inkriminator

Patriot Act Being Used Against Common Criminals
Absolute power corrupts absolutely....works on a smaller scale too. This is the sort of inevietable [damn that word] outcome of such an emotional decision such as passing that abominable law. I can't believe Ashcroft was trying to pass Patriot Act II

SkanK0r

If we were lucky, this might teach congress to actually READ THE FUCKING LEGISLATION THEY SIGN INTO LAW.

But hey, you can't fix past mistakes unless you admit they're made, right? And politicians on BOTH side of the fence are notorious for never doing that.

Conclusion: We're all fucked.

Kabsnow

Congress was our last chance of intelligence before they signed it while bush is in office. but they signed it... and now we will all pay when America becomes a police state.

The_Dude

Hopefully, more cities will vote to disregard it (or not enforce it).

It was rushed in as a solution to the terroristic attacks using fear as a tactic and now we're even more screwed.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

MuadDib

Oh it gets better... Watch out kiddies here it comes again and this time its angry! THE PATRIOT ACT 2: BUSH STRIKES BACK!

http://www.immigration.com/newslette...anpatriot.html
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000544.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....html?referrer

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

maximusveritas

I think conservatives are still going to use the "it doesn't affect me, so its okay with me" argument.

rainheart

(Immitating the voice of that announcer from The Price is Right)
USA Citizen's - CMOOOOONNN UP!... to Canada.

Really tho', too much power held by the state and businesses... you guys are in for it.

sixate

And we have a winner.

I'm not a criminal so I could give a fuck less. If the government wants to watch me work 10-12 hours a day, eat, sleep, and go to the gym they're gonna get bored very fucking fast.

Although, it was intended for going after terrorists. They just shouldn't have lied about what they were going to use it for.

rgr22j

Wow, I had no idea that the Patriot Act was so misunderstood. Regarding the CNN article: judging from only the AP's (one-sided) report, it looks like either the journalist is attributing the Patriot Act too much power or law enforcement is jumping the gun. While the Patriot Act was intended to target terrorism, many of its provisions are desperately needed in combating crime in other areas, like the ability to "wiretap" e-mail headers. The government, however, cannot look at the contents (making it weaker than traditional wiretapping). Because of this, some of those provisions are being made into a new law, the VICTORY Act, which targets drug trafficking. Citing the Patriot Act in order to use those provisions is probably jumping the gun, but nonetheless certain provisions of the Patriot Act are (and should be) applicable to areas outside fighting terrorism.

You have to realize that many people are under the impression that the Patriot Act is the government's ticket to a police state. It isn't. Patriot II, for example, allows the FBI to get a "roving wiretap" on a cellular telephone from any district court in the country. Sound extreme? No. It's simply a reflection of technology: traditional phones don't move. Under the current legislation, if the FBI has a warrant for a wiretap on a cellular telephone in one district, the instant that phone moves into another district, the FBI must get a new warrant. For tracking drug runners, this is a needless hindrance (Patriot II is supposed to merge the Patriot and Victory Acts into a single bill).

I have my own theories for why the Patriot Act is so misunderstood, but I'll refrain. Instead, I'll point out that the out of 272 complaints (that are applicable to the Patriot Act) received at the Inspector General's Office, only 34 were deemed credible. The last I checked, 4 cases were decided, with 2 being valid and the other 2 being thrown out. According to the Justice Department, over 1000 complaints filed against the Patriot Act didn't actually apply to it, and were redirected appropriately. Unfortunately, for many people the Patriot Act is still some vague horrific bogeyman. That is not to say that the Patriot Act can't be abused (as those 2 cases proved), just that people are too quick to attribute anything and everything as an abuse of the Patriort Act.

-- Alvin

filtherton

My problem with the autorities abilities to conduct surveilance can be traced to cointelpro. It has been established by history that police and the feds can't be trusted to actually use these tools appropriately and responsibly. I object to any organization headed by john ashcroft having the ability to listen to what i say and read what i send in and e-mail. Regardless of what the Victory act targets, what it will be used for is really what is impotant. How long until the fbi starts spying on perfectly legal organizations, if only for the fact that they oppose the administration. They did it all the time during the civil rights movement. "Terrorists" and "drug pushers" like the SNCC were regularly targeted. All these acts set a bad precedent and further knock us off balance as we teeter above the slippery slope that is a mordern day police/surveilance state.

smooth

You've attributed the modifier 'roving' to the line being tapped instead of to the warrant.

"Roving" wiretaps grant the ability to tap all the phones an individual may use--not just a cell phone that moves from one area to the next. While this may be a reflection of technology in that people have more access to phone lines than they have in the past, such assertions don't detract from the very real threat the erosion of historical principles against government intrusion into our personal affairs.

