat years ago)
Have said before, the danger in this thing is it's POTENTIAL for
abuse. Have you been abused ?? Again, how would you know
and what could you do about it ?
You think there's ever going to be a published list of what has
been 'looked at' and where and when and by whom ?? Don't
count on it.
The wonderful Fed Gov't says - 'we haven't used it once'
Anyone want to believe that at face value based on the
honesty of past statements made by 'Gov't' employees ??
Ashcroft has said that the act does not grant any powers
that didn't already exist. Fine. Then why is the act needed ??
What the act gives them is the ability to go 'fishing' without
that pesky involvement of a judge and stating what they
are looking for.
This thing is very similar to trusting an employee to run your
'cash only' business without receipts, register tapes, logs
or anything else - after all, he's never stolen anything so
why not ?? Sorry, I'm not THAT trusting.
It's the POTENTIAL that worries me.

[TallPine]

That's not to say that with a change of administration, the Patriot Act could be turned against us. But unless someone has actually been unjustly hurt by the Patriot Act, this is an academic discussion and not a practical one.
A total contradiction of statements.

Let's see how academic it is when Hitlary gets into office ....

[Ian]

Turns out he pled guilty to all charges.
Hm. He sits in prison without access to a lawyer for what, 3 or 4 months? And then he comes out having confessed to everything - and you believe he really WAS guilty?. If this had happened in Russia or China, we'd all have a much different theory on his confession. But no, that could NEVER happen here...right?

Even if the guy really WAS guilty, his treatment sets a terrifying precedent for all the rest of us.

What freedoms have we tangibly lost? Elements of the 4th Amendment. Expanded wiretap powers, loosened control over the issuance of warrants, and the expansion of surveillance allowed without a warrant. We've also lost parts of the 1st Amendment, through the expanded gag orders prohibiting the discussion of FBI activities. We've also lost major elements of the 6th Amendment, in the form of secret tribunals and the withholding of lawyers from the accused. Finally, the way has been thrown wide open to use these "extraordinary" anti-terrorist powers against any other crime (like, say, illegal possession of a semi-auto rifle in 10 years).

[bedlamite]

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[Danimal]

Hm. He sits in prison without access to a lawyer for what, 3 or 4 months? And then he comes out having confessed to everything - and you believe he really WAS guilty?. If this had happened in Russia or China, we'd all have a much different theory on his confession. But no, that could NEVER happen here...right?

You guys really need to come up with a better poster boy than Mike Hawash for hating Ashcroft and the P.A.

Hawash had the best defense attorney (Stephen Houze) in Portland. Hands down the best. His attorney saw him constantly, when he wasn't mugging for the cameras talking about what a great guy Hawash was, and what a travesty of justice it was to hold him as a material witness. Where are the lawsuits for violating his civil rights? Why isn't the ACLU raining down fire on this case? Because he was guilty, and every loudmouthed liberal and conspiratorialist had to suck it up and realize that sometimes, the laws do work, and the guilty are found out, regardless of how they feel about the law.

You might consider not posting about cases you don't know anything about, or just making up facts or assumptions because they sound good when you are typing them.

[BHPshooter]

He says it's freer, and he's right.

If you're the government, you're pretty much free to do whatever you want, now. THEN wait until the VICTORY Act passes. Then the government will be even more free. And we won't.

You can argue about "tinfoil hats" and other bull???? all day, but there's a reason for paranoia.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."

Wes

[tyme]

How's this. The war on terror as manifested at airports has made me more terrified than 9/11 did. I've only flown once since then, and I was randomly picked to be searched at the gate even though they'd just searched me at the checkpoint under the watch of soldiers with guns I can't have without begging the government's permission. They also would have prevented me from taking a knife and a leatherman on the plane if I hadn't known better and left them at home, because I wasn't checking anything.

Does this count? Or were my flying rights already sufficiently restricted pre-9/11 to make this experience irrelevant?

[DaveB]

Yeah, the VICTORY act will be way cool.

It gives the Government the legal authority to strip anyone (you) of your American citizenship if it decides you're a bad guy.

Still OK with this?

db

[Danimal]

Does this count? Or were my flying rights already sufficiently restricted pre-9/11 to make this experience irrelevant?

I would argue that Freedom from Inconvenience is not anywhere in the Constitution. If I have to sit in traffic for an hour because of road construction, it does not mean that my civil liberties have been taken away. Likewise, if you have to go through additional security measures at the airport - as annoying as they are - does not mean you are less free. Perhaps this suggests that we as Americans have come to erroneously interpret conveniences as rights. I'd love to be able to fly with my Benchmade again. It was handy and convenient. But it wasn't my "right".

[TallPine]

some people are going to oppose Ashcroft and the P.A. because it fits their personal political agenda.
hating Ashcroft
Just for the record, I don't "hate" Ashcroft. I don't think anyone else on this board hates him either.

I voted for Bush, and thought Ashcroft was wonderful breath of fresh air after Reno.

But despite my prejudice FOR Bush and Ashcroft, they have managed to scare me to death and completely turn me off in the last two years.

I'm still trying to figure whether they are stupid, insane, or evil.

[DaveB]

I'm still trying to figure whether they are stupid, insane, or evil.

Can I use that as my sig? :scrutiny:

db

[TallPine]

Can I use that as my sig?

Ask L. Neil Smith

[Derek Zeanah]

Hrmmm...

People are now being "detained" as "material witnesses" for months because this classification doesn't afford them any rights.

Electronic communications are now monitored to a much greater degree than pre patriot act.

The feds can now ask for a warrant that must be approved by a judge that allows them to search your property, install keyboard monitoring devices, etc, without notifying you for 90 days (which can be postponed indefinitely by re-applying).

The definition of "terrorism" has been expanded -- theoretically getting pissed off at your girlfriend and kicking in her headlight could qualify you for terrorist treatment under the law. See a post from earlier this month re: meth dealers qualifying as WMD manufacturers under state law in north carolina.

You can now receive a demand for information from the feds (at least, libraries and bookstores can; they were looking for the same from businesses and individuals but don't know how that played out) that you must comply with and that you are not allowed to talk about. Mention it to the press or complain to your congressman and you could be looking at 5 years in prison. Do you know if your rights have been impacted?

Then there are a ton of issues re: immigration and immigration courts. Won't even go there.

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure someone like Tamara could mention a few more...

Yes, I'm reading Bovard's latest book. :)

[Danimal]

Yeah, the VICTORY act will be way cool.

It gives the Government the legal authority to strip anyone (you) of your American citizenship if it decides you're a bad guy.

Still OK with this?

Boy, I just read five articles on the Victory Act after a quick search on the web, and nowhere does it say anything about the ability to strip someone of their United States citizenship. And these articles were fairly critical. Why would they not list something so drastic and offensive as one of the powers to be granted under the V.A.?

I'd sure appreciate some documentation for this claim.

[TallPine]

Funny, I don't remember having my body and vehicle searched the last time I had to stop for road construction .... :confused:

[Derek Zeanah]

Boy, I just read five articles on the Victory Act after a quick search on the web, and nowhere does it say anything about the ability to strip someone of their United States citizenshipI believe it allows you to be classified as something like a "foreign power" and therefore as someone having no 4th amendment rights.

