Help stop Patriot II

[shanek]

The PATRIOT Act is scary enough; now, John Ashcroft, who never saw a Constitutional violation he didn't like, is working to make it even worse.

Fortunately, the ACLU has put up a web page where you can fax your representatives for free, as well as get more info on Patriot II.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11817&c=206&Type=s

 

[corplinx]

I want to see the details of Patriot II first. All I have seen so far are leaked versions of dubious origin.

For the record, I disagree with your characterization of Mr. Ashcroft. When anti-gun advocates have tried to raid federal gun databases he has held steadfastly. First they tried to raid the records because they wanted to see if dead terrorists had bought guns. Now chicago has tried to raid the records to try to get evidence for its frivolous lawsuit against gun makers.

Of the constitutionally dubious parts of Patriot I, the arguement against each of them stems from "what if this is abused". I think there should be a Patriot II and it should ensure proper redundant oversight for the provisions of the first bill that are giving people nervous fits.

Mr. Ashcroft is ugly, a boring speaker, and very uncompelling. However, I won't buy the meme that he is some bill of rights raider that others buy wholeheartedly without some real evidence. To be honest, I think he is the most benign attorney general we have had in a while. I think he is just the lightning rod for negative criticism that won't stick to Bush. He is no Robert Kennedy but he is a hell of a lot better than Reno.

 

[Guest]

He's far more attractive than Reno, that's for sure.

 

[corplinx]

He's far more attractive than Reno, that's for sure.

I think you are on to something, when was the last time we had an attorney general more attractive than a dog's ass?

 

[Wolverine]

I want to see the details of Patriot II first. All I have seen so far are leaked versions of dubious origin.

Precisely.

 

[shanek]

For the record, I disagree with your characterization of Mr. Ashcroft.

Just look at his record in the Senate. Look at his record since he's taken the job of Attorney General. He's a close ally of Pat Robertson, and was the senator who proposed the "Charitable Choice" proposal, and is almost certainly the driving force behind Bush's "faith-based" initiative. He's a consummate Drug Warrior (largely responsible for the mandatory drug sentences which clog our prisons and force the early release of rapists, murderers, and child molestors), has a history of promoting racial profiling, on and on and on. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a bigger enemy of liberty than Ashcroft.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

With the helpful links of people on the forum, I managed to finally free some time and look through the original Act.

Several of the provisions that were listed as potentially troublesome I did not have a large problem with -- for example, "rolling" warrants that are issued against a person and "follow" that person from phone to phone. As long as the initial warrant is based on probable cause and granted by a proper court, this seems reasonable -- especially in response to some persons, such as suspected drug dealers, for example, changing mobile phones on a regular basis in order to thwart warrants issued for a specific phone.

Likewise, a lesser standard to obtain the numbers being called from a number -- with no disclosure of the content of the communication -- does not seem problematic.

The law that allowed searches without notification would be reasonable on espionage charges/investigations -if- the Courts oversee this with a close eye. However, my understanding (from insufficient reading so far) is that the so-called "secret" court that hears this kind of thing is criticised for being a rubber stamp for law enforcement -- if true, then obviously major problems exist.

I was and am concerned with a few provisions -- first, the key terms in a few areas are undefined, and I cannot locate any federal case law that defines them. If defined narrowly, I think that the law is defensible, though I would prefer stricter limits in several areas. If defined broadly, I think that the terms/provisions are unconstitutional and overboard.

The largest problems are with the sections against non-citizens who are suspected of espionage. The standards relating to them are especially loose and ill-defined (or undefined, as above). While, as non-citizens, they may not have a claim to the same rights (precisely) under the Constitution, the law (IMO) goes to far here. I understand the need for additional security, but the lax standards that seem to be applied are troublesome, at least on a first read-through. These sections appear the worst, but are limited to non-citizens. I am not well versed enough in Constitutional law to know whether that is a truly valid distinction in criminal investigation.

The reports I have seen of Patriot II are all too nebulous -- the news version of ICanSeeDemons. Legislation cannot be enacted without being presented in the House or Senate -- everyone will be able to see the actual bill if and when it is presented. At this point, it is idle speculation and is probably a case of rampant rumor gone amok.

NA

 

[Questioninggeller]

He's far more attractive than Reno, that's for sure.

Reno looked tougher though.

 

[shanek]

The largest problems are with the sections against non-citizens who are suspected of espionage. The standards relating to them are especially loose and ill-defined (or undefined, as above). While, as non-citizens, they may not have a claim to the same rights (precisely) under the Constitution,

Where does the Constitution say that? Rights are things that we have naturally, they're not granted to us by government or the Constitution. We all have them, citizen or not, and the Constitution is supposed to protect that.

The reports I have seen of Patriot II are all too nebulous

What about the detailed breakdown of it on the ACLU site?

Legislation cannot be enacted without being presented in the House or Senate -- everyone will be able to see the actual bill if and when it is presented.

The problem is, most of the really dangerous legislation isn't made into a bill itself. It's attached as a rider to a different bill. They could pass every single measure in Patriot II without ever actually making it a bill. Just attach the different measures as riders to other bills. This isn't a conspiracy theory; it happens all the time.

 

[zakur]

Reno looked tougher though.

Reno could kick Ashcroft's ass.

But then, we're talking about a man who runs screaming from calico cats.

 

[corplinx]

Reno could kick Ashcroft's ass.