Traditional warrants have been limited to specific times, places argets.

Investigators do look and listen to content--they then are supposed to ignore things they aren't investigating. This would not, of course, apply to crimes they become aware of while doing their official duty--similar to cases where an agent of the state (a fireman, for example) witnesses a crime at a house even if he were called there to extinguish a fire.

rgr22j

You're right -- I left off the communications surveillance on the person (as well as the phone). To me surveillance on multiple phone lines is moot, if the judge is willing to award a warrant for one phone line, then likely he is willing to award a second one for another phone line. This just simplifies (and codifies) the process. But, I can completely understand the fear that this lowers the amount of effort, so to speak, for the feds to have a blanket tap over a ridiculous amount of phones (which the target never intended to use). I suppose I trust the federal government and the system of checks and balances more than the average person, though.

-- Alvin

EDIT: Grammar errors (than/then).

SkanK0r

When I read that, big fat quotation marks are hanging around the "may" in this sentence:

"'Roving' wiretaps grant the ability to tap all the phones an individual <b>may</b> use"

MuadDib

Sorry, I have to disagree. Not only is the Patriot Act (1 & 2) a ticket to a police state, but they are inherently flawed as well. These "precautions" are entirely unneeded and border o unconstitutional. The ability to deport legalized citizens without trial is unacceptable as is the current way we treat our "prisoners of war" at Guatanamo Bay. Roving wiretaps are abusive of our constitutionally interpreted right to privacy. I won't go on a laundrylist, but this isn't simply a matter of "I'm not a bad guy so it won't effect me" and it is simply a matter that the government should not have certain rights over me. There are certain principles our government stand on and the horribly mislabeled Patriot Acts set a disturbing precident for our ability to set those principles aside in the name of fear.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Zeld2.0

Heh SkanK0r its funny because the "may" part can be interpreted by the government to limit certain things. I doubt they would but its funny because just a simple word thats missed in all these damn laws = loopholes and exploits for the top, while the majority suffer.

rgr22j

Which precautions are we talking about? The ACLU only has problems with 213, 215, and 216, and those are easily defended. Certainly the ACLU, no friend of Bush and Ashcroft, has pored over the Patriot Act more than any of us. You've left me with nothing to go on except broad assertions.

Also, in what way do you think we mistreat POWs at Guantanamo Bay? When I think of Gitmo, the only thing I can think of is, only in the United States can someone run a POW prison camp where even the prisoners gain weight. How fat are we as a nation when the US has to give each prisoner released from Gitmo a new pair of jeans, because on average each prisoner gains 15 pounds.

Last, which citizens are you referring to in that have been unlawfully deported? Padilla? Hamdi? The way they have been treated is abominable, yes. In fact, Bush's November 2001 presidential order directly forbids what is happening to them; why they were treated like that is, well, scandalous. But, not related to the Patriot Act.

-- Alvin

EDIT: PS: MuadDib, apologies if I sound challenging or offensive. I just want to hear an alternate point of view and you seem like you have a pretty well defined position opposite of me.

SkanK0r

Gotta go with Alvin here. Can you elaborate, MuadDib?

seretogis

I, for one, am saddened that the Patriot act is being used against such upstanding citizens as the friendly neighborhood meth-lab owner, and the nice guy that transports pipebombs across town.



By the way, why is someone who runs a meth lab only getting six months in prison?

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

SkanK0r

Seretogis, those people are SUSPECTS, not CONVICTS. It's that whole constitution thing. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold much water when you're chained to a water heater in a basement someplace in Guantanamo.

DownwardSpiral

In my opinion, the Patriot Act sucks. Why not just put the Bill of Rights into a paper shredder right now, eh?

__________________
"So Keep on Pretending.
Our Heavens Worth the Waiting.
Keep on Pretending.
It's Alright."

-- H.I.M., "Pretending"

MuadDib

As far as the first Patriot Act I am mostly referring to 213, 215, & 216 because I don't find most defenses of them adequate (I think those numbers are right, I didn't take the time to relook them up). Also our friend at Gitmo Bay are all suspected terrorists who are almost universally denied legal council and who's trials take place before military tribunal because they are considered POWs. The problem with this is that some of these "POWs" are US citizens and have a constitutional right to a fair and expediate trial as well as a right to not be cruelly or unusually punished. Now one can not really say what is happening to the prisoners there so it isn't necessarily that they are being mistreated but they very well could be. Furthermore, we have had inspectors (either UN or Amnesty, I can't remember) report that the POWs are being mistreated. This is even suspect according to rules of war. Finally, the majority of the prisoners though not US citizen ought to have the same rights in American court as we do. The thing is we consider these rights as fair and just treatment for all mankind and the way we treat those who we think oppose us really speaks volumes about our country. In reference to citizens being deported that would be made available under the Expanded Patriot Act that is currently being proposed. No one has fallen victim yet but it just gives the executive too much power and it clearly was against our founders intent to give the executive such power directly over the citizenry (ironically the presidents constituency)

