Patriot act: Reality vs what Micheal Moore says it is. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Food Eater Lad · 10-08-2003, 06:39 PM

http://bowlingfortruth.com/moore/online/patriotact.htm

I didnt want to mess up the side by side comparisons. Please dont flame for not knowing how to do this. If just posting the link is agains board policy, let me know. Thanks.

redravin40 · 10-08-2003, 07:50 PM

For those of you who don't feel comfortable clicking blind links.

Micheal Moore

Quote:

On October 26, 2001, just six weeks after the devastation on September 11, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act. Ashcroft and his cronies wasted no time in attempting to further their agenda at the expense of a traumatized nation.
USA Patriot is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism", but all that elaborate language does not succeed in hiding the dangerous nature of the document.

So just what does the Patriot Act give the Bush administration the right to do?

Well, for starters, it allows the FBI to monitor everything from e-mail to medical records to library accounts, providing frightening access to once private information.

They can now legally wiretap phones, break into homes and offices, and access financial records without probable cause.

The Patriot Act broadens terrorism to include "domestic terrorism" which could potentially be used to target activist groups within the country speaking out against Bush's treacherous deeds.

The Patriot Act also disregards attorney-client privilege and authorizes government surveillance of previously confidential discussions.

Immigrants can be detained indefinitely based on suspicion alone, and the Patriot Act aids the excessive amounts of deportations that are taking place.

Calling this the Patriot Act is quite a dangerous action within itself, because the implication follows: if you speak against the Patriot Act, well, you sure aren't being a good citizen in our country's time of need. When Bush labels his actions as the model of patriotism, he then classifies all dissent as un-American. While this may be comforting to him, it is actually an insult to patriotism.

Protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights demonstrates a great respect for the government of this country and the rights of its citizens, and that sounds downright patriotic.

-------------------------------------------------

Patriot II: What it is

It's not over yet. Currently, the Justice Department is working on the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, an extension of the Patriot Act that has been dubbed "Patriot II". Perhaps one of the most dangerous aspects of this bill would grant the government the right to detain someone indefinitely without ever disclosing their identity, allowing the person to ultimately disappear. It would also broaden local police's ability to spy on "terrorist" groups, including domestic religious and political organizations. The government could take sweeping "anti-terrorist" action, like obtaining an individual's financial and library records without a warrant and allowing wiretaps without a court order. How else could this affect you?

Well, if you engage in civil disobedience, the government would have the right to strip you of your citizenship! Had enough? Stop this act before it starts!

Jonah Goldburg
Editor of 'National Review Online'

Quote:

The latest embarrassment is the revelation that the Department of Justice has not invoked the Patriot Act's Section 215 - a section of the act that the ACLU crowd claims has turned the FBI into a library-raiding Gestapo.
What, in reality, is Section 215? It's a relatively innocuous provision of the Patriot Act that allows law enforcement to obtain, after getting approval from a judge, documents from third parties - your credit card company, for example - if they're pertinent to a terrorism investigation. (#)

Not only has the government never used 215, but the section doesn't even mention libraries - or any of the other secular holy sites allegedly imperiled by it.

At minimum, critics should stop talking about the Patriot Act's "trampling of rights" in the present tense. And lest they claim that they are being "vigilant" in the face of potential threats, someone should remind them that vigilance is fine, but lying and fear-mongering is crying wolf.

The Section 215 bashing is just the latest in an ongoing campaign to make up a problem out of the Patriot Act that does not exist. I'm sure you've heard that the Patriot Act also permits, in the words of Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine, "spying on the Web browsers of people who are not even criminal suspects." Errr, wrong. The Patriot Act actually toughens the standards by which the government can snoop on electronic communications.

Before the Patriot Act, there was no settled law on whether the government - or for that matter, some random stalker or Amazon.com - could acquire that kind of information. The Patriot Act made it a crime for the government or anybody else to pry into your e-mail without getting a court order.

(#) Well, it's a good thing the Patriot Act requires the DOJ's inspector general to investigate civil rights complaints.

The last report, issued over the summer, found that there were 34 "credible" allegations of abuse out of 1,037 claims made over a six-month period (note: that's allegations, not convictions).

And most of these "credible" but unproven allegations involved such horrors as verbal harassment of prisoners by prison guards. That's not nice and it shouldn't happen, but it's hardly 1930s Germany.

The complaints of lost civil rights go on.

We hear about prisoners "kept in secret" when they're really not. Rather, the government won't release their names to the media - or to the terrorists who are keen to find out such information. However, the prisoners themselves - through their lawyers or families - are free to release their names.

The ACLU says that the feds can secretly enter your home while you're out and rifle through your files, underwear drawer, whatever. Well, that's true, if the cops get a warrant first and notify you later.

If that scares you, I'm sorry. But it's hardly something new.

How to do this....

Control C to copy and the [ quote ] at the beginning of the persons essay and [ / quote ] at the end. (without the spaces)

Lebell · 10-08-2003, 07:56 PM

gosh darnit, RR posted just before I did.

humph!

filtherton · 10-08-2003, 09:52 PM

So what? Why should i trust either of these people? Wowsers, a conservative editorial taking an anti-micheal moore stance. Quite newsworthy.
His link to the patriot act doesn't even work.

Maybe i'll go dig up an editorial claiming that 9/11 was endorsed by pepsi and clear channel and post it next to something by rush limbaugh.

Why don't you also comment on what you think about the article FEL? Lebell too for that matter. We post our opinions about articles now as per that thread that lebell started.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=30034

Check it out.

Lebell · 10-08-2003, 10:08 PM

Moi?

I was attempting mod duties, not looking to post yet.

But don't worry, you know me.

Should the urge hit, I'll throw my usual 0.02$ in

HarmlessRabbit · 10-08-2003, 10:32 PM

Funny, the legal community, the ACLU, and the ALA all seem to agree with Michael Moore.

http://practice.findlaw.com/scripts/...rlaw-0903.html

Quote:

Why the ACLU Is Right To Challenge The FBI's Access to Library, Bookstore, and Business Records Under the USA PATRIOT Act

On July 31, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the federal government in Michigan federal court. The suit - the first of its kind - is aimed at curbing the FBI's expanded spy powers granted in the USA PATRIOT Act. The Act was passed by Congress soon after September 11, in a process many now view as hasty, and void of meaningful deliberation.