[Danimal]

I don't have to drive, and you don't have to fly.

Both are conveniences and not rights.

[buzz_knox]

You can NO LONGER check books out of a library that someone
other than a librarian JUST MIGHT consider 'dangerous'.
The DIFFERENCE here is that I never worry about librarians
taking me into custody because of what I read.


Where did you come up with the first statement? The Patriot Act doesn't restrict access to library books, nor does any other federal law that I'm aware of.

If you are basing this statement on your concern that federal agents may be reading your check out list, and thus you don't get the books (the chilling effect), take this into consideration: they were always able to get the list if they could get a warrant. They still have to get a warrant under the Patriot Act.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the Patriot Act at all, and I have to work with the blasted thing. But there are as many urban legends and myths floating around about it as truths.

[benewton]

It'll be real hard to find specific instances of abuse of the Patriot act powers:

1. It's illegal to advise any person that their personal records of any sort
have been "probed".

2. Any resistance to federal investigators MUST indicate that YOU'RE at
least supporting terrorists, and so can be taken, and held
incommunicado, 'till hell freezes over.

So, sure, Ashcroft can say there haven't been abuses: who's going to argue?

[tyme]

Danimal, would you accept being inspected for contraband every morning, at lunch, and at night? How about roadblocks every mile along your way to work? And to make a phone call, what if you had to call the regional FBI office and ask them to give you a dialtone? After all, if you're not breaking any laws, nothing will happen to you. These are mere inconveniences.

Road construction? You can avoid road construction. It's an inconvenience but it's not a search.

I recommend looking at the Constitution, specifically Amendment 4. I think the only question is whether the airport situation pre-9/11 was sufficiently violative of the 4th amendment to cause the new post-9/11 fixtures at airports to be minor and not a substantial worsening of the situation. Whether the drug war et. al. have sufficiently eroded rights to the point that the Patriot act doesn't really violate them because the rights are no longer respected.

[DaveB]

I may have stepped in it and, if so, I apologize. There's some confusion as to whether the VICTORY Act is the same animal as PATRIOT Act II. My understanding is that VA is based on PII.

The following refers explicitly to PARTIOT II:

http://www.gunowners.org/patriotii.htm, at the bottom.

Extending Secret Arrests to American Citizens on U.S. Soil (Section 501): This provision would allow the government to revoke the citizenship of native-born Americans if they "provid[e] material support... to" or "serv[e] in" an organization which the government has designated as a "terrorist organization." For citizenship to be revoked, the organization would have to be engaged in "hostilities against the United States, its people, or its national security interests..." [emphasis added]. However, the term "hostilities" may extend far beyond acts of war or violence, and U.S. "national interests" are almost completely open-ended. Aid to UNITA, for instance, would almost certainly fall within the ambit of this section, and it may be that support of an organization like GOA -- which advocates that the Second Amendment is a shield against despotism -- would also qualify. In addition, militia groups would almost certainly be covered by this section. Once a native-born American has his citizenship stripped, section 503 would allow the newly stateless American to be removed to an undisclosed location abroad if the Attorney General "has reason to believe" that such a person "pose[s] a danger to the national security." Section 504 would allow the person to be removed from the U.S. under "expedited procedures." Section 506 specifically expands the ability of the government to deport newly expatriated Americans to any country it chooses. Once stripped of citizenship, section 505 would take away the discretion of courts to suspend the criminal penalty for failure to depart, in the event that the former American cannot find a new country to accept him. Preexisting authorities, of course, would allow the government to detain the former American indefinitely without charges, in secret, without an attorney or other constitutional protections.

[TallPine]

Once a native-born American has his citizenship stripped, section 503 would allow the newly stateless American to be removed to an undisclosed location abroad if the Attorney General "has reason to believe" that such a person "pose[s] a danger to the national security."
But that's all merely an inconvenience .... :rolleyes:

[Danimal]

Danimal, would you accept being inspected for contraband every morning, at lunch, and at night? How about roadblocks every mile along your way to work? And to make a phone call, what if you had to call the regional FBI office and ask them to give you a dialtone? After all, if you're not breaking any laws, nothing will happen to you. These are mere inconveniences.

Road construction? You can avoid road construction. It's an inconvenience but it's not a search.

Are we talking about the Patriot/Victory Act, or are we talking about metal detectors at airports? Some of those conveniences are pretty important to us and we should work hard to keep them, and elect people who will do the same thing. But let's not confuse what they are.

They are inconveniences. I don't like them one bit, but I won't change their definition just to suit my argument. What if nothing changed after 9-11? What if there were no expanded powers of search and surveillance to nab terrorists? What if every terrorist was informed they were being investigated and monitored and they just disappeared underground and another cell popped up in their place? What if the terrorists hit us again and again with planes and anthrax and ricin and bombs? Do you think there would be roadblocks and searches and everything else that we fear? Yes, there probably would be. Hell, Posse Commitatus would have probably been suspended. We have heard all the what-ifs and maybes and could-happens about the abuses of the Patriot Act, but how about the other side of it? So it looks like we can have the Patriot Act which could be scary and abused, but hasn't been - or we can live in the armed camp where our real rights and our real freedoms would be out the door.

[Danimal]

The following refers explicitly to PARTIOT II:

http://www.gunowners.org/patriotii.htm, at the bottom.

Extending Secret Arrests to American Citizens on U.S. Soil (Section 501): This provision would allow the government to revoke the citizenship of native-born Americans if they "provid[e] material support... to" or "serv[e] in" an organization which the government has designated as a "terrorist organization." For citizenship to be revoked, the organization would have to be engaged in "hostilities against the United States, its people, or its national security interests..." [emphasis added]. However, the term "hostilities" may extend far beyond acts of war or violence, and U.S. "national interests" are almost completely open-ended. Aid to UNITA, for instance, would almost certainly fall within the ambit of this section, and it may be that support of an organization like GOA -- which advocates that the Second Amendment is a shield against despotism -- would also qualify. In addition, militia groups would almost certainly be covered by this section. Once a native-born American has his citizenship stripped, section 503 would allow the newly stateless American to be removed to an undisclosed location abroad if the Attorney General "has reason to believe" that such a person "pose[s] a danger to the national security." Section 504 would allow the person to be removed from the U.S. under "expedited procedures." Section 506 specifically expands the ability of the government to deport newly expatriated Americans to any country it chooses. Once stripped of citizenship, section 505 would take away the discretion of courts to suspend the criminal penalty for failure to depart, in the event that the former American cannot find a new country to accept him. Preexisting authorities, of course, would allow the government to detain the former American indefinitely without charges, in secret, without an attorney or other constitutional protections.

No offense, Dave, but I'd like to see the actual text of the law instead of the analysis of a group who opposes it. Not questioning anyone's integrity or motives, but again, I want to sort through the fluff and bluster.

