Revisiting the Patriot Act

[merphie]

Here is what I have so far on an article I am writing. Forgive me, It's a rough draft. Comments?

----------------
The law passed with little debate 45 days after September 11, 2001 called HR3162 or "USA Patriot Act" is attacking our rights. [Source: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html] The Patriot Act is based on a bill called “The Anti-Terrorism Law of 2001” with the compromise of a sunset of some of the most dangerous sections in December 2005. The government has been trying to pass such measures for a long time but didn’t have the support afforded to them by 9/11 to pass such bills.

The politicians want the people to think this law helps secure the USA against terrorist. In fact, this law makes our country a more dangerous place because it clearly infringes on the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights. You would not even know you are under surveillance.

The Forth amendment protects the citizens from unreasonable search and seizures and requires a warrant signed by a judge supported by probable cause to perform any search. Sections 215 and 216 of the USA Patriot Act are written in such a way to allow the FBI to conduct a search on anything about a person. Including your medical records to your library records. No one is allowed to notify you of the search before or after under these sections. They only have to think you could possibly be up to terrorist activities. Just think of someone accusing you of terrorist activities as revenge. They no longer need probable cause or a warrant. They only need to get permission from a judge in the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The Fifth Amendment says no person shall answer for a crime unless under indictment of a Grand Jury, double jeopardy, or self-incrimination. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused will have a public and speedy trial with defense counsel for his defense. Anyone who does not appear to act as a citizen or violates any state or federal law can be labeled an “enemy combatant” under section 802. You can be obtained indefinitely with no access to a lawyer with this status. There have been several examples of this already.

Furthermore, they can designate a group as “domestic terrorist” under Section 411 and 802. This allows the government to act against any group it might find offensive. A demonstration on any topic could fall under the vague definitions.

The CIA is given the given the power to share intelligence on domestic groups. This action is forbidden under their charter.

 

[Thumper]

Technicaly, it's not the Patriot Act.

It's the USA PATRIOT Act.

The letters stand for 'Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism'.

 

[merphie]

Technicaly, it's not the Patriot Act.

It's the USA PATRIOT Act.

The letters stand for 'Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism'.

A lot of people call it the "Patriot Act". I was trying to use common language so people would understand what I am talking about.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Technicaly, it's not the Patriot Act.

It's the USA PATRIOT Act.

The letters stand for 'Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism'.

I would have called it "Striking Hard to Inhibit Terrorism".

 

[Thumper]

A lot of people call it the "Patriot Act". I was trying to use common language so people would understand what I am talking about.

Understandable.

Otherwise, I like what you've written... But, then again, I'm a little too biased when it comes to the government expanding its power at the expense of our natural liberties.

 

[merphie]

Understandable.

Otherwise, I like what you've written... But, then again, I'm a little too biased when it comes to the government expanding its power at the expense of our natural liberties.

Then we agree on that position. I am writing the article for a local publication. I am trying to stay away from rhetoric BS and stick on the facts.

Do you think I have missed anything? For that matter does anyone see anything I have missed?

 

[Thumper]

One thing I remember is that the USA PATRIOT Act was supposed to only apply to terrorists. However, Patriot provisions were used against the Mafia in Las Vegas, and against abortion protesters in Wisconsin (?). Unfortunately, I have links for neither of these bits of information.

As someone who studies terrorism, we do know some things about regime type and terrorist activity. Autocracies are more likely to be hit by domestic terrorists, but are better able to crack down on them once it happens. Liberal democracies are more likely to be hit by foreign terrorists, but have a tough time sttopping them once they get started. It has to do with the norms of liberalism. Logically, moving this country more towards the autocratic end will decrease the likelihood of being attacked by foreign terrorists. However, the move will increase the chance of domestic attacks, especially since the likelihood of unrest increases with increased repression in a democracy. The whole tradition of civil liberties thing.

Oops. I think I just went off topic.

