John Ascroft: America is freer today !

[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 ....

 

[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 citizenship

I 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 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 a danger to the national security."

But that's all merely an inconvenience ....

 

[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 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 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 ...

 

[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…â€). 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 dunkâ€, 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 dunkâ€, 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]

Buzz -

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.

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.