[DaveB]

Here 'tiz. Draft dated 1/9/03:

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/son-of-patriot.draft.pdf

db

[dustind]

...If I have to sit in traffic for an hour because of road construction... Likewise, if you have to go through additional security measures at the airport...
I broke my arm once, where my rights violated then? No.
If the police walked into my house and broke my arm, would my rights be violated? Yes.

Just because nature could do something to us does not give the government the right to.

I can not buy a car or home without having to go through the PA.
You said specific, but as you know the PA really just modifies other laws on the books. It and some other new laws have turned the BOR into the Bill of privlages. By the time your rights are violated it will be too late and the massive damage will be done.

Which federal court was it that has not to date denied one warrent? I did a search but could not find the thread.

I am 20 and voted strait R the last two elections. I researched some candidates but voted for the rest because of their letter. Next election I will do more research, but will probably vote strait R exept for president. It is looking like the libertarians will get my vote because of all the nasty new federal laws....if the Attorney General "has reason to believe" that such a person "pose[s] a danger to the national security."
Oh boy, why not just say "...if the attorney General feels like it." It would be much more honest.

[TallPine]

What if nothing changed after 9-11? What if there were no expanded powers of search and surveillance to nab terrorists?

Well, I suppose we would just have to go back to dismissing tips from concerned citizens about suspicious Arabs taking lessons to fly jetliners ... :rolleyes:

[DaveB]

Well, I suppose we would just have to go back to dismissing tips from concerned citizens about suspicious Arabs taking lessons to fly jetliners

My Gawd! Have you always been this cynical?

db

[TallPine]

My Gawd! Have you always been this cynical?
No, it has taken years to develop the art ...

[Danimal]

Dave, I used the link you gave me but all I saw was an analysis of the proposed bill and not the actual text. I had some trouble with my Adobe reader. It was 120 pages worth. Was the text of the bill included later on in the .pdf?

[Hawk]

Those more knowledgeable than I can correct the following, but it seems to me, after actually plowing my way through the full text of the act, and knocking around the internet, that a major fact is not being widely disseminated.

The mailing I got from the ACLU addressed only section 215 of title 2 (the infamous “access to records and other items…”). Nowhere in the ACLU’s rather voluminous mailing was any mention of section 224 which provides for the sunset of article 215 along with a fair chunk of the rest of title 2.

Unlike the 10 year sunset most of us are watching fervently, the title 2 sunset was a 4 year duration – title 2 self-destructs December 2005 unless extended by act of congress.

This seemed to be a pretty big detail omitted from the ACLU’s position paper. As best as I can tell, it’s still in effect despite an effort by Orrin Hatch and the administration to remove the provision.

Also, quite unlike the AWB “wishful hoping” sunset, the flock is no longer panicked – the polls showing 80% of the American people willing to trade off their freedoms right after 9/11 would now, I believe, show the opposite.

The sunset of the major portion of title 2 looks to be a “slam dunk”, in my opinion, given all the negative press the act has received since the flock’s collective blood pressure and mewling to be made safe has settled down to near pre-9/11 levels.

Personally, I’d just as soon see the whole act take a dive although title 3 “Anti-terrorist financing” looks to be a bunch of PITA bank regs that were gradually being implemented anyway in order to reduce an unrelated problem (identity theft). Having been hit by that particular non-confrontational crime, I’m inclined to think the banks could stand a little tighter identity checking anyway.

Disclaimer: I’m an amateur at both research and reading the full text of the Patriot Act. Feel free to set me straight. However, I would implore anyone who’s interested to check the full text:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

The following digest appears to be “non-partisan / objective” (so far as I can tell, given that they’re part of the gubmint – library of congress, and all that) and made the existence of the sunset a lot more obvious than scanning the act itself.
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf

[DaveB]

The text of the bill is included. Here's an html version: see pg 78-79

http://www.dailyrotten.com/source-docs/patriot2draft.html

db

[TallPine]

Also, quite unlike the AWB “wishful hoping” sunset, the flock is no longer panicked – the polls showing 80% of the American people willing to trade off their freedoms right after 9/11 would now, I believe, show the opposite.

The sunset of the major portion of title 2 looks to be a “slam dunk”, in my opinion, given all the negative press the act has received since the flock’s collective blood pressure and mewling to be made safe has settled down to near pre-9/11 levels.

Set your watches ... the next terrorist attack is due about Sept 2005 ...

Boy, I really AM cynical!

[benewton]

TallPine:
You're not cynical, just realistic.

But don't forget we have to go through the anti AWB sunset actions first, and it could get very hard to tell the difference between the two.

Like the Chinese curse goes, "living in interesting times"...

[saddenedcitizen]

Poor phrasing on my part -
The concern is WHO might be probing/perusing/looking at
/analyzing my reading habits.
Understand that I can check out anything I want but until PA,
chances are, no one except the library ever saw it and they
hopefully didn't care.
Now we have a whole 'new' area to 'investigate'.
You say they still need a warrant, fine, agreed.
Now, the warrant is to do exactly what? Look at just
MY habits or 'we need a warrant to look at the withdrawals
at library ABC'?? I suspect the latter. Again - 'fishing'.
The library can't incarcerate/question me however .........
Akin to discovering contraband in the process of executing a
search warrant that did not specify said contraband - ergo -
inadmissable. But not in the case of PA because the specified
'contraband' will be FAR too vague therefore ANYTHING will
be 'fair game/admissable'.
As for the search warrant - try this on -
Gov't employee - We need a warrant.
Judge - For what ?
Gov't employee - Library records of Joe Schmuck
Judge - What are you looking for ??
Gov't employee - Sorry that's classified.
Judge - What has Joe done.
Gov't employee - Sorry that's classified
Judge - Then I can't help you
Gov't employee - Fine, we'll find a judge who will.
(underbreath - and find something on you so that next time
you WILL give us the warrant)
Does this tactic work - Yes - DON'T ask !!
Think it can't/won't happen or hasn't happened - think
again.
Only point is, that, privacy about d**n near ANYTHING
is going the way of the dinosaur.
It's NONE OF THEIR D**NED BUSINESS and I resent being
suspected of ANYTHING based solely on my reading habits.
There are FAR more promising/fruitful areas that COULD
be investigated but
/sarcasm on
Gee, that would require such things
as profiling (shudder) - much better to assume everyone is
guilty (or potentially so) so that there is no discrimination
(been to airport recently ??). Let the peons PROVE that they
are not guilty.
Cynical - you betcha - seen/heard/done too much
to be otherwise.

[C.R.Sam]

Ashcroft noted that there have been no acts of terrorism on U.S. soil for two years and serious crime also is down. Debatable.
Left coast airport asassanation, possibe tie to Al Queda published long after the incident.
Florida light aircraft stuffed into building. Very quiet but pilot with anglo name son of islamic father. No hard tie but no denial published.

I could go into the airport wearing my defensive weapon to meet incoming passenger. Now, I must either not go or go disarmed.

Sam

[Al Norris]

Let's see... Immediately after 911, there were numerous train derailings, none of which were resolved (yeah, why should they be? The public forgot about them almost immediately). There was a bridge that was taken out by a slow moving barge.... Anyone ever hear about that one being adequately resolved? July 4th, 2002: Egyptian at the LA Airport.