Seretogis: That right why don't we just make all crimes capital crimes because there aren't degrees of statute violations? Drug makers and creators are not terrorists in the sense of the Patriot Acts intent nor in the minds of most members of congress. Though you could broadly interpret terrorism to incorporate drug makers and dealers, at that point you could really interpret it to anything.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

rgr22j

But why? In the cases of 213, 215, and 216 they either 1) require a judge's approval, or 2) simply accomodate new technology. Again, if the federal government wants to look at someone's library records, "sneak-and-peak" and inform them later, or tap their cellular telephone, the basic fact remains that they must prove that it's necessary and the target is a credible threat to a judge. There's still a legal process involved; they can't just go in and demand library records out of the blue if they don't like what books you're reading.
That's not true. Briefly Hamdi was held at Gitmo, but once discovered that he was an American citizen he was transferred to a prison in Norfolk, VA. John Walker Lindh was not imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, and neither was Jose Padilla. Padilla and Hamdi were both held too long without being charged, yes, but it doesn't have anything to do with the POWs at Gitmo.
Would you believe the International Red Cross? In January 2002, Urs Boegli, "chief Washington representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross," visited Gitmo and found no mistreatment of prisoners. "The Red Cross delegation leader told reporters that the impression of outside groups is not the same as those who have actually seen the camp, indicating there were some distortions." (CNN, January 22, 2002)
I'm not sure any country treats citizens and non-citizens equally. If they did, there wouldn't be a distinction. Especially in regards to war, the only rights any country is bound to uphold are the ones laid out in the Geneva Convention. In any case, the United States has by far the best record in the humane treatment of prisoners.
That brings up an interesting logistical problem. Where would we deport them to?

-- Alvin

almostaugust

Well said.

Nitro

Well that was then.
Quoting from ICRC http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0...V?OpenDocument

If you are a POW you go home after the war has ended. With the US' clever definition of this "war against terror" the "war" maybe never ends. The prisoners can look forward to a lenghty stay.

Nope! All international law applies not only the geneva convention.
Anyway the US in in breach of the convention as it denies the prisoners their rightful status of prisoner of war as the ICRC has allready pointed out on numerous occasions.
The visits of the ICRC in Gitmo are only allowed by the US on a good will basis while according to the convention they are a must. US Governement says that Gitmo prisoners are not POW and therefore are not protected by the convention.http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...020207-13.html

You got proof or just voicing a feeling? Good food and a roof over the head doesn't mean it's a picnic out there. It's a detention camp where people are held ouside of the law. To me that sounds pretty inhumane.

rgr22j

There is no such thing as "international law." Some countries are better than others at respecting it, others are not. Technically the US doesn't even have to respect the Geneva Convention, despite signing it, but typically most Western nations do. International law exists as purely as a political construct; believe me when I say that sovereign nations routinely flout "international law," laws which are not codified, voted on, or signed on by all member nations in any document anywhere.

You double back on yourself here; you say that the US must release the prisoners but for a clever twist of the tongue, defined a "War on Terror" that extended the "war," but then you say the White House doesn't define them as POWs. If the White House doesn't define them as POWs, then the Geneva Convention doesn't apply. Perhaps you can dispute their definition of the prisoners at Gitmo (which can be disputed), but under the current circumstances they are not in violation of the Geneva Convention.


You have proof that the US isn't? We have had the lowest death rate in POW camps of any nation in history, the highest rate of repatriation, and this whole thing about reconstructing Germany, Japan, and now Iraq after going to war with them.

-- Alvin

MuadDib

Saying that their is no such thing as international law is just a broken down fall back. There is international law, as is evidenced by the fact that US law schools push out thousands trained in that specific field every year, and, though there isn't some huge international jail, there are courts and trials and punishments and reparations. Sure, technically, the bug bad US is strong enough and still economically well-off enough to throw up the middle finger to such things, but I would think in the midst of all the political cartoons depicting Bush receiving a crow (in some form or another) from Chirac with an $87 billion price tag that we would have learned the fool-heartedness of such delusions of grandeur.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

seretogis

Some would say that ignoring 2/3 of someone's post while failing to provide evidence for your assertion on the first 1/3 is a "broken down fall back"..

