News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

Patriot Act

Started by DennisK, February 03, 2009, 05:21:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

DennisK

I admit to being one who bought into the propaganda of the Patriot Acts, but I never realized what they stated.  I'm not proud that I wasn't too concerned about what I did know  -that racial profiling would be more acceptable.  Many of you may already know what the details of the Acts are, but I have recently reviewed many civil liberties lost since the first Act was passed and I am appalled at what it actually states, especially knowing that most provisions aren't going to expire as advertised.  This site was pretty helpful:  http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=lossofcivilliberties

Here are some headlines and details of the site:
QuoteOctober 26, 2001: Patriot Act Becomes Law

    1)   Non-citizens can be detained and deported if they provide “assistance” for lawful activities of any group the
government chooses to call a terrorist organization. Under this provision the secretary of state can designate any group that has ever engaged in violent activity as a terrorist organization. Representative Patsy Mink notes that in theory supporters of Greenpeace could now be convicted for supporting terrorism. [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 11/12/2001] 


2)   Immigrants can be detained indefinitely, even if they are found not to have any links to terrorism. They can be detained indefinitely for immigration violations or if the attorney general decides their activities pose a danger to national security. They need never be given a trial or even a hearing on their status. [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 9/8/2002] 


3)   Internet service providers can be ordered to reveal the web sites and e-mail addresses that a suspect has communicated to or visited. The FBI need only inform a judge that the information is relevant to an investigation. [VILLAGE VOICE, 11/26/2001; SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 9/8/2002] 

 
4)   It “lays the foundation for a domestic intelligence-gathering system of unprecedented scale and technological prowess.” [WASHINGTON POST, 11/4/2001] It allows the government to access confidential credit reports, school records, and other records, without consent or notification. [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 9/8/2002] All of this information can now be given to the CIA, in violation of the CIA’s mandate prohibiting it from spying within the US. [VILLAGE VOICE, 11/26/2001] 


5)   Financial institutions are encouraged to disclose possible violations of law or “suspicious activities” by any client. The institution is prohibited from notifying the person involved that it made such a report. The term “suspicious” is not defined, so it is up to the financial institutions to determine when to send such a report. 


6)   Federal agents can easily obtain warrants to review a library patron’s reading and computer habits (see January 2002). [VILLAGE VOICE, 2/22/2002] 


7)   The government can refuse to reveal how evidence is collected against a suspected terrorist defendant. [TAMPA TRIBUNE, 4/6/2003] 


•   The law passes without public debate. [VILLAGE VOICE, 11/9/2001; VILLAGE VOICE, 11/26/2001] Even though it ultimately took six weeks to pass the law, there was no hearing or congressional debate. [SALON, 3/24/2003] Congressman Barney Frank (D) says, “This was the least democratic process for debating questions fundamental to democracy I have ever seen. A bill drafted by a handful of people in secret, subject to no committee process, comes before us immune from amendment.” [VILLAGE VOICE, 11/9/2001] Only 66 congresspeople, and one senator, Russell Feingold (D), vote against it. Few in Congress are able to read summaries, let alone the fine print, before voting on it. [LOS ANGELES TIMES, 10/30/2001] Feingold says, “The new law goes into a lot of areas that have nothing to do with terrorism and have a lot to do with the government and the FBI having a wish list of things they want to do.” [VILLAGE VOICE, 11/9/2001] Supporters point out that some provisions will expire in four years, but in fact most provisions will not expire. [CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 11/1/2001] One year later, criticism of the law grows. [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 9/8/2002] Dozens of cities later pass resolutions criticizing the Patriot Act (see January 12, 2003).
[/list]