Nope, none of these were ever terrorist connected, right? Just coincidences.

Ecxuse me, my (tinfoil) hat needs adjusting.....

[Moparmike]

I personally have not been harmed by the PA. Yet.:scrutiny:

However, we could all debate the endless possibilities for infringement of human and civil rights contained within the text of the PA. I wont. Not today at least, as I am not really in the mood to do so.

However, I dont believe that airport security should be done by the .gov. It seems, well, wrong. I believe it should be the individual airline's responsibility to screen those who board its property. The airplane is not the .gov's plane, it is USAir, Delta, Trans World, British Airlines, ad nauseam. I dont screen those who come in my house (well, visually, but everyone does that). I have every right to say "Submit to a metal detection before you come on my property" or ask them to leave. Its my property. Howerver, the .gov has no right to determine who can and cant come onto my property if they are legally in the US.*


*A restraining order overrides that. However, a restraining order is usually asked for by the property owner.

[Chris Rhines]

As Danimal has demonstrated, to say that the Patriot act does not violate anyones rights requires one to take a ridiculously narrow and deterministic view of what rights are.

Driving and flying are not rights? Bushwah. Every individual has the right to do anything at all that does not violate the person or property of another.

- Chris

[spartacus2002]

That's not to say that with a change of administration, the Patriot Act could be turned against us. But unless someone has actually been unjustly hurt by the Patriot Act, this is an academic discussion and not a practical one.

THAT is one of the most moronic and sophomoric statements I have ever heard.

The true test of any law is not the good that it can do, but the evil that can be done in its name.

Don't believe me? Go look up the Emergency Decrees passed after the burning of the Reichstag. Here's a hint: Germany, 1933. Oh, what the hell, here's the rest of the story:

President Hindenburg and Chancellor Hitler invoke Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permits the suspension of civil liberties in time of national emergency. This Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State abrogates the following constitutional protections:
Free expression of opinion
Freedom of the press
Right of assembly and association
Right to privacy of postal and electronic communications
Protection against unlawful searches and seizures
Individual property rights
States' right of self-government
A supplemental decree creates the SA (Storm Troops) and SS (Special Security) Federal police agencies.

[C.R.Sam]

Spartacus...
Your point is well made.
However, there no room nor need to call one a moron on The High Road.

Sam

[spartacus2002]

I didn't. I was referring to the statement. Criticizing the act, not the actor....

[Moparmike]

That is the beautiful thing about language, and the most agrivating part of it. Most anything can be misconstrued and taken out of context.

I truely believe that you didnt mean to slander the person who made the statement. However, some can say that by calling something that someone said "moronic", you are also calling the person "a moron" as well. One of those annoying little quirks.

Anyway, no harm done to anyone. Let the PA and Ashcroft bashing continue!:D

[spartacus2002]

FOR THE RECORD, though I disagree with many of his comments, I do NOT believe Danimal to be a moron.

can we drop it and get back to the Ashcroft bashing:D

[C.R.Sam]

Super.
Gentlemen all.

Sam

[Sodbuster]

Five-year plans and New Deals
Wrapped in golden chains

If John Fogerty wrote that song today he'd have to include the Patriot Act in it

[Danimal]

As Danimal has demonstrated, to say that the Patriot act does not violate anyones rights requires one to take a ridiculously narrow and deterministic view of what rights are.

Driving and flying are not rights? Bushwah. Every individual has the right to do anything at all that does not violate the person or property of another.

Sure they do....in a Libertarian Utopia. I'm not saying I disagree with you philosophically, but in the real world, things are decidedly different.

As for the moron comment, I don't take it personally. Naturally, I think I am right, or else I wouldn't have bothered to write it. But we are all gentlemen, and gentlemen can disagree about substantive issues. I am sure I have called people and statements much worse and I welcome the debate.

Onward!

[Tamara]

C'mon now...I want specific examples of freedoms and rights YOU have lost as a result.

Ah, I see; because they haven't come for ME yet, I haven't lost anything.

Thanks for clarifying that, Reverend Niemoller. :D

Of course, if they had come for me, I couldn't tell you about it, because that would be a federal felony under the (hilariously misnamed) Patriot Act. :uhoh:


Edit:
Here's one: I've lost the right to know if my house was searched by the fed.gov while I was at work yesterday. (Or was that one already gone because of the War on Whatever? I can't remember... It's been so long since the Fourth Amendment was useful for anything but toilet tissue... :scrutiny: )

[Moparmike]

If the 4th has become TP, than what the hell has the 9th and 10th become?

[Bainx]

John Ascroft: America is freer today !

Simply a lie from the pit of Hell

[Danimal]

Ah, I see; because they haven't come for ME yet, I haven't lost anything.

Thanks for clarifying that, Reverend Niemoller.

Fine. Name ANYBODY whose rights were lost in the big Ashcroft Concentration Camp Roundup Jubilee, academically known as the Patriot Act. Hopefully, you will be smarter than a few folks and choose someone OTHER than an admitted terrorist and traitor.

You can't run around and say your rights have evaporated because you don't know if the government has been in your house. That argumentation is ridiculous on its face. If that's the war cry for the anti-Ashcroft/Patriot Act crowd, you folks are going to need some better material if you ever plan on discussing this with people who don't live in their parent's basement and tape reruns of the X-Files.

Please understand, I'm not saying you are wrong. Just that you are going to need something more substantial than the hint that a government stooge from some unnamed alphabet soup agency MAY or MAY NOT have scoped out your library card.

And to follow that train of thought....Libraries are usually government run, either through the county or city. If they want to look at your records, it seems they have the unfettered ability to do so since they own the books and the building. If all you great lovers of literature don't want the government to know what you are reading, go to a bookstore and buy it.

[buzz_knox]

Now we have a whole 'new' area to 'investigate'.

Under federal law prior to the Patriot Act, any law enforcement agent could get a warrant to search a particular person's library records if a person could be identified, or even the entire library record if a particular person was not identified, upon a showing of probable cause. For example, you find a copy of a book at a crime scene and it's from a library. If the library didn't open up the records, any judge would issue a warrant to find out who checked out that book. Similarly, it's determined that someone used a library computer to access classified information, but the library won't say who was using the computer. Any judge would again allow a search of the user database as there was probable cause that someone committed a crime and there was evidence of the offender's identity in that database. All that was going on prior to the Patriot Act, and is perfectly consistent with the 4th Amendment.

These searches could also cover a vast area of turf. For example, if you are suspected of conspiracy to commit terrorism, a proper search could include books on: political theory, theology, explosives, weapons, infrastructure, etc. Anything that justified your action, formed the basis for your intent, would allow you to further the conspiracy would fall within the type of evidence which could be examined. It's just a question of explaining to the judge why the agent thinks the material is relevant.

I agree that the idea of an agent being able to access records may have a chilling effect on some. But I think it's important to be able to identify our target. The issue is overreaching by the gov't, and the Patriot Act is a symptom of that, and focussing our ire on it runs the risk of masking what should be the true target.