The lawsuit alleges that that the Act's infamous Section 215 - which authorizes FBI searches of records, including those of businesses, libraries and bookstores - is unconstitutional. While some sections of the Patriot Act are aimed at foreigners and immigrants, Section 215 applies to visitors, permanent residents and U.S. citizens.

The plaintiffs in the ACLU suit are six Arab-American advocacy and community groups from across the United States. Their members and clients believe they are currently the targets of government investigations because of their ethnicity, religion and political affiliations.

However, they are not the only ones who are upset about Section 215. Librarians, booksellers, and others have publicly criticized this provision and called for its repeal. Their concern is its broad reach, and lack of prior notice: Under Section 215, the government can peruse a lot of private data, without the targets ever knowing.

In my view, the ACLU and the plaintiffs are entirely right to have brought the suit. Americans should not have to worry that the FBI is rifling through their personal belongings - learning what clubs we belong to, what charities we give to, and what books we read.

Fortunately, also on July 31, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced legislation that would roll back part of Section 215. His bill, the "Library and Personal Records Privacy Act,"should be enacted into law.

In addition, Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced a bill protecting library and bookstore patrons in the House. The bill had bipartisan co-sponsors. But recently, it was blocked procedurally from coming to the House floor. Hopefully, similar legislation will surface.

Meanwhile, municipalities and city councils throughout the United States have passed resolutions opposing the Patriot Act - including Section 215. Plainly, public opinion is beginning to make a difference - and citizens are pressing for amendments to an Act that threatens to destroy basic civil liberties in America.

The Complexities of Section 215: What it Says, and Does Not Say

The ACLU's complaint alleges that Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by "vastly expand[ing]" the FBI's power "to obtain records and other 'tangible things' of people not suspected of criminal activity."

Under Section 215, these searches and seizures can occur not only without notice to the target, but also without a warrant, without a criminal subpoena, and without any showing of probable cause that a crime has been committed.

What types of records come within Section 215? They may be held by libraries, booksellers, doctors, universities, Internet Service providers, and other public entities and private sector businesses. They may consist of records, books, papers, or other personal data and property.

And to invoke Section 215, the FBI need only certify that the records are sought "for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."

There is only one limitation: If the investigation is of a "United States person," defined as a permanent resident or U.S. citizen, it cannot be "conducted solely upon the basis of" First Amendment-protected activities.

Put another way, citizens can't be singled out for investigation simply because of speaking, writing or protesting, if such activity is protected as free speech. But note that, as the ACLU has pointed out, this limitation is not relevant when the investigation is of a foreign national. So the FBI presumably now feels free to ransack records relating to U.S. citizens in the course of such investigations.

Prior law only allowed such broad search powers when the FBI was investigating suspected spies. Now, under Section 215, literally anyone can be subjected to such searches.

It's important to understand that the target need not be a suspected terrorist. All the FBI must certify is that the records are sought for an investigation related to either spying, or international terrorism.

Why Section 215 Invites Abuse, and Threatens Free Speech Rights

There is an obvious potential for profiling or targeting of specific religious, political, or ethic groups. Today it may be Arab-Americans and Muslims. Tomorrow, it may be other groups.

Section 215 also imposes serious free speech costs, as the ACLU has pointed out - and thus it violates the First Amendment. It allows the FBI to easily obtain information about a person's reading habits, religious affiliations, Internet surfing and other expressive activities. Predictably, the threat of investigation will "chill" these activities. That kind of free speech chill violates the Constitution.

Meanwhile, separate provisions of Section 215 constitute even more blatant violations, for they directly target speech.

The first provision says that the agency can impose a lifelong "gag" order prohibiting anyone served with Section 215 orders - aimed, for example, at getting information about a suspect's medical history, reading habits, political activities or religious affiliation - from telling anyone else about the investigation.

The relevant portion of Section 215 says, "[n]o person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."

The upshot is this: All of the government's searches and seizures are done in secret. For example, librarians cannot tell you if the FBI has come to look at your Internet surfing habits, or to review what books you recently checked out.

The Justice Department Defends Section 215

In response to the ACLU lawsuit, the department issued a statement signed by Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock. Comstock claimed that Section 215 cannot be used to investigate "garden-variety crimes, or even domestic terrorism."

While the FBI may not be checking our library records to investigate shoplifting, the Justice Department has made other public statements about Section 215 that appear misleading.

In July, the ACLU issued a report on Section 215 , "Seeking Truth from Justice - Patriot Propaganda: The Justice Department's Campaign to Mislead the Public About the USA Patriot Act." The ACLU has also issued a second report , focused on how Section 215 works in practice. It is entitled Unpatriotic Acts: The FBI's Power to Rifle Through Your Records and Personal Belongings without Telling You.

According to the former ACLU Report, Justice Department officials have, in the past suggested that Section 215 does not apply to citizens or lawful permanent residents - and, more than this, that it only applies to international terrorists.

That is simply not the case, as explained above. Citizens and lawful permanent residents may be subject to searches. They may also be the targets of an investigation of which these searches are a part - unless only free speech alone has led to the investigation.

Section 215 does protect, say, an Arab-American newspaper columnist from being investigated based on his columns alone. But it doesn't prevent him from being investigated based on the combination of his columns, and neighbors' unfounded suspicions. And it doesn't protect anyone who is not being investigated - even if the searches lead to their being investigated later!

Remember, to invoke Section 215, the FBI need only certify that the records are sought "for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." That's it. Once that certification occurs, the Fourth Amendment or individual privacy rights become irrelevant.

Congress Revisits the Broad Scope of the Patriot Act

In the post-September 11 chaos and trauma, Congress did not think carefully about the USA PATRIOT Act. Fortunately, it is being to think more carefully about it now.

In late July, the House voted overwhelmingly to prohibit the FBI from spending any funds to conduct "sneak and peek" searches in criminal cases. That vote amended Section 213 of the Act - which had authorized the FBI to search peoples' homes and offices without telling them until weeks or months later.