 

[merphie]

One thing I remember is that the USA PATRIOT Act was supposed to only apply to terrorists. However, Patriot provisions were used against the Mafia in Las Vegas, and against abortion protesters in Wisconsin (?). Unfortunately, I have links for neither of these bits of information.

As someone who studies terrorism, we do know some things about regime type and terrorist activity. Autocracies are more likely to be hit by domestic terrorists, but are better able to crack down on them once it happens. Liberal democracies are more likely to be hit by foreign terrorists, but have a tough time sttopping them once they get started. It has to do with the norms of liberalism. Logically, moving this country more towards the autocratic end will decrease the likelihood of being attacked by foreign terrorists. However, the move will increase the chance of domestic attacks, especially since the likelihood of unrest increases with increased repression in a democracy. The whole tradition of civil liberties thing.

Oops. I think I just went off topic.

Interesting thought. Do you mind if I use that idea in my article?

I haven't found anyting about Abortion but there is plenty of other things. The Wikipedia has a good entry on it.

Wikipedia Link

 

[CapelDodger]

from Thumper:

One thing I remember is that the USA PATRIOT Act was supposed to only apply to terrorists. However, Patriot provisions were used against the Mafia in Las Vegas ...

As I recall, RICO laws were meant to be used against the Mafia, and have subsequently been used against business fraud. Give an inch ...

 

[merphie]

from Thumper:As I recall, RICO laws were meant to be used against the Mafia, and have subsequently been used against business fraud. Give an inch ...

At least under RICO they still had to prove their case.

 

[merphie]

The Unpatriotic Act

Revised Rough Draft
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The 342 page Bill HR3162 passed with little debate in 45 days after September 11, 2001. It is called “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act)” (Patriot Act) and it’s a serious attack on our civil rights. [Source: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html] The Patriot Act is based on a bill called “The Anti-Terrorism Law of 2001”. The main difference was the addition of a sunset provision on some the sections that expire in December 2005. The government has been trying to pass such measures for a long time but didn’t have the support afforded to them by 9/11 to pass them. The Patriot Act is an expansion of the 1996 “Anti-Terrorism” Act signed into law by former President Bill Clinton.

The politicians want the people to think this law helps secure the USA against terrorist. In fact, this law makes our country a more dangerous place because it clearly infringes on the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says “Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect . . .” [Source: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207]. The ACLU is actively fighting the Patriot Act. Their efforts have not been public knowledge until recently because sections under the Patriot Act suppressed the details of the challenge. [Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A51423-2004Apr28&notFound=true]

The Forth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures and requires a warrant signed by a judge supported by probable cause to perform any search. Sections 215 and 216 of the USA Patriot Act are written in such a way to allow the FBI to conduct a search on anything about a person from your medical records to your library records. No one is allowed to notify you of the search before or after. You could be under surveillance right now and not know it. They only have to think you could possibly be up to or associated with terrorist activities. They no longer need probable cause or a warrant. The only need is to get permission from the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Just think of a neighbor accusing you of terrorist activities as revenge.

A University of Buffalo associate art professors house was blocked off and his person effect seized because of alleged violation of Section 175 of “the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989” which the Patriot Act greatly expanded. [Source: http://www.newfarm.org/news/0604/061104/bio_artist.shtml] The equipment he said was used in his art is used to extract DNA from store bought food to detect genetically modified grains and organisms. This is basic biology lab equipment.

The Fifth Amendment says no person shall answer for a crime unless under indictment of a Grand Jury, no double jeopardy, and no self-incrimination. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused will have a public and speedy trial with defense counsel for his defense. Anyone who does not appear to “act as a citizen” or violates any state or federal law can be labeled an “enemy combatant” under section 802 of the Patriot Act. You can be detained indefinitely without access to a lawyer with this status. There have been several examples of this already. [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act]