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

chavos

I don't think john ashcroft needs to see me in the shower to give me the assumption that i'm not a criminal. i think he could just use the 4th and 6th ammendment, and shove the patriot act up his overly clenched ass. the government is fine, but i don't trust it more than it can prove itself to me. if a person like me cannot be distinguished from a terrorist with non-invasive means, it is doing something very farked up...

what troubles me most are provisions that take these kind of decisions and searches out of public view-i don't mind that we're tracking the emails of baddies, and searching their houses. but what the hell was so bad with going to a judge, showing probable cause and getting a warrant?

smooth

I read this a while back. Took me a minute but I figured it might be worth it to dig this back up:

Patriot Raid

By Jason Halperin, AlterNet
April 29, 2003

A month ago I experienced a very small taste of what hundreds of South Asian immigrants and U.S. citizens of South Asian descent have gone through since 9/11, and what thousands of others have come to fear. I was held, against my will and without warrant or cause, under the USA PATRIOT Act. While I understand the need for some measure of security and precaution in times such as these, the manner in which this detention and interrogation took place raises serious questions about police tactics and the safeguarding of civil liberties in times of war.

That night, March 20th, my roommate Asher and I were on our way to see the Broadway show "Rent." We had an hour to spare before curtain time so we stopped into an Indian restaurant just off of Times Square in the heart of midtown. I have omitted the name of the restaurant so as not to subject the owners to any further harassment or humiliation.

We helped ourselves to the buffet and then sat down to begin eating our dinner. I was just about to tell Asher how I'd eaten there before and how delicious the vegetable curry was, but I never got a chance. All of a sudden, there was a terrible commotion and five NYPD in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us.

"Go to the back, go to the back of the restaurant," they yelled.

I hesitated, lost in my own panic.

"Did you not hear me, go to the back and sit down," they demanded.

I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging in age from late-teens to senior citizen. One of the policemen pointed his gun point-blank in the face of the waiter and shouted: "Is there anyone else in the restaurant?" The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen.

The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors. Shouts emanated from the kitchen and a few seconds later five Hispanic men were made to crawl out on their hands and knees, guns pointed at them.

After patting us all down, the five officers seated us at two tables. As they continued to kick open doors to closets and bathrooms with their fingers glued to their triggers, no less than ten officers in suits emerged from the stairwell. Most of them sat in the back of the restaurant typing on their laptop computers. Two of them walked over to our table and identified themselves as officers of the INS and Homeland Security Department.

I explained that we were just eating dinner and asked why we were being held. We were told by the INS agent that we would be released once they had confirmation that we had no outstanding warrants and our immigration status was OK'd.

In pre-9/11 America, the legality of this would have been questionable. After all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

"You have no right to hold us," Asher insisted.

"Yes, we have every right," responded one of the agents. "You are being held under the Patriot Act following suspicion under an internal Homeland Security investigation."

The USA PATRIOT Act was passed into law on October 26, 2001 in order to facilitate the post 9/11 crackdown on terrorism (the name is actually an acronym: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.") Like most Americans, I did not recognize the extent to which this bill foregoes our civil liberties. Among the unprecedented rights it grants to the federal government are the right to wiretap without warrant, and the right to detain without warrant. As I quickly discovered, the right to an attorney has been seemingly fudged as well.

When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official informed me that I do have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be brought down to the station and await security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: "Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month."

We insisted that we had every right to leave and were going to do so. One of the policemen walked over with his hand on his gun and taunted: "Go ahead and leave, just go ahead."

We remained seated. Our IDs were taken, and brought to the officers with laptops. I was questioned over the fact that my license was out of state, and asked if I had "something to hide." The police continued to hassle the kitchen workers, demanding licenses and dates of birth. One of the kitchen workers was shaking hysterically and kept providing the day's date, March 20, 2003, over and over.

As I continued to press for legal counsel, a female officer who had been busy typing on her laptop in the front of the restaurant, walked over and put her finger in my face. "We are at war, we are at war and this is for your safety," she exclaimed. As she walked away from the table, she continued to repeat it to herself: "We are at war, we are at war. How can they not understand this?"

I most certainly understand that we are at war. I also understand that the freedoms afforded to all of us in the Constitution were meant specifically for times like these. Our freedoms were carved out during times of strife by people who were facing brutal injustices, and were intended specifically so that this nation would behave differently in such times. If our freedoms crumble exactly when they are needed most, then they were really never freedoms at all.

After an hour and a half the INS agent walked back over and handed Asher and me our licenses. A policeman took us by the arm and escorted us out of the building. Before stepping out to the street, the INS agent apologized. He explained, in a low voice, that they did not think the two of us were in the restaurant. Several of the other patrons, though of South Asian descent, were in fact U.S. citizens. There were four taxi drivers, two students, one newspaper salesman ? unwitting customers, just like Asher and me. I doubt, though, they received any apologies from the INS or the Department of Homeland Security.