And now, Senator Feingold has offered his Liberty and Personal Privacy Act. It would not repeal Section 215 powers altogether. But, if enacted, it would at least make a positive contribution to preserving basic civil liberties.

The Feingold bill would require the government to show some individual suspicion to obtain and review personal records, or library and bookstore records.

Specifically, it would require the government to show "specific and articulable facts" that warrant an individual being suspected of being "an agent of a foreign power."

In passing the Feingold bill, or one like it, Congress should be careful. It is clear that the Justice Departments strategy is to enact broad language, while claiming that in practice, it will only - and can only - be applied only in the narrow circumstances.

But in a free society, we can't always trust the government to restrain its own powers. Laudable goals like stopping terrorism may lead to terrible abuses unless laws are narrowly tailored to achieve specific objectives while preserving our Constitutional rights. .

Clear, specific limitations on FBI powers should be included in any revision of Section 215, or other provisions of the PATRIOT Act.

I trust a lawyer in findlaw more than I trust some random conservative columnist, or Michael Moore for that matter.

The fact that Ashcroft has not yet used Prop 215 is more of a sign of his reaction to the intense public outcry than any sort of "responsibility" on his part.

Superbelt · 10-09-2003, 03:25 AM

Photographer arrested for taking pictures of Vice Presidents hotel

Quote:

The agent told Maginnis that his "suspicious activities" made him a threat to national security, and that he would be charged as a terrorist under the USA-PATRIOT act. The Secret Service agent tried to make Maginnis admit that he was taking the photographs to analyze weaknesses in the Vice President's security entourage and "cause terror and mayhem."

When Maginnis refused to admit to being any sort of terrorist, the Secret Service agent called him a "raghead collaborator" and a "dirty pinko faggot."

Quote:

US uses terrorism law in other crime probes

Report bolsters stand of civil liberties groups

By Dan Eggen, Washington Post, 5/21/2003

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department has used many of the antiterrorism powers granted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to pursue defendants for crimes unrelated to terrorism, including drug violations, credit card fraud, and bank theft, according to a government report.

In a 60-page report to the House Judiciary Committee, officials confirmed yesterday for the first time that fewer than 50 defendants were secretly detained as material witnesses in the investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. That number had not previously been disclosed.

The report provides new details about the federal government's domestic war on terrorism, which has largely been conducted in secret and has prompted widespread complaints from civil liberties advocates and Muslim groups. It had been sought by the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, and the committee's ranking Democrat, Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Jamie Brown said in the report that new antiterrorism measures, including the USA Patriot Act and new prosecution guidelines from Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, have been crucial in disrupting terrorist plots.

''In our judgment, the government's success in preventing another catastrophic attack on the American homeland in the 20 months since Sept. 11, 2001, would have been much more difficult, if not impossibly so, without the USA Patriot Act,'' the report states.

In one example, federal investigators have been allowed on dozens of occasions to delay telling targets about searches or seizures of their property, according to the report. The delays have lasted as long as three months, and prosecutors have sought extensions more than 200 times.

But the report plays down the government's use of some of the most controversial new powers. For example, the report said that fewer than 10 FBI field offices have conducted investigations involving visits to mosques and that all but one were connected to ongoing criminal inquiries. Immigration authorities have not ruled any foreign nationals deportable or inadmissible as terrorists, the report said.

Although the Patriot Act was passed in response to Sept. 11, the report shows that prosecutors have used many of the law's powers to pursue cases not related to terrorism. The report cites a case in which prosecutors were able to use the Patriot Act to seize stolen funds that a fugitive lawyer had stashed in bank accounts in Belize. Similar tactics have been used in cases involving drugs, credit-card fraud, theft from a bank account, and kidnapping, the report shows.

Tim Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the report confirms fears that the Justice Department and the FBI would abuse their new powers. ''Many of these terrorism powers were actually being asked for as a way of increasing the government's authority in other areas,'' Edgar said.

The previously obscure material witness statute, which allows prosecutors to hold potential grand jury witnesses, has emerged as a centerpiece of the federal government's antiterrorism strategy. The Washington Post reported in November that at least 44 witnesses had been detained under the statute, but that nearly half had not been called to testify before grand juries. Some also complained of erratic contact with lawyers.

The report said that all of the material witnesses detained in connection with the Sept. 11 probe had lawyers. The report does not say how many testified before grand juries and also does not indicate how many were detained in connection with probes not related to Sept. 11.

Patriot act abuses seen

Quote:

The complaints concern the way the Justice Department has enforced the 2001 Patriot Act, a law passed in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks that granted wider powers to federal law enforcement officers to conduct surveillance and detain immigrants.

It follows another report by the inspector general that found "significant problems" in the Bush administration's actions toward 762 foreigners held on immigration violations after Sept. 11. The FBI took too long to determine whether they were involved with terrorism, as dozens endured "lock-down" conditions 23 hours each day and slept under bright lights, the report found.

Kadath · 10-09-2003, 05:34 AM

Quote:

The 34 credible cases — a vast minority of the 1,073 total complaints lodged — "ranged in seriousness from alleged beatings of immigration detainees to B.O.P. correctional officers allegedly verbally abusing inmates," according to the report.

See, that makes me unhappy. The "vast minority" part. I...I don't know. That the PATRIOT Act is bad news I don't doubt, though.

Conclamo Ludus · 10-09-2003, 05:42 AM

I try not lose any sleep over it.

Ustwo · 10-09-2003, 06:42 AM

The best part is that the same liberal leaders whining about the patriot act also whine that we are not doing enough to protect the nation from terror.

I'm willing to bet everything I own that the democrat leadership wants another 9/11. Most of the public blamed Clinton, not Bush for 9/11, but the next one would be 'Bush's Fault'.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-09-2003, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
I'm willing to bet everything I own that the democrat leadership wants another 9/11. Most of the public blamed Clinton, not Bush for 9/11, but the next one would be 'Bush's Fault'.

Bush HAS another 9/11 that we can blame him for!!!! It's called "Iraq".

Superbelt · 10-09-2003, 07:20 AM

Blame Clinton for it. I don't understand that. Clinton did more for Anti-terrorism than anyone before him and only Bush surpasses him, but none of that started until after 9/11.

