John Ascroft: America is freer today !

[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."

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,

Or


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]

Gentlemen

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]

I can give you one we've ALL lost

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?

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.