Homeland Insecurity/Patriot Act

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I have noticed that their exist numerous civil libertarians that beat the Patriot Act drum over and over. I am still waiting to see problems manifest themselves.

The USA has imposed civil restrictions during times of war during the past, and has lifted them afterward. Has government power grown? I can not argue that it has not. Is the current effort for homeland security foolproof? Hardly.

But the US has thrown off tyrranical laws in the past, and if this Patriot Act turns into one, then we will throw it off as well.

Without the Patriot Act we had Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian etc....With the Patriot Act we have Jose Padilla, the Shoe Bomber, Gitmo......Where are the violations of civil liberties? I think this proves that their exist sufficient laws for dishonorable people to act dishonorably. What about honorable people?

Was the Patriot Act necessary? I do not know.

Has it been successful? No conclusive proof. However, we have not had another attack.

I trust Ashcroft and that trust has not been violated. He is very straight-forward about the implementation of the act. He has explained and debunked the myths. As far as I know, no one I know has been impacted. Any proof of violations?

The primary function of the federal government, as given by the constitution, is to defend against enemies (national Security). The category of enemy we now fight against is a group of individuals with no nation-state who freely infiltrate our open borders to inflict harm on the citizens.

 

[tyme]

There are lots of problems with the patriot act. And those problems do affect you and large numbers of other people who aren't necessarily terrorists.

http://www.brunei-online.com/bb/thu/nov13w15.htm
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2003/nov/14/111410400.html

Perhaps you think bribery of strip-club owners and personal banking transactions should fall within the purview of legitimate anti-terrorism laws?

 

[WvaBill]

We haven't had another attack because (a) it takes a lot of planning for a major attack, (b) the major players in terror have been busy, and (c) we have many targets exposed on their home turf. Homeland Security is a largely monolithic org which will probably, due to its size and centralization, prove less effective than if agencies had remained independent.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Tyme
So you are using Carter of all people at a foreign conference published by AP on a Borneo website? Please. This is the guy that stood there while our embassy was trashed and Americans were held hostage. Where was he for their civil liberties?

We are now responsible for what other dictators do to their subjects? Please.

A member of a home owners association had to provide to a bank her name and SSN. Yeah, she is on the way to the gulag!

The West has always fought Washington. That will not change.

I want to know about real damages. These hiccups will be cured as they happen.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

WvaBill. I do not disagree with you. There are numerous ways we can improve security. Has the Patriot Act damaged you or others that you know of? If it is tyranny, do you think we can turn it back?

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

This just in.....

U.N.: Al Qaeda Trying to Use WMDs


Saturday, November 15, 2003

UNITED NATIONS — The Al Qaeda (search) terror network is determined to use chemical and biological weapons and is restrained only by the technical difficulties of doing so, a U.N. expert panel said in a confidential report.


Sanctions on supporters of Al Qaeda and Afghanistan's former Taliban (search) rulers appear to be too limited to prevent them from obtaining weapons and explosives, said the report, obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

"The risk of Al Qaida acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction also continues to grow," the experts said. "Undoubtedly Al Qaeda is still considering the use of chemical or bio-weapons to perpetrate its terrorist actions."

The only thing holding Al Qaeda back from using chemical and biological weapons "is the technical complexity to operate them properly and effectively," the report said.

The five-member expert group led by Michael Chandler of Britain said it believes this is the main reason why Al Qaeda is still trying to develop new conventional explosive devices, such as bombs that can evade scanning machines.

The report is the second by the expert group established in January by the U.N. Security Council (search) to monitor implementation of sanctions against 272 individuals and entities linked to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime. The sanctions include freezing assets, a travel ban, and an arms embargo.

The experts said the bans were failing to stop Usama bin Laden's supporters, primarily because governments weren't enforcing sanctions and Al Qaeda and the Taliban had found ways to circumvent them.

Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen reported the arrest of individuals linked to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, yet in most cases they didn't submit the names to be put on the sanctions list, the report said.

The report cited an investigation of two men on the U.N. list of terrorist financiers, Ahmed Idris Nasreddin (search) and Youssef Nada (search), whose bank accounts have been frozen but whose other assets including residential or commercial property in Campione d'Italia and Lugano, Switzerland, and Milan, Italy, have not been touched.