Clinton gave record amounts of money to the CIA and FBI for anti-terrorism. Bush cut it when he got in office.
Clinton created a battle plan to take the war to al Qaeda and gave it and the support staff to Bush to take it to the next level, and Bush shelved it.

Bush opposed the Hart/Lieberman Homeland Security bill... that was until 9/11 then he co-opted it as his own.

Ustwo · 10-09-2003, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Blame Clinton for it. I don't understand that. Clinton did more for Anti-terrorism than anyone before him and only Bush surpasses him, but none of that started until after 9/11.

Clinton gave record amounts of money to the CIA and FBI for anti-terrorism. Bush cut it when he got in office.
Clinton created a battle plan to take the war to al Qaeda and gave it and the support staff to Bush to take it to the next level, and Bush shelved it.

Bush opposed the Hart/Lieberman Homeland Security bill... that was until 9/11 then he co-opted it as his own.

Laugh, I'm sorry but this is funny. Clinton did NOTHING in the war on terror except blow up a few empty tents and an aspirin factory. He tied the hands of the CIA by not allowing the operatives to work with anyone with a criminal past (jee a turncoat terrorist might have criminal ties?). He was even OFFERD Osama by Sudan and said no. (This isn't a myth, he is on tape explaining it). Clinton also gutted our millitary that Regan and Bush I built up. Saying Clinton was good on ant-terror is laughable.

Clinton was about image NOT action. Action might backfire and upset people. Oh yea sure he had a great anti-terror plan.

Ustwo · 10-09-2003, 07:36 AM

Here is what Dick Morris, Clinton advisor had to say on it.

Quote:

WHEN the terrorist gang controlled by Bin Laden exploded a bomb in the World Trade Center in 1993 killing six and injuring 650 others, President Clinton did not even visit the site of the attack. In his radio address the next day, he expressed his grief and outrage and four days later visited New Jersey where he sent a message to New Yorkers saluting our courage. Other than those statements, he remained aloof and uninvolved.

The attack occurred in the second month of Clinton's presidency. Issues like gays in the military, the recession, and withdrawing our troops from Somalia loomed larger than the 1993 attack. Clinton deliberately remained removed from the attack perhaps in the hope that he would not be blamed so early in his presidency.

Where Bush insisted, from the outset, that the Trade Center attack that took place on his watch was a declaration of war by foreign terrorists against the United States, Clinton treated the attack as a criminal justice situation not unlike the subsequent bombing of the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City. But while in Oklahoma, he connected emotionally with the victims, he had nothing to do with them in 1993.

His failure to mobilize America to confront foreign terror after the 1993 attack had dire consequences and led directly to the 2001 disaster. Two years after the 1993 attack, Sudan, sick of sheltering Bin Laden, offered to turn him over to the United States for prosecution. But, without the president breathing down their neck, investigators had not yet discovered that Bin Laden was behind the 1993 attack. Claiming that we lacked evidence to proceed, the US refused Sudan's offer and suggested they turn him over to the Saudis instead. In doing so, the US was disingenuous. We knew full well that the Saudi Arabian kingdom could not afford politically to prosecute their home-grown terrorist.

Clinton was removed, uninvolved, and distant where the war on terror was concerned. CIA director Woolsey now reveals that he never had a private personal meeting with Clinton during the first two years of his tenure as head of the CIA - exactly the key period in investigating the 1993 attack.

I had a good illustration of Clinton's remoteness from terrorist issues in 1996 when Dick Holbrooke called me, several months after the terrorist attack on US barracks in Ridyah, Saudi Arabia. Holbrooke, who told me that he had never had the opportunity to speak with Clinton directly during the months that he was negotiating the Dayton peace accords in Bosnia, asked that I get hold of the president to pass along a message. Holbrooke said that he had information that the terrorists were planning another attack in Ridyah and that our troops were highly vulnerable.

"They are stuck in the same buildings the terrorists attacked last time," Holbrook told me. "All that has changed is that there are more formidable concrete barriers against car bombs. But a bigger bomb would be just as lethal. They need to be dispersed and camped in the desert in tents with a secured perimeter," he warned.

I called the president and passed along Holbrooke's message. He had no idea that the troops were still in the barracks and said that he had ordered them dispersed to the desert six weeks before. "I've got a meeting with the Joint Chiefs in the morning," the president said "I'll raise hell with them."

Shockingly, he was so little involved in protecting our troops - already the object of a terrorist attack - that he had no idea that his order had not been executed until I happened to call.

Clinton was a one-thing-at-a-time president. Capable of intense focus on the issue du jour, he neglected all back burner concerns. And terror was always on the back burner.

Throughout the first part of his second term, Clinton was immobilized by impeachment. Battling desperately to save his presidency, he simply had neither the time nor the mental energy to immerse himself in a war against terror. Blame him for the perjury that caused impeachment. Blame the GOP for pursuing him. Blame whoever you want, but we were without a president from January, 1998 until April, 1999.

Thereafter, his administration was almost wholly devoted to electing Hillary to the Senate and, to a lesser extent, to making Gore president. Once again, terrorism was not the priority.

It never was. Now it is.

onetime2 · 10-09-2003, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Bush HAS another 9/11 that we can blame him for!!!! It's called "Iraq".

Laugh.

onetime2 · 10-09-2003, 09:18 AM

As far as the Patriot Act goes, it will be challenged. If unlawful it will be invalidated. That's the point of our three pronged system of government.

erion · 10-09-2003, 09:36 AM

It was best said over 225 years ago by Ben Franklin:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

The Patriot Act would shred essential parts of the U.S. Constitution in order to fight the "war on terror." There was another country in the not-too-distant past where personal liberties were eroded in the name of nationalism, and they kicked things off by invading unfriendly countries as well.

You may remember Poland, in 1939. . .