[Al Norris]

Interesting.

Using the form of logic that those who defend Ashcroft in his quest for more police power, one should honestly ask what, if any gun rights have they lost since 1934.

After all, the NFA didn't ban a single thing. It was what came afterword....

[buzz_knox]

Using the form of logic that those who defend Ashcroft in his quest for more police power, one should honestly ask what, if any gun rights have they lost since 1934.

For the record, don't count me in as one of those who defends Ashcroft. Except for allowing the counter-terrorism and criminal investigation branches of law enforcement to talk to each other, I haven't seen crap that's been done that made much sense. We can fight terrorism quite well using pre-9/11 legal structure.

[TallPine]

If all you great lovers of literature don't want the government to know what you are reading, go to a bookstore and buy it.
The law applies to book stores too.

[BHPshooter]

The law applies to book stores too.

Yep. But you can make it hard on 'em -- pay in cash for everything you buy. :evil:

Wes

[BigG]

Reynolds Wrap is up 2 1/8! :D

[jrhead75]

The true test of any law is not the good that it can do, but the evil that can be done in its name. On the money!

The thought of the Patriot Act in the hands of the next Janet Reno keeps me awake at night.

[tyme]

The true test of any law is not the good that it can do, but the evil that can be done in its name.
By this measure, is the Constitution evil because it contains the interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause?

[BigG]

I thought Moses died. Who told you you could take his place? :D

[spartacus2002]

By this measure, is the Constitution evil because it contains the interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause?

No, the Constitution is not evil because of those clauses. However, there has been tremendous growth in the size and reach of the Federal Govt due to the intentional stretching of those two clauses, far beyond what the Founders intended. Is it all good? Ask the people whose marshy property they bought for development was declared "a wetland" and is now nondevelopable. Or, simpler, just go take a huge dump into a low-flush toilet and place a bet on how many flushes you'll need to make it go down.

[bountyhunter]

C'mon now...I want specific examples of freedoms and rights YOU have lost as a result.

That's easy: if you are deemed a "terrorist" or "terrorist enabler" in the eyes of the government you can be locked up without a hearing or being given an attorney until hell freezes over if they think allowing you those would be "dangerous".

You don't think you lost some freedom? Wake up and smell the coffee.

[Chris Rhines]

tyme: By this measure, is the Constitution evil because it contains the interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause? Excatly! Finally, someone understands! :D

Danimal: Rights are abstract concepts, and as such they exist independent of what you term 'real life'. To put it another way, just because the government makes a habit of violating my rights, does not mean they do not exist. Everyone still has the right to life, even though everyone dies eventually.

- Chris

[Tamara]

If all you great lovers of literature don't want the government to know what you are reading, go to a bookstore and buy it.

IIRC, bookstore sales records are covered, too. ;)

[Bruce H]

Anybody the quotes Machiavelli in their sig line would do well to remember what happened to Machiavelli.

[Danimal]

I know exactly what happened to Machiavelli. Care to share how that may or may not apply to this discussion?



(P.S. Pay cash Tamara, unless you are nervous about those GPS micro tracking strips the feds have woven into the new bills these days....)

[rick_reno]

I suggest you take a look at these recent Supreme Court decisions to ascertain if America is more free today than in the past - draw your own conclusions about where we're going.

1. Illinois v. Rodriquez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) - Allows authorities to search your home based upon the consent of someone who has absolutely NO authority to grant the search.

2. Alabama v. White, 503, U.S. 953 (1990) - Allows authorities to stop your car based on an anonymous tip completely lacking any indication of reliability.

3. Mich. Dept. of State Police v. Sitz - Subject motorists to mandatory sobriety tests without any indicatiojn they have been drinking or that their driving is impaired.

When the Patriot Act was passed there were only two copies of it floating around - and the Senate building had been evacuated because of the anthrax scare. This isn't the climate that I like seeing important legislation being debated in - but it happened.

Remember, this is not the first time in our history freedoms have been eroded in a time of national crisis. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, Wilson had the Palmer raids and Roosevelt interred Asian-Americans for no reason other than national origin.

Todays invasions of our privacy are very subtle. The technology they are using you can't see or feel. It's not like the Red Coats invading your home and going thru your bedding searching for a weapon. Todays efforts steal your conversations and it muddies the water between the 1st and 4th Amendments. Remember 1984, they imprisoned people not by locking their bodies up but by locking their thoughts and communications up.

[Danimal]

Hey Rick, what were the Palmer Raids? I've never heard of those. Can you give us a quick history lesson. BTW, LOVE the signature line! :D

[rick_reno]

Just go here, they've written up the Palmer Raids better than I could. I'm trying to get a shell on one of our trucks before winter hits...gotta run

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/hist409/red.html

[Tamara]

(P.S. Pay cash Tamara, unless you are nervous about those GPS micro tracking strips the feds have woven into the new bills these days....)

I don't get too worked up about the strips in dollar bills nor black helicopters. I don't own a Reynold's Wrap yarmulke, either. I do however, firmly believe that any law will be misused to the full extent possible; ask any Right-to-Life protester prosecuted under the RICO statutes.

Why should I have to use cash just to prevent the government from using some harebrained operation like the TIA to scrutinize my reading list? Why did those guys in the goofy wigs bother including that silly Fourth Amendment, anyway?


(PS: Just because the federales haven't yet used their swoopy new powers to conduct a clandestine search of your home while you were picking up a pint of Haagen Dasz from the Quickie Mart doesn't mean that they don't now have the legal power to do so. Saying "Well, show me that you've lost that right!" is as pointless as, well... Say a new law had been passed that suspects could be shot summarily. Just because you ain't been shot yet don't mean your right not to get shot hasn't been infringed. I'd trust a Midwestern S&L before I'd trust my government. The guys who invented it told me not to trust it, and if anybody should know, they would. ;) )

[Danimal]

(PS: Just because the federales haven't yet used their swoopy new powers to conduct a clandestine search of your home while you were picking up a pint of Haagen Dasz from the Quickie Mart doesn't mean that they don't now have the legal power to do so. Saying "Well, show me that you've lost that right!" is as pointless as, well... Say a new law had been passed that suspects could be shot summarily. Just because you ain't been shot yet don't mean your right not to get shot hasn't been infringed. I'd trust a Midwestern S&L before I'd trust my government. The guys who invented it told me not to trust it, and if anybody should know, they would. )

I actually agree with you about the powers of government. It scares me too. But it would just go so much further in helping the anti-Patriot Act argument if someone could provide examples of actual abuse. I don't doubt the veracity of the possibilities, but without actual examples, the argument is going to be relegated to the conspiritorial trash heap by most folks. It's almost as if the answer of "I can't provide examples....because the government is so sneaky and powerful, I would never know" is passing as actual proof. I own a truck and if I had a mind to, I could go and run over a bunch of people. However, most people do not treat me with contempt and suspicion just because I have the power and means to do something evil. It usually takes some sort of proof. Sure, you can argue that by the time I run someone over, or the Patriot Act claims the rights of an innocent victim, the damage will be done. And you are right - and we need people to be looking forward to see what might happen. But I hate to see bright people compromise their credibility by refusing to be objective and realistic.