Furthermore, they can designate a group as “domestic terrorist” under Section 411 and 802. This allows the government to act against any group it might find offensive. A demonstration group or organization on any topic would fall under such vague definitions. Charges were filed against Adam McGaughey who is the creator of the web site SG1archives.com this year. This is a web site dedicated to the fans of the TV series Stargate SG-1. His web site has generated thousands of dollars in DVD sells through Amazon.com. He was accused of being the head of an international conspiracy against the Motion Picture Association. The FBI used the Patriot Act against Mr. McGaughey to obtain his financial records and seize his computer equipment. His FBI-damaged computer equipment was returned eight months later. This occurred over the alleged violation of copyright laws. [Source: http://www.sg1archive.com/nightmare.shtml]

The Justice Department is now drafting a sequel bill dubbed “Patriot Act II”. This will include more civil right violations. The draft called “The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003” was leaked out and will allow; your citizenship to be arbitrarily revoked, deport legal foreign residents, create a national DNA database of all citizens, and wire-taps/Internet monitoring on anyone for 15 days without a warrant or probable cause. It would even grant immunity to the government, police, or neighbors even if the information provided were wrong.

The Patriot Act has already been used on none-Terrorist cases. In Las Vegas a strip-club owner was subjected to monitoring for a bribery case. A report in Newsweek the Treasury Department shows searches were conducted on 4,261 money-laundering cases with no ties to terrorism.

This law has been used in hundreds of cases involving drug offenses with no connection to terror activities. [Source: http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/reader/0,1854,567051,00.html] The Justice Department has suggested the tools afforded by the Patriot Act will be used against all criminal cases.

We should all write to our representatives in Congress to oppose any new legislation that threatens our freedom.

 

[CapelDodger]

I find it remarkable that US principles can be kicked aside so easily under the stress of terrorism, which, in the greater scheme, is a pretty minor threat to society. US society was under much greater stress during the Depression without this sort of reaction. Then there was an assumption that US principles could get the country through - even if those principles weren't always applied at a local level.

 

[Patrick]

Here is what I have so far on an article I am writing. Forgive me, It's a rough draft. Comments?

How about including a few facts from outside the left blogolooneysphere?

Some Patriot Act facts:

- The Patriot Act dismantled the politically correct infamous intelligence wall, which if it had been done earlier, say in the Clinton administration, probably would have prevented 9/11. The "wall" itself was consistent with the Clinton era view of al qaeda as an ordinary criminal problem.

- the Act updated anachronistic parts of the law that hadn't caught up with technology. Twenty years ago, noting the existence of mobile phones, congress extended wire taps to persons, but not in FISA cases. The Act corrects that.

- Section 215, the nightmare of the aluminum hat crowd. National security investigations would have the right to supoena business records - the power that has been allowed for years for criminal investigations, under FISA. This is what the lefties at the ACLU said would have people checking your library records. Number of times the Act has been used to check anyone's library records? As of september 2004 - a big, fat, perfectly round ZERO.

- Sneak and peak warrants: this allows searches and delayed notification. This has actually been used for many years preceding the patriot act. It evolved through federal case law - the Act merely uniformly codified it. It can be used only if there is a showing that lack of a delay could cause endangerment of life, facilitation of flight, destruction of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, etc.

In sum, you can take off your aluminum hat, no black helicopters will swoop down for your library records.

 

[shanek]

I find it remarkable that US principles can be kicked aside so easily under the stress of terrorism, which, in the greater scheme, is a pretty minor threat to society. US society was under much greater stress during the Depression without this sort of reaction.

Actually, that isn't the case. The Great Depression led directly to the so-called "Farm Act," where Congress and FDR declared America to be in a "state of emergency." This, therefore, "allowed" the government to infringe on our rights in many ways, only temporary you understand, just until this crisis was over.

Of course, by the time the Depression was over we were hip deep in World War II. Gotta fight those Nazis, you know; and those evil Japs, too. That's why we gotta put them into these internment camps, even if they're American citizens. After all, we're in a state of emergency. But it's just until the war's over. Promise.

Then after that it was Communism, and the state of emergency said, well, we just HAVE to blacklist these commies who are out to destroy our way of life. Sure, many of them are American citizens, but this is a state of emergency. Sacrifices have to be made. But it's only temporary. Really.