Yes, I am comparing George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. Both have chosen a scapegoat for the problems which beset their nation in their day. Both have waged an internationally scorned war in the name of their national security. Both have ignored the pleas of historical allies to cease in their unjust causes, and both have initially enjoyed an atmosphere of appeasement in the face of overwhelming military force. Fortunately we have the lessons of history to show us the path the president is leading America down. I only pray the people of America are wise enough to see it in 13 months when we choose whether Bush gets a second term.

chavos · 10-09-2003, 09:47 AM

ACLU Documents White House Push To Pass PATRIOT II Piecemeal in Congress

WASHINGTON - Following on the heels of new momentum on Capitol Hill to rollback parts of the controversial USA PATRIOT Act, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) today released a report detailing how the White House is trying to pass the PATRIOT Act's unpopular sequel by pushing it through Congress piecemeal.

"The leaked draft of PATRIOT II proved so overwhelmingly unpopular on the Hill - on both sides of the aisle - that the Administration is trying to slip it through under the radar in drips and drabs," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel and author of the report.__

"Congress needs to keep an eagle eye out lest the Bush Administration seize further expanded and unnecessary powers without proper deliberation," Edgar added.

PATRIOT II - formally known as the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 - was leaked anonymously to the press in February of 2003 and contains broad expansions to the powers granted in the 2001 PATRIOT Act - as well as several truly radical changes in American law.

Prominent in the report is the so-called VICTORY (Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations) Act of 2003, which has not been introduced but made waves when its existence in a draft circulated by Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was revealed earlier this summer.__Designed to link the war on terror with the war on drugs - and to use broader counter-terrorism surveillance powers in drug investigations - drafts of the VICTORY Act also have nestled in them three provisions that originally appeared in the PATRIOT II leaked draft.

The report also discusses in detail three new bills that correspond to three powers President Bush requested from Congress in a speech last month at the FBI Academy in Quantico.__One of these proposed powers - expanded "administrative subpoena" authority - would have the effect of broadening even further the controversial part of the original PATRIOT Act allowing broad access to library and other sensitive records without individual suspicion.__These internal subpoenas could also be used to compel testimony from wholly innocent Americans, effectively meaning that the FBI - on its own -- could force Americans to answer questions.__Under current law, if the FBI wants to force someone to give testimony, a US Attorney has to convene a grand jury.__

As the Washington Post editorialized, "This radical new power is unnecessary as well as dangerous. It's not as though seeking grand jury subpoenas is especially burdensome.__Prosecutors don't need to seek a grand jury's approval for each subpoena they issue; rather, they often issue them on behalf of the grand juries. Federal rules allow them to keep signed and sealed blank subpoenas for use when necessary."

"Administrative subpoenas are just the tip of the iceberg," Edgar said.__"There is clearly an organized push in the White House to pass these types of measures that sap liberty and do little to increase safety."_

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safe...ID=14001&c=206

Bascially, what i'm really worried about the lack of oversight. Administrative supeonas mean that the governemnt with no permission from a Judge can make searches and compel testimony. This is just wrong...the whole reason they first got invented way back when was so that the government wasn't its own watchdog.

Ustwo · 10-09-2003, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by erion
It was best said over 225 years ago by Ben Franklin:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

So its safe to say that you are against gun control too?

Quote:

The Patriot Act would shred essential parts of the U.S. Constitution in order to fight the "war on terror."

Which parts again? About the only people that can be really targeted are non-citizens. I don't remember the constitution protecting non-citizens.

Quote:

There was another country in the not-too-distant past where personal liberties were eroded in the name of nationalism, and they kicked things off by invading unfriendly countries as well.

Russia?

Quote:

You may remember Poland, in 1939. . .

Still could be Russia!

Quote:

Yes, I am comparing George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler.

NOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Goodwins law has been invoked!

Quote:

Both have chosen a scapegoat for the problems which beset their nation in their day. Both have waged an internationally scorned war in the name of their national security. Both have ignored the pleas of historical allies to cease in their unjust causes, and both have initially enjoyed an atmosphere of appeasement in the face of overwhelming military force. Fortunately we have the lessons of history to show us the path the president is leading America down. I only pray the people of America are wise enough to see it in 13 months when we choose whether Bush gets a second term.

Who were Germany's historic allies who pleaded with them? Regardless, leadership requires making tough choises. The fact that our weak 'allies' wanted to end sanctions on Iraq to reap oil contracts meant we couldn't listen to them any longer. A change had to be made, and I'm glad GWB had the balls to do it. Clinton threatened to do the same thing, but luckily he didn't have the balls to do it. I say luckily because we all know just how well democrats as of late run wars. I thank God every day (which is ironic being an atheist myself, maybe I should thank Darwin) that it was GWB and not Gore in office on 9/11.

eple · 10-09-2003, 10:51 AM

Er....what has Russia to do with this Ustwo?

I think the comparition with Hitler is dead-on, no matter how much of a kliche.

It's all just a little bit of history repeating. What about the camps you made prisoning people without any trial, for as long as you see fit. Any historic irony to find there?

erion · 10-09-2003, 10:54 AM

Quote:

So its safe to say that you are against gun control too?

Not at all. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The right to own military grade hardware is not. While in 1789 these were essentially one in the same, owning a modern handgun is not the same as owning an AR-15 or P90 or SAW.

Quote:

Which parts again? About the only people that can be really targeted are non-citizens. I don't remember the constitution protecting non-citizens.

Yes, but remember that in Germany all Jews regardless of Nationality or place of birth were deemed non-citizens. How long before we see the naturalized citizens from unpopular countries grouped with non-citizens? How long before Natural born citizens of questionable descent join the group? How long before anyone who questions the actions of the powers-that-be are included? Passing legislation that enables a a group of people to be treated differently than others based on subjective criteria is a very slippery slope. This is my greatest fear.

Quote:

Still could be Russia!

Ok. Valid point.

eple · 10-09-2003, 10:57 AM

Eh...I still don't see how getting compared to Stalin is so much more desireable than getting compared to Hitler.

Ustwo · 10-09-2003, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
Er....what has Russia to do with this Ustwo?

This is why we need to teach more history in school.

Quote:

But the decisive factor was a secret pact between dictators Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin to carve up Polands territory between themselves,the more surprising `friendship` as both had sent troops to the Spanish Civil war and fought bitterly against each other.On Sunday September 17th Russian forces attacked Poland along the entire immense length of her frontiers and organised Polish military resistance in her own country was at an end.

What do they teach you these days?

erion · 10-09-2003, 11:04 AM

It's not. Hitler is just more (un)popular. Even Stalin Didn't like him.