February 7, 2003: Ultra-Secret Patriot Act II is Revealed

Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity reveals the leaked text of a new anti-terrorism bill. Called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, it becomes popularly known as the Patriot Act II. The text of the bill is dated January 9, 2003. [CONGRESS, 1/9/2003; NOW WITH BILL MOYERS, 2/7/2003; CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY, 2/7/2003] Before it was leaked, the bill was being prepared in complete secrecy from the public and Congress. Only House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Vice President Cheney were sent copies on January 10. [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 2/11/2003] A week earlier, Attorney General Ashcroft said the Justice Department was not working on any bill of this type, and when the text is released, they say it is just a rough draft. But the text “has all the appearance of a document that has been worked over and over.” [VILLAGE VOICE, 2/28/2003; ABC NEWS, 3/12/2003] Some, including a number of congresspeople, speculate that the government is waiting until a new terrorist act or war fever before formally introducing this bill. [NOW WITH BILL MOYERS, 2/7/2003; ASSOCIATED PRESS, 2/10/2003; UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, 3/10/2003; VILLAGE VOICE, 3/26/2003] Here are some of its provisions: 


    1)   
The attorney general is given the power to deport any foreign national, even people who are legal permanent residents. No crime need be asserted, no proof offered, and the deportation can occur in complete secrecy. [ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 2/16/2003] 


2)   It would authorize secret arrests in terrorism investigations, which would overturn a court order requiring the release of names of their detainees. [ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 2/16/2003] Not even an attorney or family need be informed until the person is formally charged, if that ever happens. [ABC NEWS, 3/12/2003] 


3)   The citizenship of any US citizen can be revoked if they are members of or have supported any group the attorney general designates as terrorist. [ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 2/16/2003] A person who gives money to a charity that only later turns out to have some terrorist connection could then lose his or her citizenship. [CNN, 3/6/2003] 


4)   â€œWhole sections… are devoted to removing judicial oversight.” Federal agents investigating terrorism could have access to credit reports, without judicial permission. [ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 2/16/2003] 


5)   Federal investigators can conduct wiretaps without a court order for 15 days whenever Congress authorizes force or in response to an attack on the United States. [UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, 3/10/2003] 


6)   It creates a DNA database of anyone the Justice Department determines to be a “suspect,” without court order. [MERCURY NEWS (SAN JOSE), 2/20/2003] 


7)   It would be a crime for someone subpoenaed in connection with an investigation being carried out under the Patriot Act to alert Congress to any possible abuses committed by federal agents. [ABC NEWS, 3/12/2003] 


8)   Businesses and their personnel who provide information to anti-terrorism investigators are granted immunity even if the information is fraudulent. [ABC NEWS, 3/12/2003] 


9)   The government would be allowed to carry out electronic searches of virtually all information available about an individual without having to show probable cause and without informing the individual that the investigation was being carried out. Critics say this provision “would fundamentally change American society” because everyone would be under suspicion at all times. [ABC NEWS, 3/12/2003] 


10)   Federal agents would be immune from prosecution when they engage in illegal surveillance acts. [UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, 3/10/2003] 


11)   Restrictions are eased on the use of secret evidence in the prosecution of terror cases. [UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, 3/10/2003] 


12)   Existing judicial consent decrees preventing local police departments from spying on civil rights groups and other organizations are canceled. [SALON, 3/24/2003] 
 Initially the story generates little press coverage, but there is a slow stream of stories over the next weeks, all expressing criticism. Of all the major newspapers, only the Washington Post puts the story on the front page, and no television network has the story in prime time. [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 2/8/2003; CBS NEWS, 2/8/2003; LOS ANGELES TIMES, 2/8/2003; NEW YORK TIMES, 2/8/2003; WASHINGTON POST, 2/8/2003; ASSOCIATED PRESS, 2/10/2003; SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 2/11/2003; LOS ANGELES TIMES, 2/13/2003; ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 2/16/2003; DENVER POST, 2/20/2003; PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 2/20/2003; MERCURY NEWS (SAN JOSE), 2/20/2003; BALTIMORE SUN, 2/21/2003; STAR-TRIBUNE (MINNEAPOLIS), 2/21/2003; VILLAGE VOICE, 2/28/2003; HOUSTON CHRONICLE, 3/1/2003; CNN, 3/6/2003; UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, 3/10/2003; ABC NEWS, 3/12/2003; HERALD TRIBUNE (SARASOTA), 3/19/2003; SALON, 3/24/2003; VILLAGE VOICE, 3/26/2003; TAMPA TRIBUNE, 4/6/2003] Representative Jerrold Nadler (D) says the bill amounts to “little more than the institution of a police state.” [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 2/11/2003]
[/list]