On Jan. 28, it said, Nada traveled from Campione d'Italia to Vaduz, Liechtenstein, in violation of the travel ban and applied to change the name of two of his companies that were on the sanctions list.

While "important progress has been made toward cutting off Al Qaeda financing," the report said serious loopholes remain that enable the terrorist network to funnel money to operatives.

"Al Qaeda continues to receive funds it needs from charities, deep pocket donors, and business and criminal activities, including the drug trade," it said.

It said Al Qaeda has shifted much of its financial activities to areas in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia that lack the resources or the resolve to closely regulate such activity."

The experts said they participated in a series of international and European discussions on efforts to curb trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.

 

[WvaBill]

In other words, the legal protection that a court must determine that there is probable cause of criminal activity before a search or seizure can be made is totally discarded here. If the FBI thinks the information might contribute to an investigation, whatever the target’s activity might be, legal or not, the FBI can simply go search and seize. (And under the new "sneak and peek" provisions, they can do so without you ever knowing it.)

One reading of the Pariot Act

New definitions of terrorism expand scope of surveillance. One new definition of terrorism and three expansions of previous terms also expand the scope of surveillance. They are 1) § 802 definition of "domestic terrorism" (amending 18 USC §2331), which raises concerns about legitimate protest activity resulting in conviction on terrorism charges, especially if violence erupts; adds to 3 existing definition of terrorism (int'l terrorism per 18 USC §2331, terrorism transcending national borders per 18 USC §2332b, and federal terrorism per amended 18 USC §2332b(g)(5)(B)). These new definitions also expose more people to surveillance (and potential "harboring" and "material support" liability, §§ 803, 805).

This was from another

Would you know if Section 215 had been used on you? Nope. The person made to turn over the records is gagged and cannot disclose the search to anyone.

And that was from a third

So has it "damaged" me? No more than the abridgement of any civil right.

I believe that it was Justice Brandeis who warned that our liberty was not threatened by despots, but by "well meaning men of zeal" who will incrementally erode our freedoms. I believe he was referring to freedom of press. But the upshot was a warning to resist marginal infringements on liberty to prevent irreversible tyranny.

So in the sense that I believe my liberty is less secure, yes, I have been damaged.

If the information I have about the Patriot Act is incorrect, I am ready to be convinced. I did not locate any info. in my albeit brief, but earnest search, which contradicted the above.

Why subject US citizens to increased scrutiny after 9/11? Both the attacks on WTC were by Islams of middle-eastern descent. Many illegally in this country. I'm not profiling but stating facts presented. Focus on non-citizens and uncontrolled immigration.

What willl the Patriot Act grow into? Is it only limited to regulations of Fed LE agencies pushing the envelope of the court system? Patriot kinda redefines judicial review. Will it mushroom like EPA, OSHA, SSA, etc? If people feel secure will there be a will to go back?


Edited to add:

7.62:
your latest post reinforces "Why subject US citzens to additional scrutiny?" Out of 280 million there were what, 2 identified terrorists? One of them was in Afghanistan. Would you want the RKBA to be weighed with so little tolerance?

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Why subject US citizens to increased scrutiny after 9/11? Both the attacks on WTC were by Islams of middle-eastern descent. Many illegally in this country. I'm not profiling but stating facts presented. Focus on non-citizens and uncontrolled immigration.

Bingo. Until we can overcome the PC nature of this problem, then we will continue to remove liberties.

 

[JimP]

again.... How many of you have actually read the act???

I'd rather not worry about someone's library book than ensure a terrorists ability to kill thousands.

Much ado over nothing. The fact that the ACLU is against it ought to be a red flag for us.

 

[Justin]

Why is it that so many people seem to think that the litmus test for how onerous a law is must be derived from the number of people that get shoved into an oven because of it?

 

[MicroBalrog]

I'd rather not worry about someone's library book

So no Paladin Press for me?

 

[jimpeel]

We were assured that the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T. would only be used against foreign nationals who were terrorists and not against American citizens. Yet two American citizens sit in solitary confinement, incommunicado, with no legal representation allowed to them as this is written. All laws, once passed, will be taken to their farthest extreme and wildest interpretation by the authorities.

Look at what is happening to the guy who is being charged for having "weapons of mass destruction" for selling drugs that have a potential, if taken to excess, to cause death.

 

[Chris Rhines]

I trust Ashcroft...

Enough said.

- Chris