Ustwo · 10-09-2003, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by erion
Not at all. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The right to own military grade hardware is not. While in 1789 these were essentially one in the same, owning a modern handgun is not the same as owning an AR-15 or P90 or SAW.

But its ok if I have a handgun on me?

Quote:

Yes, but remember that in Germany all Jews regardless of Nationality or place of birth were deemed non-citizens. How long before we see the naturalized citizens from unpopular countries grouped with non-citizens? How long before Natural born citizens of questionable descent join the group? How long before anyone who questions the actions of the powers-that-be are included? Passing legislation that enables a a group of people to be treated differently than others based on subjective criteria is a very slippery slope. This is my greatest fear.

This is what you said...The Patriot Act would shred essential parts of the U.S. Constitution in order to fight the "war on terror." . Ok, NOW you are saying you are afraid of something hypothetical that the patriot act itself can't do. Don't give me this 'slippery slope' stuff. You said the patriot act would SHRED the essential parts of the constitution, and NOW you are saying, that it might lead to new laws which do. No, the patriot act does what it does. If in the future someone says 'Everyone of Iranian birth has lost their citizenship' then I'll be first in line to denounce them. This is not the future of the patriot act. At least be intellectually honest when you argue. If you don't like the patriot act because you fear it will lead to something worse fine, but state it as your initial argument, don't try to get away with an outrageous statement and wait for someone to call you on it.

chavos · 10-09-2003, 11:41 AM

Ustwo:

Quote:

Which parts again? About the only people that can be really targeted are non-citizens. I don't remember the constitution protecting non-citizens.

Not true on both accounts.

Quote:

The description in the Fourteenth Amendment of any person within the jurisdiction of the United States includes aliens. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/...group+f_aliens!3A%5D/doc/%7Bt12652%7D/hit_headings/words=4/pageitems=%7Bbody%7D?

Nor is there any distinction that Patriot enabled searches, wiretaps, or investigations could only be targeted on immigrants. Indeed, such provisions would surely be regarded as unconsitutional.

Edit: On further review: there are some provisions that are even more harsh on immigrants...but the bulk of the bill applies to citizens and aliens alike.
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safe...ID=11813&c=207

So...

Quote:

At least be intellectually honest when you argue. If you don't like the patriot act because you fear it will lead to something worse fine, but state it as your initial argument, don't try to get away with an outrageous statement and wait for someone to call you on it.

Yeah. I agree. Be intellectually honest and well informed when you argue, and don't rely on the opposition to check your facts.

Ustwo · 10-09-2003, 12:01 PM

I fail to see the constitutional shredding. That is the claim being made by the left. Which part of the constitution has become birdcage lining here?

Food Eater Lad · 10-09-2003, 12:13 PM

I love how people use the selectivly democratic group, the ACLU to defend their points. And I agree With UStwo, what part of the constituion is under attack by tthe Patriot Act?

chavos · 10-09-2003, 02:03 PM

i never said the ACLU is non-partisan. But they do have a good break down of the possible and current effects of the patriot act, regrardless of if you agree with their larger agenda.

1st ammendment: Press is being barred from immigration hearings, the existance of such hearings is now classified. This abrogates the public's right to know.

4th: Black bag searches and searches conducted under executive and not judicial authority threaten our right to privacy from unreasonable searches.

5th, 6th, 8th: Right to private communications with counsel is being taken away in many cases. Citizens or resident aliens can be held as enemy combatants with out legal represntation, and may be subject to military tribunals.
There is no limit on how long a person may be held incommunicado. Judicial oversight over these proceedings is non-existant.

Those would be my primary concerns with the bill...and i'd say that presents a pretty serious assault to constitutional liberties as understood prior to the passage of patriot. Is that shredding? That's probably over inflammatory...but it is a serious issue.

sixate · 10-09-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
I fail to see the constitutional shredding.

Me either!

Why is it only the dems/liberals who are crying about putting criminals behind bars?

BTW, here's section 215. It seems to be what people have the biggest problem with. I don't have a problem with it at all.

PATRIOT Act LINKY

Quote:

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.
Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

`SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.
`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.

`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period--

`(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and
`(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'.

10-09-2003, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
I love how people use the selectivly democratic group, the ACLU to defend their points.

and i hate to see how republicans are so fast to tear down the aclu!
They are about the only ones protecting the freedoms we have!
the freedoms that the gov. is wanting to take away!

Lebell · 10-09-2003, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLIMM
and i hate to see how republicans are so fast to tear down the aclu!
They are about the only ones protecting the freedoms we have!
the freedoms that the gov. is wanting to take away!

My beef with the ACLU is that they only protect the Amendments they like.

As to the Patriot Act, there is too much wiggle room for abuse, IMO.

10-09-2003, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
My beef with the ACLU is that they only protect the Amendments they like.

As to the Patriot Act, there is too much wiggle room for abuse, IMO.

they dont have time to defend every cause so they specialize in certain ones!

just like the nra only concentrates one certain issues!

Lebell · 10-09-2003, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLIMM
they dont have time to defend every cause so they specialize in certain ones!

just like the nra only concentrates one certain issues!

No,

The truth is that the ACLU takes the position that the Second Amendment applies to Militias and not an individual right.

They cite numerous decisions that support that position, but none that don't.

As a matter of fact, a major argument they use is that weapons have changed dramatically and the Second no longer applies.

A good response to that argument:

http://www.flashbunny.org/content/outdated.html

chavos · 10-09-2003, 05:00 PM

off topic? agree or disagree with them, they have decided that their mission can't include that. is it that it's really that different, or that it would bring a fragile coalition to schism....i dunno. But they've never claimed to be about gun freedoms...and there are many groups that do. I don't see where you can really bust them over hypocracy...

chavos · 10-09-2003, 05:04 PM

more to topic, sixate, i believe you are using a modified straw man arguement. section 215 is not the core of the opposition to the patriot act. skimming the index, there are many other subsections which are noted in criticisms of the bill. 215 is as far as i can read, a way of allowing the FBI to get warrents from the forgien intelligence court. There is no public or normal judicial oversight over those courts...and that does raise some concerns. but it is certainly not *the* reason for disliking patriot.