[Nightfall]

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Wonder when we get our doubleplusgood telescreens?

Patriot Act VII maybe? :D

[kentucky bucky]

With this paranoia about Ashcroft that some of you guys have been spewing, you could get a job writing screenplays for Michael Moore. This is really about hate isn't it? You just hate Bush and anybody in his Administration. You better hope that a man like Ashcroft stays in that office and the "other side" doesn't get in, or you will REALLY see abuse of office!!
You guys are probably the types that slammed the Bush Administration for not doing enough to stop 911, There's no winning with you people, so I'm not beating this dead horse any more!:banghead:

[Orthonym]

I VOTED for him! I'm one of the 537. How___________ever, I didn't vote for him because I wanted him for Prez, I voted for him because I know how the Electoral College works. I voted for him because I honestly thought him to be the smaller curculio. (That's lesser of two weevils. Snork!)

I knew the FL election was going to be close, but imagine the state going to Gore by one vote (mine!) because I had voted for Harry Browne.
(Shudder! I'd have had to change my name and hide out!)

Edit: changed 'imagined' to 'imagine'.

[Delmar]

kentucky bucky

What most people ARE worried about is when somebody like Feinstein gets into the White House-and its going to happen one day. Giving the Government that kind of power is just begging for it to be abused. Yeah, I voted for GW, and thought Ashcroft would be a friend to the BOR and not just to the 2A.

Look at the damage that has been done courtesy of the RICO act! Started out looking okay-getting the drug lords was awful tough, so they come up with this deal about being able to seize large amounts of cash. Some law enforcement agencies began to seize cash from travelers in the border states with no other justification than they had a large amount of cash on their person or belongings.

The stiffed citizen then has to hire a lawyer to get their own money back.
And, despite all the talk about the country being safer, we're STILL trying to get the pilots trained to have firearms in the cockpit. What in the heck is the holdup there? Simple-the Feds still do not want armed flight crews and are dragging their feet.

Isn't there something about Americans being secure in their persons, papers and effects? Isn't there something about a warrant, issued upon probable cause, presented to a magistrate?

[Tamara]

I own a truck and if I had a mind to, I could go and run over a bunch of people. However, most people do not treat me with contempt and suspicion just because I have the power and means to do something evil.

Ah, but your birth certificate did not forbid you to buy any trucks. ;)

Part of the problem with documenting any abuses of the Patriot Act is the loathesome provisions for secrecy built into it. The Justice Department is supposed to report every six months on all its Patriot-related doings to the House Judicial Committee. Apparently there are too many uncontrollabe Democrats there, because Ashcroft and co. have flouted that little regulation and reported to the Intelligence Committee instead. Other provisions like the fact that it's a federal felony to even mention that you're being investigated under Sec. 215, and Sec. 213 allowing the federales to delay notifying you that they served a search warrant on you until they're darn good and ready, make it pretty difficult to assess exactly what's been done under the Patriot Act. Asking a room full of gagged people to speak up if they feel that their rights have been violated isn't likely to elicit many responses. Coming home and finding your house ransacked, and then finding out six months later when you're arrested for membership in subversive organizations that you hadn't been burgled, but rather it had been the cops doing the ransacking is something that's supposed to happen in the old USSR or some third-world banana republic, not the US of A. Of course it's all cool now when the only people likely to have their house searched are Arab terrorists, but you know the progression as well as I do; next it could be militia members, then John Birchers, then GOA members... constantly encroaching nearer and nearer the mainstream.



(BTW: Didn't some prosecutor in NC attempt to use one provision or another in a meth case recently?)

[Al Norris]

Danimal wrote:
I own a truck and if I had a mind to, I could go and run over a bunch of people. However, most people do not treat me with contempt and suspicion just because I have the power and means to do something evil. It usually takes some sort of proof.
Oh really? Do you own a gun? Hmmmm?

[BryanP]

If all you great lovers of literature don't want the government to know what you are reading, go to a bookstore and buy it.

Ah. So not having your reading habits scrutinized by Herr Ashcroft is a privilege relegated only to those who have the cash to buy any and all books they want? The poor just have to suck it up. Hey, they're poor, they're probably Democrats, they deserve to suffer.

I make a decent living these days. I can (and often do) buy any book I want without worrying about the effect on my budget. When I was younger that was not true. I worked my way through many a library. Some of the books I chose to read out of curiosity would be looked askance by our beloved Attorney General.

[TallPine]

With this paranoia about Ashcroft that some of you guys have been spewing, you could get a job writing screenplays for Michael Moore. This is really about hate isn't it? You just hate Bush and anybody in his Administration. You better hope that a man like Ashcroft stays in that office and the "other side" doesn't get in, or you will REALLY see abuse of office!!
Sigh ... read one of my previous posts ... this has been covered already.

What is the matter with you anyway .... :confused:

[cma g21]

Sadly, I see no way out of this.
Can you imagine the reaction if the Patriot Act was to be repealed and then a major terrorist attack occurred?
Which party do you think will risk political suicide to repeal it?

[lapidator]

Don't believe me? Go look up the Emergency Decrees passed after the burning of the Reichstag. Here's a hint: Germany, 1933. Oh, what the hell, here's the rest of the story:


Ha, I was handed this by a co-worker.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann

The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.




It's a pretty far stretch to equate the onslaught of WWII to the "War on Terrorism", remember that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts....


lapidator

[publius]

So it looks like we can have the Patriot Act which could be scary and abused, but hasn't been - or we can live in the armed camp where our real rights and our real freedoms would be out the door.

Your speculation. Here's mine: we can have the Patriot Act which could be scary and abused, but hasn't been - or we can live in the armed camp where our real rights and our real freedoms would be out the door - or we can have a government which must report searches, and have citizens who can talk about them, and still manage to avoid living in an armed camp. Letting the government secretly find out anything about anyone is not a precondition for security. I'd say it's the opposite. Is it scary that citizens might have secrets, and some of those citizens might be terrorists? Yes, but unaccountable government is scarier.

To whoever it was that asked, it's the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which has never denied a warrant. When dealing with the thugs who run other countries, our country probably needs the spying powers granted by the FISA, but turning them on citizens is another matter entirely.

Name ANYBODY whose rights were lost in the big Ashcroft Concentration Camp Roundup Jubilee, academically known as the Patriot Act. Hopefully, you will be smarter than a few folks and choose someone OTHER than an admitted terrorist and traitor.

Why? Why not choose Jose Padilla, who I think is a terrorist? Evidently, Ashcroft think so too. The point is, the amendments 4 through 8 of our Constitution are concerned primarily with the rights of the accused. Lots of times, the accused are actually guilty!

Libraries are usually government run, either through the county or city. If they want to look at your records, it seems they have the unfettered ability to do so since they own the books and the building. If all you great lovers of literature don't want the government to know what you are reading, go to a bookstore and buy it.