Nor have the over 600 people of South Asian descent currently being held without charge by the Federal government. Apparently, this type of treatment is acceptable. One of the taxi drivers, a U.S. citizen, spoke to me during the interrogation. "Please stop talking to them," he urged. "I have been through this before. Please do whatever they say. Please for our sake."

Three days later I phoned the restaurant to discover what happened. The owner was nervous and embarrassed and obviously did not want to talk about it. But I managed to ascertain that the whole thing had been one giant mistake. A mistake. Loaded guns pointed in faces, people made to crawl on their hands and knees, police officers clearly exacerbating a tense situation by kicking in doors, taunting, keeping their fingers on the trigger even after the situation was under control. A mistake. And, according to the ACLU a perfectly legal one, thanks to the PATRIOT Act.

The PATRIOT Act is just the first phase of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. From the Justice Department has emerged a draft of the Domestic Securities Enhancement Act, also known as PATRIOT II. Among other things, this act would allow the Justice Department to detain anyone, anytime, secretly and indefinitely. It would also make it a crime to reveal the identity or even existence of such a detainee.

Every American citizen, whether they support the current war or not, should be alarmed by the speed and facility with which these changes to our fundamental rights are taking place. And all of those who thought that these laws would never affect them, who thought that the PATRIOT Act only applied to the guilty, should heed this story as a wake-up call. Please learn from my experience. We are all vulnerable so speak out and organize, our Fourth Amendment rights depend upon it.

Jason Halperin lives in New York City and works at Doctors Without Borders/Medicins San Frontieres. If you are moved by this account, he asks that you consider donating to your local ACLU chapter.

--http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15770

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

smooth

I had a preliminary draft of the PATRIOT Act II but I don't know where it is. I suppose it is floating around on the net right now if someone were curious enough about it.

PATERSON, N.J. ? Librarians across the country are rising up against the USA Patriot Act (search), shredding records and making other attempts to thwart the legal framework in the war on terror.

Librarian Cindy Czesak is in the vanguard of the rebellion at the Paterson Public Library (search) in Paterson, N.J., a densely-populated Middle Eastern community.

"We're quiet rebels," she said.

Czesak, like hundreds of her fellow librarians around the country, says the Patriot Act makes what people read and borrow from libraries fair game in the name of tracking terrorists.

The Patriot Act, enacted in October 2001 in direct response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that year, broadly expands the powers of federal law enforcement agencies investigating cases involving foreign intelligence and international terrorism.

The measure requires local governments to disclose personal information -- such as library records -- about certain people who may be connected to a terror investigation. FBI agents can obtain a warrant for library or bookstore records of anyone thought to be involved in a plot. Librarians then aren't allowed to discuss the investigation.

Powers to use wiretaps and label religious and political groups as terrorists also were expanded under the act.

Under one provision of the law, the secret court that administers the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (search) can order businesses, including libraries, to hand over records for terrorism investigations.

The FBI came to Czesak after Sept. 11 looking for information on two of the hijackers who reportedly had used library computers. The library complied with the federal subpoenas, but Czesak and some of her colleagues are now leery of the act.

FBI agents also seized two computers from a Delray Beach, Fla., library because they thought some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used public computers there to communicate.

"The Patriot Act definitely scares me because we see it being carried to the nth degree," Czesak said.

Justice Department officials say the librarians are misreading the Patriot Act. They say it strengthens the government's ability to protect citizens from terrorists who live and operate among us.

"I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding caused by disinformation or misinformation that is out there in the American public," said Viet Dinh, assistant attorney general for legal policy.

Dinh insists library records are not open books for investigators.

"The suspicions that the FBI bases its investigation on is derived from credible investigative or intelligence sources," Dinh said.

Some provisions of the act -- including the one covering libraries -- expire at the end of 2005 and will have to be renewed by Congress.

In the meantime, however, some librarians aren't going out of their way to cooperate.

Across the country, citizen councils have been passing resolutions opposing what they consider to be the most infringing aspects of the law on people's civil liberties.

The Alameda County Library Advisory Commission in California recently approved a resolution supporting a bill spearheaded by Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., (search) that would protect library users' personal information and library records obtained through new government surveillance laws.

The Freedom to Read Protection Act of 2003 (search), introduced in March, would exempt bookstores and libraries from being subject to investigations without proper due process and court procedure.

Warrants currently issued through the FISA court would have to be held to a different standard. Sanders' bill would ensure proper evidence is presented when a warrant is requested as to why the library or bookstore should be searched.