Ustwo · 10-09-2003, 05:28 PM

Again, show me WHERE the constitution is being violated.

I'm not saying you have to like the patriot act, just show me how rights (real rights granted not imaginary ones people THINK they should have) are being violated.

chavos · 10-09-2003, 05:45 PM

uhh...i already posted that. if you'd like to ignore me...that's up to you.

Quote:

Originally posted by chavos
i never said the ACLU is non-partisan. But they do have a good break down of the possible and current effects of the patriot act, regrardless of if you agree with their larger agenda.

1st ammendment: Press is being barred from immigration hearings, the existance of such hearings is now classified. This abrogates the public's right to know.

4th: Black bag searches and searches conducted under executive and not judicial authority threaten our right to privacy from unreasonable searches.

5th, 6th, 8th: Right to private communications with counsel is being taken away in many cases. Citizens or resident aliens can be held as enemy combatants with out legal represntation, and may be subject to military tribunals.
There is no limit on how long a person may be held incommunicado. Judicial oversight over these proceedings is non-existant.

Those would be my primary concerns with the bill...and i'd say that presents a pretty serious assault to constitutional liberties as understood prior to the passage of patriot. Is that shredding? That's probably over inflammatory...but it is a serious issue.

Ustwo · 10-09-2003, 06:07 PM

Oh I'm sorry, whenever I see right to privacy I stop reading. Its not that I don't think we SHOULD have a right to privacy, its that we dont' have one. Amazing huh?

I don't see the press being barred as a first ammendment violation. Thats quite silly.

As for 5th 6th and 8th: I'd like to see where it says that in the patriot act itself. I was looking for a quote from the act itself compared to the constitution.

TBH nothing here sounds any worse then can be done already. Maybe its a different agency, or consolidates steps, but this is really pretty minor.

Abe Lincon, thought of as one of the greatest presidents we ever had (at least in the North) did FAR worse.

chavos · 10-09-2003, 07:03 PM

Hey, if you want to pull strict originalism, fine. But you're not going to have too much company, judicial or political. Nor does my poor wording obscure the fact that we have a right to be secure from unreasonable, non-sanctioned searches. That's not a penumbra "privacy" right, and i should have ommited that from my explanation. But that mistake aside, you're ignoring the meaning of the 4th ammendment...which is not "made up." See Mapp v. Ohio for details.

The first ammendment covers the press. And that's not silly. Nixon v. NY Times has all the details of why.

As for finding specific provisions...i'm not going to. The text of the bill is mostly revisions of previous bills...and i'm not going to sit around with a highligher figuring out all the cross references, and dealing with this:

Quote:

Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--

(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that subparagraph), by striking `; and' and inserting a comma and the following:

`by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;';

(B) in subparagraph (B)--

(i) by inserting `, block during the pendency of an investigation' after `investigate'; and

(ii) by striking `interest;' and inserting `interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and';

(C) by striking `by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States`; and

Sorry, but we're going to have this debate over the analysis of others, not primary research. I'm not qualified to figure out all these things on my own...and i won't pretend to. But all the things i have talked about have been referenced int eh mainstream press as consequences of the patriot act, and related legistlation.

10-08-2003, 06:39 PM	#1 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Patriot act: Reality vs what Micheal Moore says it is. http://bowlingfortruth.com/moore/online/patriotact.htm I didnt want to mess up the side by side comparisons. Please dont flame for not knowing how to do this. If just posting the link is agains board policy, let me know. Thanks.

10-08-2003, 07:56 PM	#3 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	gosh darnit, RR posted just before I did. humph! __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-08-2003, 10:08 PM	#5 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Moi? I was attempting mod duties, not looking to post yet. But don't worry, you know me. Should the urge hit, I'll throw my usual 0.02$ in __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-09-2003, 05:42 AM	#9 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	I try not lose any sleep over it. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

10-09-2003, 06:42 AM	#10 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	The best part is that the same liberal leaders whining about the patriot act also whine that we are not doing enough to protect the nation from terror. I'm willing to bet everything I own that the democrat leadership wants another 9/11. Most of the public blamed Clinton, not Bush for 9/11, but the next one would be 'Bush's Fault'. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-08-2003, 09:52 PM	#4 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	So what? Why should i trust either of these people? Wowsers, a conservative editorial taking an anti-micheal moore stance. Quite newsworthy. His link to the patriot act doesn't even work. Maybe i'll go dig up an editorial claiming that 9/11 was endorsed by pepsi and clear channel and post it next to something by rush limbaugh. Why don't you also comment on what you think about the article FEL? Lebell too for that matter. We post our opinions about articles now as per that thread that lebell started. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=30034 Check it out.

10-09-2003, 07:20 AM	#12 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Blame Clinton for it. I don't understand that. Clinton did more for Anti-terrorism than anyone before him and only Bush surpasses him, but none of that started until after 9/11. Clinton gave record amounts of money to the CIA and FBI for anti-terrorism. Bush cut it when he got in office. Clinton created a battle plan to take the war to al Qaeda and gave it and the support staff to Bush to take it to the next level, and Bush shelved it. Bush opposed the Hart/Lieberman Homeland Security bill... that was until 9/11 then he co-opted it as his own.

10-09-2003, 09:18 AM	#16 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	As far as the Patriot Act goes, it will be challenged. If unlawful it will be invalidated. That's the point of our three pronged system of government. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

10-09-2003, 09:36 AM	#17 (permalink)
erion Psycho	It was best said over 225 years ago by Ben Franklin: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." The Patriot Act would shred essential parts of the U.S. Constitution in order to fight the "war on terror." There was another country in the not-too-distant past where personal liberties were eroded in the name of nationalism, and they kicked things off by invading unfriendly countries as well. You may remember Poland, in 1939. . . Yes, I am comparing George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. Both have chosen a scapegoat for the problems which beset their nation in their day. Both have waged an internationally scorned war in the name of their national security. Both have ignored the pleas of historical allies to cease in their unjust causes, and both have initially enjoyed an atmosphere of appeasement in the face of overwhelming military force. Fortunately we have the lessons of history to show us the path the president is leading America down. I only pray the people of America are wise enough to see it in 13 months when we choose whether Bush gets a second term.