These are only a fraction of our civil liberties lost in the past decade or two.  Am I crazy to be concerned about what's already on the books and what else might be coming?
"If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality." -Halton Arp

Will

I know President Obama has a lot on his plate, but repealing the Patriot Act should have been in the top 3 (maybe behind stopping torture and prosecuting the Federal Reserve).

You're not crazy to be concerned at all. The Patriot Act was passed by a frightened and confused congress, most of whom didn't even read it. It grants unprecedented power to the government to spy, cheat, and steal. This is a good place to start:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/ ... 31114.html
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

rlrose328

Yup, it's all in the language.  Who would vote against something called "The Patriot Act" and risk losing re-election from their frightened constituents?  The Bush administration was all about pandering to the fear of the nation, using it to their advantage to remove those rights you listed.  It's disgusting.
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!


McQ

Dammit! He did it again! Will beat me to the ACLU link on this.  :D  Quick Draw Will!

No, Dennis, you're not nuts to be concerned. We all should be concerned. Outraged, more like it.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

DennisK

Another thing I didn't realize was that both Daschle and Leahy had concerns about rushing the bill through and they were subsequently targets of the anthrax attacks.  Once the anthrax was found to have been genetically traced to a single US military source: the Army’s Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah, the only facility known to have processed anthrax into the highly lethal powder form found in the letters, the media seemed to drop the case.  After that, Daschle and Leahy voted for the bill.  That's a little too coincidental in my book.  Maybe my perspective is out of whack, but shouldn't that raise 5 alarm bells?  Plus the secrecy of Patriot Act II, WTF is going on?  Can someone ground me a bit?
"If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality." -Halton Arp

Will

I'm afraid there's very little left to ground on. As far as I'm concerned, it should be priority #1 (well, #2, behind repealing both of the Patriot Acts) to find out who wrote the PA, who supported it, and who threatened those who apposed it. Then we can prosecute.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

DennisK

Quote from: "Willravel"I'm afraid there's very little left to ground on. As far as I'm concerned, it should be priority #1 (well, #2, behind repealing both of the Patriot Acts) to find out who wrote the PA, who supported it, and who threatened those who apposed it. Then we can prosecute.

Do you really there will be any prosecutions?  In your opinion, where would one's effort be most effective?  ACLU or other or a combination.  If something's going to be done, we have to join together and demand it.
"If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality." -Halton Arp

Ninteen45

I say we lock up the people who wrote it for ever, as they can't do anything about it.

 :devil:
Now I can be re-gognizod!

VanReal

The perfect time to enact the provisions of the Patriot Act was after 9/11 (it was already drafted) because people would finally vote for it.  The biggest thing it was trying to tackle was making it easier for the FBI to run wire taps and other electronic surveillance on suspected terrorists, as well as following funds.  Prior to the Act it was almost impossible to get approval for electronic surveillance without probable cause and a warrant, this dropped that down to reasonable suspicion  and no warrant required.  So, this means no judge is signing off on it and it's not in public record.  I hear the argument all of the time that "if you aren't doing anything illegal you shouldn't care" but I think the rest of us value our privacy a little more than that.  

It's not so hard to see why this was voted for, it was a trying time and there was a lot of fear, and we had a frustrated police force that was having their hands tied and were unable to obtain the data and information that could have prevented 9/11.  

It was necessary at the time when we were venturing into the unknown and all of us wanted there to be some action.  In criminal justice the pendulum swings every decade, and although I don't think this Act will go away completely I think there will be legislation to reel it in a bit.
In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular. (Kathy Norris)
They say I have ADHD but I think they are full of...oh, look a kitty!! (unknown)