"One of the cornerstones of our democracy is the right of Americans to criticize their government and to read printed materials without fear of government monitoring and intrusion," Sanders said in a statement.

The bill also addresses the gag orders put on librarians and booksellers when served a Patriot Act warrant and calls for increased accountability from the Justice Department on how other sections of the Patriot Act are implemented.

The bill has more than 75 co-sponsors and Sanders will soon push the House Judiciary Committee to tackle the measure.

"What we have seen so far in the few months since we've introduced this bill is really an unprecedented amount of grassroots support," said Sanders spokesman Joel Barkin.

Sanders' office has received numerous editorials from places such as Nashville, Tenn., Los Angeles and Bangor, Maine, in support of the bill.

The bill is backed by groups like the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression and the American Library Association.

"The Patriot Act gives federal authorities virtually unchecked authority to search our customers' records and raises concern that government is monitoring what people are reading," said ABFFE President Chris Finan. "The Freedom to Read Protection Act will restore faith in the confidentiality of these records without harming national security."

Some of California's Bay Area libraries have reportedly conducted privacy audits of their computer systems and files. Others keep fewer records now than they did before the law was enacted. Some even reportedly erase the caches on hard drives or regularly shred computer use sign-up sheets.

Libraries in Santa Cruz, Calif., posted signs warning patrons that the FBI may access the records of what books they borrow.

The Paterson Public Library in New Jersey is even getting rid of records like computer sign-up sheets.

"After that it's removed and destroyed ? we bought a nice new shredder," Czesak said.

Librarians and other groups are also up-in-arms about what's being called "Patriot Act II."

The companion legislation, dubbed "Son of Patriot," reportedly has been drafted by Attorney General John Ashcroft's office, although no one will confirm that. The Center for Public Integrity obtained a draft of the proposal.

Among other things, the plan says the government would be allowed to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant.

"I think there's a lot of concern from both sides on this issue of the Patriot Act and how far reaching the Patriot Act is and with rumors a Patriot Act II bubbling around, I think people have paid special attention to this issue," Barkin said.

Fox News' Catherine Herridge and Liza Porteus contributed to this report.

--http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86167,00.html

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

MuadDib

seretogis:

Sorry, I didn't realize that this was a formal debate and I was required to contend every single point made by rgr22j. Considering the other 2/3 didn't relate to the 1/3 I chose to contest I didn't find it necessary. But, if that is all it will take to make you a tad happier I suppose I ought to do so.

While it is true that Nitro contradicted himself by referring to the folks at Gitmo Bay as both POWs and those denied POW status, this is merely a symantical error and irrelevent to his underlying argument. The simple truth is that some of the prisoners are really POWs (such as taliban soldiers) while other are suspected terrorists. The problem is neglect of rights on both fronts. For the non-POWs they shouldn't even be there. They deserve trials and hearing that are public and outside of the military and Gitmo. As for the real POWs they have the right to return home now that the war has ended, saying the war on terror is still ungoing is a cop out and again just symantics. The same logic would allow us to do the same to people found with an ounce of grass in the name of the war on drugs.

I would also like to know if those numbers indicating the greatness of American POW camps have a timeline on them, are averaged, if they take into account concentration camps for Japanese Americans, and if they take into account Native Americans taken captive during our Manifest Destiny. I am suspicious because the US is a relatively young country so our numbers could be misrepresentedly lower while our average might be higher. Also because we have had away of using the term POW in a manner different than the rest of the world typically defines it. And finally because the US is more often involved in joint campaigns in foreign lands which leaves POW camps that the US operated primarily in small wars like the Spanish American, in Iraq, and during our own Civil War.

Finally, I thought my pointing out that the US has tons of international lawyers and frequents international trials was evidence, sere. I mean we did just threaten action in WTO court against the entire EU and file suit there more often more often than almost any other country on the planet. If you don't consider that evidence enough I suppose I could try to root up some links for you that state specifically that the US has tons of internation lawyers and resolves tons of disputes there annually and even maybe one of those cartoons I made reference to in my previous post too. At any rate, I don't want to leave you thinking I am also falling back assumptions so if you do honestly contest these facts/points let me know and I'll be here for ya.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Nitro

Sorry if I was unclear before.
MuadDib allready went in the right direction. Thank you.
I only wanted to show that there was a clash of opinions between ICRC and the US Gov but ICRC is right this time.
If you read the commentaries on international humanitarian law (YES it does exist) status of POW applies to all people taking part in armed conflict and getting caught by the enemy.
It's not a question of whether somebody declared war or not.
If it looks like armed conflict it is armed conflict and then the conventions apply. Therefore people caught in Afghanistan or Iraq by the millitary would have to be POW no matter what US Gov. says about that.
The US is in breach of the convention if they deny prisoners the rights laid down in the conventions. To me it's just an excuse if the US minces words and denies the prisoners these rights "because they are not really POW". If they are really not POW why are they not prosecuted for the crimes they are accused of by a normal US court or a court in their home country or an international court?

rgr22j is right in saying that international law is ignored by many countries quite frequently but that doesn't mean it's right to ingnore it.
If you agreed to the rules you have to play by the rules.