Sure, physically. But nothing makes you laugh harder than hearing John Ascroft do the "mmmmm...... burger" from the Simpsons.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Where does the Constitution say that? Rights are things that we have naturally, they're not granted to us by government or the Constitution. We all have them, citizen or not, and the Constitution is supposed to protect that.

Re-read my qualifiers. Additionally, whether the rights exist or not, the way that those rights are enforced -- for example, through the exclusionary rule -- are not contained in the Constitution.

What about the detailed breakdown of it on the ACLU site?

Until there actually is some type of legislation proposed, guesswork based on leaked documents and rumor aren't enough for me to try a similar analysis. For me, I need the actual language and time to look over prior precedent before I can make anything close to a conclusion.

Again, I have concerns about several provisions in the bill, but I thjink that the failure to define several key terms is the most troubelsome aspect at the moment -- an expansive reading of some of the authority would be dangerous and insupportable, IMO.

The problem is, most of the really dangerous legislation isn't made into a bill itself. It's attached as a rider to a different bill. They could pass every single measure in Patriot II without ever actually making it a bill. Just attach the different measures as riders to other bills. This isn't a conspiracy theory; it happens all the time.

There are half a dozen groups that go over legislation for this type of rider, and -- while I would gladly support the end to all these types of riders (especially in the spending area, where the real abuses occur), the law cannot be passed in secret.

The original Patriot Act was certainly not passed in secret, for example.

NA

 

[shanek]

Re-read my qualifiers.

Okay; and I still stand by my statement. Nowhere does the Constitution require citizenship as a condition of having rights. Some particular rights, like the right to vote, have that coded into the language. But otherwise, the only time the Constitution even mentions US citizens is either when it's defining what a US citizen is or mentioning it as a qualification for Federal office. The word "citizen" appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights.

I think it was John Adams who said that all you had to do to have rights was to be a person and be here.

Until there actually is some type of legislation proposed, guesswork based on leaked documents and rumor aren't enough for me to try a similar analysis. For me, I need the actual language and time to look over prior precedent before I can make anything close to a conclusion.

No one's asking you to make a conclusion about a particular piece of legislation before it passes. But if you make it known how you feel about these issues now, you can help avoid or at least shape such legislation so that we don't have any further rights trampled on.

The original Patriot Act was certainly not passed in secret, for example.

I never said anything about it passing in secret.

 

[crackmonkey]

For God's sake, this is pure fiction. Why get hysterical over something that hasn't even been proposed?
This is the liberal equivalent of the "Clinton murdered Vince Foster" myth...

 

[American]

Some things haven't changed, and the government wouldn't want them to. This country is strong precisely because if you bust in my door, it's considered a violent act and I have a right to whack you hard for it, possibly killing you. I don't think that right is in any danger. The secret organizations that control our government would never take away that right.

You need to relax.

 

[shanek]

This country is strong precisely because if you bust in my door, it's considered a violent act and I have a right to whack you hard for it, possibly killing you. I don't think that right is in any danger.

Are you sure?

 

[corplinx]

For God's sake, this is pure fiction. Why get hysterical over something that hasn't even been proposed?
This is the liberal equivalent of the "Clinton murdered Vince Foster" myth...

Yes, everyone knows that ordering a murder and carrying it out are two different things.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I never said anything about it passing in secret.

You said that "most of the really dangerous legislation isn't made into a bill itself. It's attached as a rider to a different bill."

I was merely pointing out that the Patirot Act was not passed this way. Which really dangerous legislation were you thinking of?

NA

 

[shanek]

You said that "most of the really dangerous legislation isn't made into a bill itself. It's attached as a rider to a different bill."

And what about that says anything about it happening in secret?

I was merely pointing out that the Patirot Act was not passed this way.

I didn't say it was, but do you deny that Congress almost always attaches riders to bills to get their own measures passed with little to no debate?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I didn't say it was, but do you deny that Congress almost always attaches riders to bills to get their own measures passed with little to no debate?

I am getting the impression that you are taking every post of mine as some sort of attack on your position, whereas I came into it thinking that we were going to have a conversation.

We seem to be talking past each other - and it is probably my fault for being imprecise.

You seemed to indicate or imply that Patriot II might be "snuck" through Congress as riders on other bills.

You then said "most" of the "realky dangerous" legislation went through Congress this way.

My comments involved (1) Patriot I did not pass this way. That was not -- despite your denial -- an allegation that you said that it had passed that way, just a note in passing. If the original Patriot Act went through as legislation, I was wondering why you felt that Patriot II -- to the extent that it ever exists in future -- would be sent through Congress that way.

I did not ask that question directly, but was not looking for point-counterpoint, I was just interested in your reasons.

Since "most really dangerous legislation" goes through on riders, as you have stated above, I was also curious what legislation you were thinking of.

I know a ton of spending measures get tacked on that way - a dirty and distasteful practice IMO (an opinion that part of my snipped opinions hint at, above) - but I am wondering what you mean by really dangerous in this context (I had assumed measures impacting on civil liberties directly) and what laws you referred to.

I was not looking for an argument, nor have performed enough research on the "Patriot II" to speak to the alleged and/orleaked measures, I was curious.

I should probably not have posted anything, but several posters here helped me out with links when I was curious about the original legislation, and I thought that this was an appropriate place to mention the first Act, as the old thread has dropped back quite a ways.

I didn't say it was, but do you deny that Congress almost always attaches riders to bills to get their own measures passed with little to no debate?

This is a considerably different statement than the more provocative "most of the really dangerous legislation . . . [is] attached as a rider to a different bill."

NA