10-09-2003, 09:47 AM	#18 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	ACLU Documents White House Push To Pass PATRIOT II Piecemeal in Congress WASHINGTON - Following on the heels of new momentum on Capitol Hill to rollback parts of the controversial USA PATRIOT Act, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) today released a report detailing how the White House is trying to pass the PATRIOT Act's unpopular sequel by pushing it through Congress piecemeal. "The leaked draft of PATRIOT II proved so overwhelmingly unpopular on the Hill - on both sides of the aisle - that the Administration is trying to slip it through under the radar in drips and drabs," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel and author of the report.__ "Congress needs to keep an eagle eye out lest the Bush Administration seize further expanded and unnecessary powers without proper deliberation," Edgar added. PATRIOT II - formally known as the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 - was leaked anonymously to the press in February of 2003 and contains broad expansions to the powers granted in the 2001 PATRIOT Act - as well as several truly radical changes in American law. Prominent in the report is the so-called VICTORY (Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations) Act of 2003, which has not been introduced but made waves when its existence in a draft circulated by Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was revealed earlier this summer.__Designed to link the war on terror with the war on drugs - and to use broader counter-terrorism surveillance powers in drug investigations - drafts of the VICTORY Act also have nestled in them three provisions that originally appeared in the PATRIOT II leaked draft. The report also discusses in detail three new bills that correspond to three powers President Bush requested from Congress in a speech last month at the FBI Academy in Quantico.__One of these proposed powers - expanded "administrative subpoena" authority - would have the effect of broadening even further the controversial part of the original PATRIOT Act allowing broad access to library and other sensitive records without individual suspicion.__These internal subpoenas could also be used to compel testimony from wholly innocent Americans, effectively meaning that the FBI - on its own -- could force Americans to answer questions.__Under current law, if the FBI wants to force someone to give testimony, a US Attorney has to convene a grand jury.__ As the Washington Post editorialized, "This radical new power is unnecessary as well as dangerous. It's not as though seeking grand jury subpoenas is especially burdensome.__Prosecutors don't need to seek a grand jury's approval for each subpoena they issue; rather, they often issue them on behalf of the grand juries. Federal rules allow them to keep signed and sealed blank subpoenas for use when necessary." "Administrative subpoenas are just the tip of the iceberg," Edgar said.__"There is clearly an organized push in the White House to pass these types of measures that sap liberty and do little to increase safety."_ http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safe...ID=14001&c=206 Bascially, what i'm really worried about the lack of oversight. Administrative supeonas mean that the governemnt with no permission from a Judge can make searches and compel testimony. This is just wrong...the whole reason they first got invented way back when was so that the government wasn't its own watchdog. Last edited by chavos; 10-09-2003 at 10:02 AM..

10-09-2003, 10:51 AM	#20 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Er....what has Russia to do with this Ustwo? I think the comparition with Hitler is dead-on, no matter how much of a kliche. It's all just a little bit of history repeating. What about the camps you made prisoning people without any trial, for as long as you see fit. Any historic irony to find there?

10-09-2003, 10:57 AM	#22 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Eh...I still don't see how getting compared to Stalin is so much more desireable than getting compared to Hitler.

10-09-2003, 11:04 AM	#24 (permalink)
erion Psycho	It's not. Hitler is just more (un)popular. Even Stalin Didn't like him.

10-09-2003, 12:01 PM	#27 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I fail to see the constitutional shredding. That is the claim being made by the left. Which part of the constitution has become birdcage lining here? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-09-2003, 12:13 PM	#28 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	I love how people use the selectivly democratic group, the ACLU to defend their points. And I agree With UStwo, what part of the constituion is under attack by tthe Patriot Act?

10-09-2003, 02:03 PM	#29 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	i never said the ACLU is non-partisan. But they do have a good break down of the possible and current effects of the patriot act, regrardless of if you agree with their larger agenda. 1st ammendment: Press is being barred from immigration hearings, the existance of such hearings is now classified. This abrogates the public's right to know. 4th: Black bag searches and searches conducted under executive and not judicial authority threaten our right to privacy from unreasonable searches. 5th, 6th, 8th: Right to private communications with counsel is being taken away in many cases. Citizens or resident aliens can be held as enemy combatants with out legal represntation, and may be subject to military tribunals. There is no limit on how long a person may be held incommunicado. Judicial oversight over these proceedings is non-existant. Those would be my primary concerns with the bill...and i'd say that presents a pretty serious assault to constitutional liberties as understood prior to the passage of patriot. Is that shredding? That's probably over inflammatory...but it is a serious issue.

10-09-2003, 05:00 PM	#35 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	off topic? agree or disagree with them, they have decided that their mission can't include that. is it that it's really that different, or that it would bring a fragile coalition to schism....i dunno. But they've never claimed to be about gun freedoms...and there are many groups that do. I don't see where you can really bust them over hypocracy...

10-09-2003, 05:04 PM	#36 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	more to topic, sixate, i believe you are using a modified straw man arguement. section 215 is not the core of the opposition to the patriot act. skimming the index, there are many other subsections which are noted in criticisms of the bill. 215 is as far as i can read, a way of allowing the FBI to get warrents from the forgien intelligence court. There is no public or normal judicial oversight over those courts...and that does raise some concerns. but it is certainly not the reason for disliking patriot.

10-09-2003, 05:28 PM	#37 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Again, show me WHERE the constitution is being violated. I'm not saying you have to like the patriot act, just show me how rights (real rights granted not imaginary ones people THINK they should have) are being violated. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-09-2003, 06:07 PM	#39 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Oh I'm sorry, whenever I see right to privacy I stop reading. Its not that I don't think we SHOULD have a right to privacy, its that we dont' have one. Amazing huh? I don't see the press being barred as a first ammendment violation. Thats quite silly. As for 5th 6th and 8th: I'd like to see where it says that in the patriot act itself. I was looking for a quote from the act itself compared to the constitution. TBH nothing here sounds any worse then can be done already. Maybe its a different agency, or consolidates steps, but this is really pretty minor. Abe Lincon, thought of as one of the greatest presidents we ever had (at least in the North) did FAR worse. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.