I wouldn't say unfettered. I doubt if, pre-9/11, one of my city councilmen could get a bug up his butt and go to the library demanding to know what I read just because the city owns it. I seriously doubt he could do so and also order the librarians not to speak about it. But even if he could, there's a huge difference, in my mind anyway, between letting the city have that kind of power, and giving it to the feds. The feds never owned the books.

Speaking of owning the books, my house is very small, my income is not huge, and my wife has a book habit that could choke a Boeing hangar. As noted earlier, buying every book one might want to read is just not possible for everyone.

Under federal law prior to the Patriot Act, any law enforcement agent could get a warrant to search a particular person's library records if a person could be identified, or even the entire library record if a particular person was not identified, upon a showing of probable cause.

Getting a warrant from a regular court and getting a warrant from a FISA court are two very different things. Gagging librarians is different from not gagging them.

To sum up, it's the secrecy. That's the problem. A rubber stamp court makes a mockery of division of powers, just as reporting to the wrong committee in Congress makes a mockery of oversight. I don't want to just trust what John Ashcroft and his minions are doing when the curtain is drawn.

A request: Someone recently posted here an excellent analysis of the PA which discussed in depth how it updated the old, telephone-specific language of wiretapping laws to include the internet. I had read almost all of it when my computer crashed, and now I don't remember where I got it. If you know what I'm talking about and know where to find it, please email me the info. Thanks.

[rick_reno]

v

[standingbear]

(burning the library card) well,thats that.i cant name any examples of exactly why i dont feel more free now.all i can say is-its a good thing if it catches a terrorist but in order for them to catch the terrorist,they are allowed to go "fishing".fishing meaning some armchair desk commando decides that you or i are reading the wrong books or suscribing to the wrong magazines or participating in an activity that is deemed unacceptable.you can then be secretly checked out with ALL the trimmings-bank accts,mail,internet..and nobody is allowed to tell you cause its a secret.you can be detained with no recourse,locked up and their aint nothing anybodys gonna do to help.its this that really bothers me.the fact it can be done.no accountability.your papers..please.

[Moparmike]

Lapidator, that link has some scary similarities. I generally hate the mindset of and the style of argument of "Progressives", but that hits too close to home. I have done some _very_ amature-ish research into the politics of pre-WWII Germany, and note some very disturbing similarities. Very little would have to change in order for more "ducks to get into their rows." Namely, certain power-hungry politicians with expert Propoganda Ministers....err, umm, Secretaries of the Press with a different slogan: "Do it for the future. Do it for the children."

Sie Papieren, bitte.:fire:

[spartacus2002]

Here's a scary thought for all those folks who say "well, the laws haven't been abused yet, so you aren't in danger."

Imagine if a Democrat won the White House in 2004, and appointed Hillary as Secretary of the Dept of Homeland Security.....:what:

[Sean Smith]

It would be more realistic to say that Hillary does the appointing in 2004 or 2008. :barf:

Off on a slight tangent... is it just me, or do Departments of Homeland Security and Patrot Acts sound Nazi-esque just based on the names? I wonder how different people would be reacting if they were called something bland and bureaucratic sounding? Or happy and harmless? It would be just as bad, but I bet Ashcroft et. al. could have cut the negative media coverage in half with some semantic fiddling.

"I'm going to vote Libertarian because of the Civil Service Coordination Bureau! You know they investigate mindcrimes, right?"

"I can't tell you how much I hate the Flowers and Puppies Act! Congress folded to that fascist Bush!"

[Bill Hook]

Ashcroft should consider a new career as a comedian, should the gig as AG (or is that People's Commisar/Reichsfuhrer of Justice?) doesn't work out.

[Ryder]

Hard to see how we can be considered more free than anytime in our history when prison numbers are at record numbers (2,000,000 plus). Seems to me like there's a prison in every county these days and the talk of building new ones continues. The most recent proposal here has some people in an uproar. But probably only because it's thier back yard. There is one already operating in Freeland (how's that for irony) which is the next town over. A whole half dozen miles down the road at least. Somebody needs to figure out how close it too close I guess.

One difference between us and the Nazi is that the authorities are now trying to sneak into unoccupied homes to gather evidence before hauling people away. Must have caught the plain clothes cops badly off-guard last summer when one of the three suspects who were not supposed to be home got away with his life. SWAT arrived late but they got the priveledge of dragging the two across the front yard by thier heels for our viewing pleasure. Really wierd how much that reminded me of my old hunting camp experiences. Smiles all around! You guys really should leave your masks on until the cameras are turned off... Hope that's helpful. Just trying to be a good patriot :)

[Orthonym]

Howzabout "Reichssicherheithauptamt?" Oh, Publius, you might try Eugene Volokh's site for info on differences between wired phones and Internet.

[Sam Adams]

I appreciate you playing Devil's Advocate or, if you are serious, debating your side of this issue in good faith. However, I (like others here) disagree with you regarding the Patriot Act.

The biggest point you made was that you wanted specific examples of how THR folks had been victimized by the Patriot Act. I think that this line of reasoning is a red herring. The point that people, both on THR and elsewhere, have made against this legislation is that it has an awful potential, not that it has already had an effect (and that is subject to debate, though I won't get into it). In case you either don't understand, or don't want to, let me illustrate by using a rather absurd example:

Suppose a law was passed that allowed immediate executions of anyone, citizen or not, without trial by any federal law enforcement official if such person questioned the authority of that federal official in any way whatsoever. Would the fact that no such executions had occurred as a result of this statute for a few months after its enactment really comfort you? I would hope not. Because such an action could be implemented at any time. Even if the administration that got such a measure passed was composed of entirely moral people who would never authorize or condone such a thing (quite a reach by itself, in ANY administration), such morality would not be a brake on the power of someone less moral in some future administration.

Let's now be a bit more realistic and look at some of the powers in the Patriot Act. Apparently, any time the Feds want to they can look at your library, internet, bookstore, etc. records merely by claiming that you were a terror suspect. No one could challenge such an accusation, whether valid or not, not even if the officer requesting such information was a bald-faced liar. The only check on such an action is a judge, the identity of whom no one seems to know. And his/her actions are not subject to review by ANY court - PERIOD! Bye-bye privacy, bye-bye 4th Amendment. Oh, and you can also be incarcerated without probable cause, without a hearing, without representation by an attorney - indefinitely - if the feds say that they suspect you are a terrorist or a member of a terrorist group. Your trial, if you even had one, would be in secret, and there'd be no appeals - PERIOD! You could even be executed, without Due Process (bye-bye 5th Amendment, 6th Amendment and possibly 8th). Oh, and the whole issue of which groups are terrorists brings up another issue: the AG can name terror groups, apparently without any review. Can't you see the NRA or JPFO or GOA named as a "terrorist group" by AG Chuck Schumer under President Hillary? That, Danimal, is the heart of the problem - not Ashcroft's or Bush's character, but the power that is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY being seized by the feds at the expense of our basic rights.

Wake up!

[buzz_knox]

Just because the federales haven't yet used their swoopy new powers to conduct a clandestine search of your home while you were picking up a pint of Haagen Dasz from the Quickie Mart doesn't mean that they don't now have the legal power to do so.