If I look back at the topic of the thread and the posts I get the impression that some people think that US government is not really interested in the rights of their own citizens at the moment. So if even US citizens rights are dealt with in a careless manner then what should we expect for people from rest of the world.
But seriously, when you start calling a drugs manufacturer a manufacturer of chemical weapons just to be able to jail him longer since then he would be a terrorist it's getting ridiculous.
With a little creativity I could link almost everything to "terrorism". You should be careful next time you make a joke about blowing up your local WalMart since you don't like their bread. Someone might take you seriously.

If US citizens don't do anything against these acts aimed at their rights they should not complain later when they find out they do affect them.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsilvania, 1759

rgr22j

I think the underlying agreement as originally posted was less lucid than his explanation below. So it's not a semantic error, merely that we were unclear what his argument was. The argument is that the people being held at Guantanamo Bay are being mistreated or inhumanely, well, this is false and I think we cleared that up.

The real question, which I believe Nitro was making, is whether the people at Gitmo should be declared as POWs. Legally, under "international law," these are the four conditions set forth by the Geneva Convention in order for POW status to apply :

1) There must be an organized command structure with leaders that can be held responsible.
2) Soldiers must distinguish themselves from civilians by wearing fixed distinctive emblems that can be identified from afar.
3) Soldiers must carry weapons openly.
4) The other side must respect the "laws of war."

These are the essential questions. If you captured a foreign national on your terroritory attempting to assassinate the president, would he classify as a POW? Most nations probably would not award him POW status. How about a group that doesn't wear uniforms, hides weapons, and hijacks planes?

I don't know the answer. I'm open to interpretation, but I lean towards differentiating between the Taliban and say, the national army of Belgium. Thus the declaration of "unlawful combatants," as the language of the Geneva Convention applies only to "lawful combatants," which does not require membership in a state army. To be a non-state belligerent you have to register with the Swiss, which al-Qaeda has not done. However, as the Geneva Convention describes above, merely declaring oneself as a non-state belligerent upon capture is not sufficient to warrant POW status.

I had no idea that this was even open to question, so let me quote from the International Red Cross at Geneva. I chose an isolated incident, World War 2, because it had Western nations on both sides as well as pan-Asian and Asian superpowers. It was also the most recent war, and by isolating it we avoid the relative youth of the United States. In addition, the first Geneva Convention was in effect. The following is paraphrased by my encyclopedia from the Red Cross.

"With minor and inevitable exceptions on the lower levels, the United States and Great Britain generally honored the Geneva Convention throughout the conflict. Japan at first committed such atrocities as the “death march of Bataan,” but began to abide by the rules after a sufficient number of Japanese prisoners had fallen into Allied hands to make reprisals possible. Germany did not treat all its prisoners alike. Americans and British subjects received the best treatment, Polish prisoners the worst."

If we were to include the internment of Japanese Americans (which the United States has admitted culpability), why not include Jews in Germany? Anyone Stalin didn't like? Vichy France?

Just because we send lawyers to international courts doesn't mean that it has the same meaning as what we traditionally refer to as domestic law. We go along because we consider it a good thing, especially if other countries go along as well. We file lawsuits against other countries that voluntarily abide by the internaional courts because we can reasonably expect that both we and the defendant country will honor the ruling. International law and international courts are nothing more than gentleman's agreements. But if we or any other country decides to ignore a particular ruling, there is nothing anyone can do about it. There is no international enforcement power, which is part of the reason why the UN passes "resolutions" and not "laws."

It is absolutely not a broken down fallback; it's a fallacious argument to say that we are required to declare them POWs because of international law. Maybe we should, but we certainly are not bound by it.

-- Alvin

filtherton

So what exactly are our "guests" in cuba. I guess what you call them is irrelevant since international law is apparently meaningless. Maybe under patriot 2, after american dissidents are expatriated we can expect to see americans down there. Wouldn't that be funny. What would you call them? I guess that would really only be an issue if they took the time to expatriate, since apparently Pat2 allows arrests to be made in secret and potentially criminalizes talking about such detainees. Apparently, regardless of how time is supposed to move forward, it still seems like we're getting closer to 1984.

rgr22j

Technically they're "unlawful combatants," which was also used by FDR in the past.