Then came the Cuban Missle Crisis, Vietnam, the Energy Crunch, we had ready excuses for the continuation of the state of emergency until communism fell. Then, within only a few short years, we found the "next Hitler" in the form of Saddam Hussein. But that's just a coincidence. Riiiight...the state of emergency continues.

Now, the terrorists are proving a ready scapegoat. And they're a great one, too, for they, like the Communists before them, are a vague threat that can be seen to be everywhere at once. And here we are, still in the state of emergency, still facing the greatest threat to our way of life since...well, since the last one.

Sorry, people, but 9/11 changed NOTHING. Everyone says how 9/11 changed things and so we now have to sacrifice this and that; horse hockey. NOTHING AT ALL has changed.

 

[merphie]

How about including a few facts from outside the left blogolooneysphere?

Because there is no evidence it would have prevented 9-11 no better than 'Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996" after Oklahoma City Bombing.

It is possible the law could have provided needed help in some areas. I am concerned with the damage it can do.

 

[BPSCG]

The Forth amendment protects the citizens from unreasonable search and seizures and requires a warrant signed by a judge supported by probable cause to perform any search. Sections 215 and 216 of the USA Patriot Act are written in such a way to allow the FBI to conduct a search on anything about a person. Including your medical records to your library records. No one is allowed to notify you of the search before or after under these sections.

That's not really accurate. At the very least, it's misleading.

...the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement does not require notice at all. Notice is, instead, one of a host of sub-constitutional procedures attendant to searches (e.g., that warrants be executed between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M., that agents knock and announce their presence before entering, etc.). These have long been subject to avoidance if compliance would be foolhardy (e.g., if people inside the premises to be searched are armed, it would endanger agents to search when they are likely be awake, or alert them that a search is about to happen). Thus, it is unsurprising that long before Patriot, another procedural rule, delayed notice, was approved by judicial decisions in just about every jurisdiction. Patriot here does not come close to undermining Fourth Amendment protections — the agents still need to go to a judge with probable cause to get permission to search. The act merely standardizes the hash of varying delayed notice standards that already existed.

Link. Author is Andrew C. McCarthy, former federal prosecutor who led the 1995 terrorism case against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman,

 

[The Don]

Actually, that isn't the case. The Great Depression led directly to the so-called "Farm Act," ........

......Sorry, people, but 9/11 changed NOTHING. Everyone says how 9/11 changed things and so we now have to sacrifice this and that; horse hockey. NOTHING AT ALL has changed.

That's the premise of this BBC series, that the goverment is seeking to maintain a sense of terror to enable them to govern more readily.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/listing...filename=20041020/20041020_2100_4224_40078_60

 

[BPSCG]

That's the premise of this BBC series, that the goverment is seeking to maintain a sense of terror to enable them to govern more readily.

From the link in the previous message:

But just as the dreams weren't true, neither are these nightmares.

This series shows dramatically how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. ...

They would create a hidden network of evil run by the Soviet Union that only they could see. The Islamists were faced by the refuasl of the masses to follow their dream and began to turn to terror to force the people to 'see the truth'.

I don't get the BBC here so I'll have to plead ignorance on the details of the program.

But are the producers of this program trying to claim that the Soviet Union was not evil?

And that al Qaeda and the New York and Washington attacks were an illusion?

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: Revisiting the Patriot Act

That's not really accurate. At the very least, it's misleading.

Link. Author is Andrew C. McCarthy, former federal prosecutor who led the 1995 terrorism case against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman,

I wasn't referring to Notification when serving the warrant. More like they don't have to have one. I have rewritten a lot of it. I just haven't posted it yet.

 

[tedly]

That's the premise of this BBC series, that the goverment is seeking to maintain a sense of terror to enable them to govern more readily.

Oddly enough, that's my take on the premise of Fahrenheit 9/11, which seems to have raised so much ire here.

edited to add:

The idea isn't that the attacks don't exist, because alQaida is certainly real, but that the tools to use against them are those of local and international police work, not the tools of the police state, and certainly not infantry or air strikes.