Memo to self: buy a case of flashbangs and place in the gun safe, bookshelf, etc. Good deterrence for burglars, nosy maintenance staff, and clandestine FBI pukes.

Besides, it ain't a booby trap if it's nonlethal, right? ;)

[Sam Adams]

I own a truck and if I had a mind to, I could go and run over a bunch of people. However, most people do not treat me with contempt and suspicion just because I have the power and means to do something evil. It.usually takes some sort of proof

I would second what Al Norris said about guns. Owning a gun in way too many newspapers and on way too many TV and cable stations is considered conclusive proof of attempted murder, if not murder itself. Owning several qualifies you for immediate demonization, and owning (gasp!) an EVIL ASSAULT RIFLE means you are the Spawn of Satan.

Danimal, are you that unimaginative, or have you merely got no recollection of current events since about 1970? Sorry to be so sarcastic, but making this particular statement on a gun board is asking for it.

[Tamara]

I'm sorry, I must've missed where I agreed with that line of logic.

Could you please show me? :confused:

[Sam Adams]

I addressed you because you had expressed sentiments similar to mine (and in opposition to Danimal's) regarding the ownership of guns as compared to trucks. Sorry for the confusion...my bad.

[DaveB]

C'mon, think about this. I found this on www.counterpunch.org. Respond to the allegations, please, and not the identity of the website.

"The gag order that violates the 1st Amendment right of speech, the 5th Amendment right to due process, and 6th Amendment right to counsel."

Secret Subpoenas - What Patriotism Means to Ashcroft, By ELAINE CASSEL

Last year, hacker extraordinaire Adrian Lamo broke into The New York Times web site. For his trouble, he faces a two-count federal indictment in New York, unauthorized access of a computer and unauthorized possession of "access devices" (LexisNexis database passwords).

Don't cry for Lamo, but cry for how the FBI and the Department of Justice are using the USA Patriot Act--surprise!-- to threaten journalists and obtain data under the USA Patriot Act.

The FBI has sent out letters to reporters who wrote about the Lamo case. The letters warn that subpoenas under the USA Patriot Act will be forthcoming for all of their notes, emails, interviews, content of conversations and investigations, and expense and travel reports related to stories they wrote about Lamo. The journalists are ordered to preserve these records for three months, this in spite of the fact that the articles were written a year ago.

Using the Patriot Act for forthcoming subpoenas is an effort to circumvent journalists' privilege of preserving confidential sources under the First Amendment. Furthermore, reporters who talk to anyone_including their editors or lawyers (!) about the subpoenas will be subject to criminal prosecution under the Act. The gag order that violates the 1st Amendment right of speech, the 5th Amendment right to due process, and 6th Amendment right to counsel.

The demand that journalists preserve their notes is being made under laws that require ISP's and other providers of electronic communications services to preserve, for example, e-mails stored on their service, pending a subpoena, under a statute modified by the USA-PATRIOT Act.

You thought the USA Patriot Act was just to be used to prosecute "terrorism"? Wrong! The Patriot Act was an Executive branch power grab that took place in an atmosphere of hysterical reaction to the September 11 hijackings. Ashcroft seized the day, while the Congress slept. The dirty little secrets of the extent of the Administration's intentions for the law are only just now coming to light.

More than likely, you won't know when the law is being used against you. We only know about these subpoenas because a Wired News reporter reported that the FBI contacted him, no doubt trying to get the word out before the gag order kicks in. Secret subpoenas, secret evidence, secret trials. That's patriotism today.


Elaine Cassel practices law in Virginia and the District of Columbia, teachers law and psychology, and follows the Bush regime's dismantling of the Constitution at Civil Liberties Watch. She can be reached at: ecassel1@cox.net

db

[Balog]

Danimal wrote:

Likewise, if you have to go through additional security measures at the airport - as annoying as they are - does not mean you are less free.

I don't have to drive, and you don't have to fly.

Both are conveniences and not rights.

And what do you consider as "rights" then? If we cannot drive or fly without being subject to random searches [and seizure of property considered "threatening" like a pocket knife], then what exactly was the point of the 4'th A? Is walking down the street without being stopped and searched a "privilege?"
And you still haven't answered the points raised regarding the ability of the State to hold "terror suspects" [like meth dealers:rolleyes: ] without any of the Constitutional safegaurds. You've mocked the people who's rights have been violated, but not answered the question. And I'm sorry, but saying "he confessed to being guilty, therefore it's ok that we violated his rights" is just silly.

[Balog]

Oh, let me remind all here that it took around five years for the first ruling on the NFA. To the question, "what has it done to you" I can only answer...
Nothing. Yet. That I know of.

[Al Norris]

http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel10012003.html

October 1, 2003

Secret Subpoenas
What Patriotism Means to Ashcroft
By ELAINE CASSEL

Last year, hacker extraordinaire Adrian Lamo broke into The New York Times web site. For his trouble, he faces a two-count federal indictment in New York, unauthorized access of a computer and unauthorized possession of "access devices" (LexisNexis database passwords).

Don't cry for Lamo, but cry for how the FBI and the Department of Justice are using the USA Patriot Act--surprise!-- to threaten journalists and obtain data under the USA Patriot Act.

The FBI has sent out letters to reporters who wrote about the Lamo case. The letters warn that subpoenas under the USA Patriot Act will be forthcoming for all of their notes, emails, interviews, content of conversations and investigations, and expense and travel reports related to stories they wrote about Lamo. The journalists are ordered to preserve these records for three months, this in spite of the fact that the articles were written a year ago.

Using the Patriot Act for forthcoming subpoenas is an effort to circumvent journalists' privilege of preserving confidential sources under the First Amendment. Furthermore, reporters who talk to anyone_including their editors or lawyers (!) about the subpoenas will be subject to criminal prosecution under the Act. The gag order that violates the 1st Amendment right of speech, the 5th Amendment right to due process, and 6th Amendment right to counsel. .

The demand that journalists preserve their notes is being made under laws that require ISP's and other providers of electronic communications services to preserve, for example, e-mails stored on their service, pending a subpoena, under a statute modified by the USA-PATRIOT Act.

You thought the USA Patriot Act was just to be used to prosecute "terrorism"? Wrong! The Patriot Act was an Executive branch power grab that took place in an atmosphere of hysterical reaction to the September 11 hijackings. Ashcroft seized the day, while the Congress slept. The dirty little secrets of the extent of the Administration's intentions for the law are only just now coming to light.

More than likely, you won't know when the law is being used against you. We only know about these subpoenas because a Wired News reporter reported that the FBI contacted him, no doubt trying to get the word out before the gag order kicks in. Secret subpoenas, secret evidence, secret trials. That's patriotism today.

Elaine Cassel practices law in Virginia and the District of Columbia, teachers law and psychology, and follows the Bush regime's dismantling of the Constitution at Civil Liberties Watch. She can be reached at: ecassel1@cox.net
What with a couple of meth dealers being prosecuted under that Act for WMD, now this.

And so it begins....