We did see an American down in Cuba briefly, by the name of Hamdi. We then discovered he was an American, and transferred him back to the United States, into a prison in Norfolk Virginia. This is under the existing Patriot Act. He wasn't a dissident, just the second "American Taliban."

I would be very surprised if Patriot 2 allowed the US to expatriate citizens. I supposed that such rumors are to be expected, judging from the completely overblown coverage of the existing Patriot Act, and from the fact that only a leaked draft of Patriot 2 is currently available.

-- Alvin

smooth

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/home.asp

HTML: http://www.dailyrotten.com/source-do...iot2draft.html

CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Draft--January 9, 2003

Section 501: Expatriation of Terrorists.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1481, an American can lose his citizenship by voluntarily, and with the intent to relinquish nationality, taking any of a number of actions, including: (1) obtaining Nationality in a foreign state; (2) taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign state; and, most importantly, (3) serving in the armed forces of a foreign state that are engaged in hostilities against the United States. The current expatriation statute does not, however, provide for the relinquishing of citizenship in cases where an American serves in a hostile foreign terrorist organization. It thus fails to take account of the myriad ways in which, in the modern world, war can be waged against the United States.

This provision would amend 8 U.S.C. § 1481 to make clear that, just as an American can relinquish his citizenship by serving in a hostile foreign army, so can he relinquish his citizenship by serving in a hostile terrorist organization. Specifically, an American could be expatriated if, with the intent to relinquish nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United States has designated as a "terrorist organization," if that group is engaged in hostilities against the United States.

This provision also would make explicit that the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct. The Supreme Court already has recognized that intent can be inferred from conduct. See, e.g., Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 260 (1980) (recognizing that the "intent to relinquish citizenship ... . [can be] expressed in words or. . . found as a fair inference from proved conduct"); see also King v. Rogers, 463 F.2d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 1972) ("[S]pecific subjective intent to renounce United States citizenship... may [be] prove[d].. . by evidence of an explicit renunciation, acts inconsistent with United States citizenship, or by affirmative voluntary act[s] clearly manifesting a decision to accept [foreign] nationality." (citations omitted)); United States v. Schffer, 831 F. Supp. 1166, 1194 (E.D. Pa. 1993) ("Specific intent may.. . be proven by evidence of what steps the alleged expatriate did or did not take in connection with his expatriating acts."), aff'd without opinion, 31 F.3d 1175 (3rd Cir. 1994). Specifically, this proposal would make service in a hostile army or terrorist group prima facie evidence of an intent to renounce citizenship.

rgr22j

Thanks for the link! This clears things up considerably.

To me this would be the "John Walker Lindh" amendment; they're extending the existing law revoking citizenship by serving in a hostile foreign (state) army to serving in a hostile terrorist organization. Once citizenship has been revoked (by Congress? before a judge? by decree of the president?) then expatriation proceedings can begin.

This, thankfully, isn't as bad as it's made out to be. It's just removing the loophole that you can be in a terrorist organization actively hostile to the United States and expect to be treated "nicely" simply because you're a US citizen. If you join the Iraqi army, you're stripped of your citizenship; if you join al-Qaeda, you're not.

However, this brings up an interesting paradox. If we intend to level the playing field between terrorist organizations and state armies by declaring American members of both equal (i.e. non-citizens), does this not implicity bind the US to treat non-American members of terrorist organizations and state armies equally as well? In other words, does this not mean that, since the US is leveling the playing field between Americans in the Taliban and Americans in the Iraqi army, that by extension since non-American Iraqi prisoners are considered POW, the non-American Taliban prisoners must be as well?

Unless, of course, the provision is made with only citizenship in mind; that is, we strip an American Taliban of his citizenship so we can lump him in with the rest of the non-combatants, since we automatically strip American soldiers in the Iraqi army of their citizenship and lump them in with the rest of the Iraqi army. Consistent, but I am yet unconvinced either way.

And what if it's a domestic terror organization, like militias? It makes sense we strip Johnny Lindh of his American citizenship and (implicitly) assign him as an Afghani citizen. But what of a gun-nut born in America, raised in America, and has never been out of the country? Or is he (and John Walker Lindh) considered stateless? In that case, does that leave open the possibility for a state diplomatically hostile to the US, say, France, to claim him as a resident and thus force the US to respect Franco-American agreements? (Assuming, of course, the stateless person in question accepts French citizenship)

-- Alvin

Phaenx

There's a lot of hysteria surrounding this law, though I've yet to see any of these would-be whistle blowers say anything interesting, or actually be detained by the government who is obviously taking away all their rights to protest and speak out and so on. It's been what, 2 years now since it was signed into law? Looks like it's working well enough to me.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy