posted on June 9, 2005 06:38:53 AM
While Americans fret about Michael Jackson, their rights are slowly slipping away. We no longer have an independent judiciary.
posted on June 9, 2005 08:52:05 AM
Profe , the problem (which I've been reading about for awhile now) is too "in your face" for posters here......it's such an ugly thing like the Downing St. Memo, they can't handle it.
We have been losing our basic rights slowly, slowly....on little cat paws so we don't quite catch on until it's a done deal.
But remember the most important point....Clinton had sex with Monica so everything the bush administration does is ok.
[ edited by crowfarm on Jun 9, 2005 08:53 AM ]
posted on June 9, 2005 09:24:17 AM
Oh, yes, the good ol' ACLU opposes our protecting our Nation....might violate the 'right' of some terrorists who wish us harm. yawn
The Senate Intelligence Committee that voted on this 11-4 included:
U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
The Committee is chaired by Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas.
The ranking Democrat is John D. Rockefeller of West Virginia. The members of the Committee are:
Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Chairman
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Mike DeWine (R-Ohio)
Christopher Bond (R-Missouri)
Trent Lott (R-Mississippi)
Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)
Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska)
Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia)
John Warner (R-Virginia) (ex officio)
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Virginia), Vice-Chairman
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Dianne Feinstein (D-California)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
Evan Bayh (D-Indiana)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
----------
I'm thankful that there are at least a FEW democrats that have their heads screwed on straight...and know these powers are necessary/essential to fight our war against terrorism.....especially in our own country...as is currently going on in LODI, CA.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 9, 2005 09:31:37 AM
And the dems who DO think they have an obligation to untie the FBI's hands and allow them to do the same with suspected terrorists as we CURRENTLY do with criminals....have my FULL support.
The bill also must be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Feinstein and other Democrats planned to again offer amendments. [she too voted in favor of]
Overall, Rockefeller said, the committee gave a nod to most of the Patriot Act in its first few years fighting the nation's new enemies.
"We concluded that these tools have helped keep America safe[i] ... [i]and should be made permanent," Rockefeller said in a statement.
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 9, 2005 10:55:09 AM
While the clinton administration made it so our intelligence agencies couldn't share information. THIS administration changed that...mostly because of 9-11. They HAVE to be able to share information with one another, imo, to effectively fight these terrorists. And this administration has seen to it that they can. I hope it doesn't get changed back to pre-911 laws.
-------
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -
President Bush on Thursday credited the Patriot Act with helping to convict more than 200 terrorists and dismissed accusations that the law has violated civil liberties.
Bush described scary scenarios that he said were thwarted by law enforcement and intelligence officers working together with powers granted by the law he signed six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Bush used the examples to pressure Congress to make permanent the provisions of the law that would otherwise expire at the end of the year. But he faces oppositions from civil libertarians who tell their own stories of law-abiding citizens dogged by secret probing of their private affairs.
The Patriot Act bolstered FBI surveillance and law-enforcement powers in terror cases and increased use of material witness warrants to hold suspects incommunicado for months.
Bush urged lawmakers to disregard what he called "unfair criticisms of this important good law." He said the Patriot Act has been used to bring charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half have been convicted. He also said it has been used to break up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia and Florida.
"For the state of our national security, Congress must not rebuild a wall between law enforcement and intelligence," he said to an audience that included roughly 100 uniformed state troopers at the Ohio Patrol Training Academy.
Bush spent just over an hour on the ground in Ohio, a destination chosen so he could highlight the capture and conviction of Iyman Faris. Faris was a Columbus truck driver who authorities said plotted attacks on the Brooklyn Bridge and a central Ohio shopping mall.
Faris acknowledged that he met Osama bin Laden in 2000 at an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan and provided operatives there with sleeping bags, cell phones and other assistance. Later, Faris received attack instructions from top terror leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, authorities said, for what they suggested might have been a second wave of terrorism to follow the Sept. 11 attacks.
The White House said his arrest came after an investigation involving more than a dozen agencies working together in southern Ohio. Faris pleaded guilty to charges of aiding and abetting terrorism and conspiracy in 2003 and is serving a 20-year prison sentence.
"The case against him was so strong that Faris chose to cooperate," Bush said. "Today instead of planning terrorist attacks against the American people, Iyman Faris is sitting in an American prison."
Justice Department spokesman Kevin Madden said Faris was captured using powers granted under Sections 203 and 218 of the Patriot Act, which allows law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share information they have collected.
Bush said investigators on the case said they never would have even had the lead if it weren't for the information-sharing powers of the Patriot Act.
Some critics of the Patriot Act have called for tempering its provisions that let police conduct secret searches of people's homes or businesses. However, defenders of the law say no abuses have been documented, so it should be renewed intact.
posted on June 9, 2005 12:23:27 PM
Speaking of Ohio, Bush is scheduled to make his fourth visit this year to the Buckeye State on Thursday, where he’ll speak about the Patriot Act during a visit to the Ohio State Patrol Academy in Columbus. Why Ohio? The White House says Bush will detail how local law-enforcement officials used the antiterrorism law to crack the case of Iyman Faris, a Columbus truck driver who pled guilty two years ago to helping plot Al Qaeda attacks in the United States. Faris told authorities that he began plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge after meeting with Osama bin Laden and senior Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001.
Administration officials have been under immense pressure from members of Congress to make a better case for why the Patriot Act should be renewed and to detail how they believe the law has been successful in preventing terrorist attacks since 9/11. Bush is also expected to talk at length about broad new powers proposed for the FBI and why they are needed. Legislation approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee this week would allow the FBI to subpoena records and issue wiretaps without permission from a judge or jury. That provision has rankled some of the administration’s longtime allies, including former GOP representative Bob Barr of Georgia, who says the law is being used to enforce cases that have nothing to do with terrorism. “There’s no proof this law has done anything to stop Al Qaeda-style attacks,” Barr says. The former lawmaker, along with prominent conservatives Grover Norquist and Paul Weyrich, have been pressing for greater restrictions on the Patriot Act through a campaign group called Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 9, 2005 12:42:44 PM
Linda - is there any particular reason you don't want the FBI to be subjected to any oversight? Any reason that you don't think they should actualy show a modicum of proof and reason before they start demanding personal information?
Do you understand that even if you completely and 100% trust in the FBI, many of the new guidelines would allow anyone with a computer and a word processing program to get all of your information? All your bank needs now is a letter on any type of law enforcement letterhead demanding all of your banking information and they have to turn it over. And they can't tell you that they did it.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
- Ann Coulter
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 9, 2005 12:43 PM ]
posted on June 9, 2005 12:46:58 PM
"We concluded that these tools have helped keep America safe...and should be made permanent," Rockefeller said in a statement."
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
posted on June 9, 2005 04:02:00 PMadj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
Apt description of the demoncratic party.
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on June 9, 2005 06:12:42 PMit's working...so let's remove it.
Typical reponse from a person that his their head so far up Bush's rear it isn't funny.
Its working. How do you know that for a fact? Why because Bush says it is working? Because a handful of people were captured? Because Bear says their hasnt been another 9/11 attack since the first one.
If Bush said to cash in all your money and buy into a cattle farm in Texas you would do it. Typical sock puppet. Believe the hype because the dictator in chief says so.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 9, 2005 06:45:05 PM
‘Justice’ Blasted Over Patriot Act Prosecutions
By Greg Szymanski
The horror stories surrounding the Patriot Act continue to mount, and civil liberties may be a thing of the past if the Bush administration continues to have its way. A recent report to Congress by the Justice Department’s judicial watchdog office illustrates just how far out of control the FBI conducts business in respect to constitutional protections like proper arrest procedures, search and seizure methods and detainment interrogation policies.
Critics claim the report is just the “tip of the iceberg” since it came from a partisan internal policy body, the Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility headed by Inspector General Glen Fine.
Fine’s report, handed to Congress in September 2004,cited the FBI’s blatant disregard for Brandon Mayfield’s civil rights after the Oregon lawyer was mistakenly linked to the March 2004 attacks on trains in Madrid that killed nearly 200 people and wounded 2,000.
Mayfield, a devout Muslim convert, was arrested in May 2004 on a material witness warrant after the FBI mistakenly determined his fingerprints matched prints found on a bag containing explosive detonators like those used in Madrid. After being held three weeks in FBI custody, Mayfield was released after authorities admitted they made a mistake and rushed to judgment. The release came after finding the fingerprints did not match Mayfield’s.
According to Fine’s report, the “FBI inappropriately conducted (under the Patriot Act) a surreptitious search of his home potentially motivated by his Muslim faith and ties to the Muslim community.”
Mayfield and his attorney were unavailable for comment this week, as attempts to reach them at their Oregon homes by telephone and email were not answered.
Fine released no other details on Mayfield’s case or other potential civil rights abuses tied to the Patriot Act, hurriedly passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks to give the government broader surveillance and prosecution powers to use against terrorists.
Critics, however, suggest the loose definition of what constitutes a terrorist combatant unduly exposes innocent citizens to unnecessary government surveillance against which they were previously protected by the U.S. Constitution.
After the Mayfield report was presented to Congress, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the
report clearly demonstrated how the secrecy used in terrorism investigations can be excessive, leading to the arrest and detention of many innocent people in direct violation of the Constitution.
Since the passage of the heavily criticized Patriot Act, FBI agents and federal prosecutors have been assailed for overzealously bending the act’s intent to place surveillance on citizens for possible violations not involving terrorism.
In particular, the Justice Department and former Attorney General John Ashcroft have circulated interoffice memos to various federal offices, instructing federal prosecutors and agents on how to stretch the Patriot Act to encompass surveillance for non-related terrorism investigations.
Regarding the Justice Department’s internal report, it comes from a provision within the Patriot Act itself, which authorizes the inspector general to review complaints about civil liberties and civil rights abuses involving federal personnel.
Critics complain such an internal investigation lacks credibility since the policing agency should come from a non-biased outside source, not Justice Department investigators.
The latest report given to Congress, including the Mayfield case, covered a period from Dec. 16, 2003, to June 21, 2004. During that time, 1,613 complaints were filed, however,only a handful have merited further investigation by the inspector general.
Approximately 1,000 were immediately dismissed as frivolous without any follow-up investigation, most termed as “farfetched claims.”
Another 410 complaints involving government workers were determined to be not under the inspector general’s jurisdiction.
Concerning the remaining 208 complaints,only 13 including Mayfield’s, warranted further review, causing critics to complain about a biased selection process due to the low number of investigated complaints.
Another case involves the lengthy detention of four Arabs,who claim they were handcuffed, taken to FBI headquarters for questioning and subjected to humiliation.
The remaining 10 cases were turned over to other government agencies for investigation.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 9, 2005 06:47:37 PM
original news source:
story.news.yahoo.com
NEWARK, N.J. - Federal authorities Tuesday used the Patriot Act to charge a man with pointing a laser beam at an airplane overhead and temporarily blinding the pilot and co-pilot.
The FBI acknowledged the incident had no connection to terrorism but called David Banach's actions "foolhardy and negligent."
Banach, 38, of Parsippany admitted to federal agents that he pointed the light beam at a jet and a helicopter over his home near Teterboro Airport last week, authorities said. Initially, he claimed his daughter aimed the device at the helicopter, they said.
He is the first person arrested after a recent rash of reports around the nation of laser beams hitting airplanes.
A New Jersey man accused with using a laser to beam pilots of two planes has been charged under the Patriot Act. The FBI has acknowledged that the incident does not have any relation to terrorism. David Banach has admitted that he pointed the laser device at jet and a helicopter that passed over his home. He initially claimed his daughter had used the device.
The article is unclear as to why he was charged under the Patriot Act. Indeed if this act is going to routinely applied to non terrorist incidents I for one am very alarmed by this. The man should be charged and convicted of this stupid crime. However with even the FBI acknowledging that its not terrorism how exactly can they charge him? There no doubt are local and state laws that govern this and they could prosecute them under those. Is the burden of proof a lot less?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 9, 2005 06:51:32 PM
Washington -- An unusual left-right coalition opened a campaign Tuesday to sharply curtail controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act, showing that Congress and President Bush face a pointed debate over renewing the law enacted just 45 days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
It was a Washington rarity to see the American Civil Liberties Union line up with conservative lions like David Keefe of the American Conservative Union and former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga. But they were among those at a Washington press conference held to assail such Patriot Act provisions as those allowing law enforcement agents to look at library users' records or to conduct unannounced "sneak-and-peek'' searches on homes or private offices.
"It is not, and never should be necessary, to surrender our rights under the Bill of Rights to fight the war on terrorism,'' said Barr, who as a House member voted for the Patriot Act, which passed overwhelmingly in the House and provoked only one dissenting Senate vote.
Barr, leader of the new group dubbed Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, concedes that the group faces a difficult fight in making changes to the 4-year-old law. The law's supporters, many of whom point out that the United States hasn't been hit by another terrorist attack since Sept. 11, say it has proven effective and that many of the complaints offered by civil libertarians have nothing to do with the act's provisions.
Key provisions of the bill are scheduled to expire Dec. 31, so Congress must deal with the issue this year. The Senate and House Judiciary Committees plan Patriot Act hearings starting later in the spring.
Instead of seeking wholesale changes, the coalition is focusing on three of the law's most-controversial provisions. And rather than push for their repeal, the group wants the wording clarified to establish that the intention is to fight terrorists -- not let law enforcement agencies engage in fishing expeditions or silence dissent.
The group wants the section giving access to library, medical and firearm- ownership records modified to require that law enforcement officials present evidence to a federal judge supporting a link with suspected terrorism before warrants are served.
The group wants similar limits on the provision allowing secret searches of homes, businesses and personal property.
And group members want the language of the section that allows surveillance of protests rewritten to require a definite connection with suspected terrorism.
"These provisions sweep far too broadly. Whenever people ram through legislation with broad and vague authority, it eventually will be abused,'' Barr said.
"If the Constitution stands for anything, it's that government does not have the power to peer into our private lives without evidence of wrongdoing, '' said Laura Murphy, of the ACLU's Washington legislative office.
Grover Norquist, the conservative activist who heads Americans for Tax Reform, noted the unlikely coalition of conservatives and the ACLU.
"For too long, conservatives assumed it was someone else's job'' to protect civil liberties, Norquist said.
So far, almost 400 local and state governments have passed resolutions opposing the act, or some of its provisions, the ACLU says.
President Bush campaigned last year in favor of renewing the Patriot Act, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has indicated he doesn't favor any changes except, perhaps, to increase the government's powers in a few instances.
"Debate about government exercise of powers that might infringe upon privacy or civil liberties, I think that's an appropriate debate,'' he told a recent meeting of the National Association of Counties. "But it's got to be a real debate, one based on facts. And I've yet to hear a strong argument as to why the Patriot Act should not be reauthorized.''
At a recent House hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller praised the Patriot Act and said he'd like to see it expanded to include administrative subpoena power in terrorism cases, something the FBI has in organized crime and health- care fraud investigations. The subpoenas, which require recipients to disclose information, are signed by an FBI agent without prior judicial or grand jury review.
Mueller said the Patriot Act is a key part of the FBI's new post-Sept. 11 approach.
"We have changed the way we address terrorism since Sept. 11 to ensure that we have exploited every possibility to gather intelligence about the motivations, the capabilities of these individuals or groups in our communities before we go ahead and make the arrest,'' he told a House panel.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 9, 2005 06:57:57 PM
Hello profe, I too am not sure I like this idea much but time will tell if it is used against just terrorists or your average garden variety citizen
One thing to note in the article you posted:
The use of this new subpoena power should be the exception, not the rule. Regrettably, the bill places no such restriction on the issuance of administrative subpoenas," Rockefeller said in a statement
posted on June 9, 2005 07:04:04 PM
The Patriot Act debate is on--sort of. Congress has until the end of the year to decide whether to reauthorize sixteen "sunsetted" provisions of the act that would otherwise expire on December 31. It is holding hearings, and even inviting civil liberties advocates to some of them. Six states and more than 370 cities and towns have adopted resolutions condemning the act's civil liberties abuses. Courts have declared some of its provisions unconstitutional. An impressive coalition of conservative and liberal groups, featuring the likes of former Republican Congressman Bob Barr and the ACLU's Anthony Romero, has vowed to restore checks and balances to a law passed in haste and fear just six weeks after 9/11. And one of the most powerful lobbies in the country is on the case--librarians.
But if Patriot Act opponents are expecting great things, they will be disappointed. Many of the worst provisions of the act are not even up for discussion. The disputes regarding the few provisions that are actually in play often concern only marginal details, while skirting more fundamental issues. And the whole debate is largely a diversion, because the worst civil liberties abuses since 9/11 have been achieved without reliance on the Patriot Act, as they are based on executive initiatives that Congress has no will to challenge.
To begin to understand just how limited the Patriot Act debate is, consider that the sixteen provisions at issue probably take up no more than twenty-five of the original act's 342 pages. Most of those sixteen provisions are now considered "noncontroversial," and are virtually certain to be reauthorized. The real battles are likely to focus on just two sections. One, popularly known as the "libraries provision," allows the government secretly to obtain records of any person from any business, regardless of wrongdoing; and the other authorizes secret "sneak and peek" searches of homes without promptly informing the homeowner. These two measures undoubtedly raise real concerns, but they hardly warrant the kind of mass rallying that both sides have mustered since the Patriot Act was passed.
Among the most troubling provisions not sunsetted are those on immigration. They authorize the government to deny entry to foreigners because of speech rather than actions, to deport even permanent residents who innocently supported disfavored political groups and to lock up foreign nationals without charges.
Patriot Act proponents often insist that there have been no abuses of the act, but the law's immigration provisions have clearly been abused. In one case, the government ordered an Indian man deported for having set up a tent for religious prayer and food, simply because unnamed members of a "terrorist organization" were allegedly among those who came to services at the tent. In a case I am handling for the Center for Constitutional Rights, the government is seeking to deport two longtime permanent residents for having distributed PLO magazines in Los Angeles in the 1980s, and for having organized two Palestinian community dinners at which they raised money for humanitarian causes [see Cole, "9/11 and the LA 8," October 27, 2003]. The government considers it irrelevant that distributing magazines and raising humanitarian aid was entirely lawful, even constitutionally protected, at the time.
The government has also used the Patriot Act's immigration provisions to revoke the visa of Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss professor and a leading thinker on Islam's relation to modernity. Ramadan, one of the first prominent Muslim scholars to condemn the 9/11 attacks, had been offered a prestigious chair at Notre Dame. Yet the government revoked his visa on the basis of something he said, without ever informing him of what it was. More recently, the government denied a visa to Dora Maria Tellez, a Nicaraguan invited to teach at Harvard, solely because of her association with the Sandinistas in the 1980s.
Not only are these aspects of the Patriot Act not subject to debate, but Congress has just passed still more onerous immigration provisions as part of the Iraq War appropriations bill. This legislation makes the Patriot Act look humane. It makes deportable any foreign national who ever joined or made a donation to any organization of two or more people that ever used or threatened to use a weapon. It is no defense to prove that one's support or membership was not intended to further terrorism or violence. This law would retroactively make deportable every foreign national who ever donated to the African National Congress, the Israeli military, Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, the Nicaraguan contras or the Irish Republican Army. It would fully resurrect the "guilt by association" approach of the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act. So, far from checking abuse of the immigration power, Congress has done its best to encourage it still further.
Also not up for reconsideration is a Patriot Act section that authorizes the Treasury Secretary to freeze the assets of any entity in the United States without evidence of wrongdoing, simply by claiming that it is "under investigation" for potential violations of a law barring material support to groups or individuals designated as "terrorist," a term not defined in the law, meaning it is whatever the Treasury Department says it is. The same provision also says that if an entity challenges a freeze order in court, the government can defend it by presenting secret evidence to the judge behind closed doors. The Treasury Department has used this power to freeze the assets of a half-dozen Muslim charities. It's possible that all were actually fronts for terrorism; but it's equally possible that all were legitimate humanitarian organizations. We'll never know, because the Patriot Act shields the government's action from any challenge in open court.
Still another Patriot Act provision criminalizes speech by making it illegal to provide "expert advice" to designated "terrorist organizations." It is no defense under the law that one's advice had no connection to terrorism, or even that one's advice was designed to discourage the use of violence. I represent a human rights organization in Los Angeles, the Humanitarian Law Project, which had been providing human rights training and advice to a Kurdish group in Turkey until the group was designated as "terrorist." It then became a crime, the government argues, for my clients to continue to advise the Kurdish group to use lawful, nonviolent human rights advocacy to resolve their disputes with the Turkish government. This provision, too, is not subject to sunset, even though a US district court has declared it unconstitutional. (In the national intelligence law enacted in December, Congress amended this provision, but only to define "expert advice" as advice based on "specialized knowledge"--a standard that continues to criminalize human rights training.)
So the Patriot Act imposes guilt by association, punishes speech, authorizes the use of secret evidence and allows detention without charges--yet none of that will be subject to the Patriot Act debates. Nor will the debates address the civil liberties abuses committed by US law enforcement agencies or the military outside the Patriot Act--such as the incommunicado detention, without charges or hearings, of hundreds of "enemy combatants" around the world; the use of immigration law to launch a nationwide campaign of ethnic profiling and to detain more than 5,000 foreign nationals, virtually all Arabs or Muslims, none of whom have been convicted of a terrorist crime; the development and application of computer data-mining programs that afford the government ready access to a wealth of private information about all of us without any basis for suspicion; the FBI's monitoring of public meetings and religious services without any grounds for suspecting criminal activity, under guidelines written by John Ashcroft; and, of course, the use of "coercive interrogation" to extract in-formation from suspects in the war on terror, including such tactics as "waterboarding," in which the suspect is made to fear that he is drowning.
Even with regard to the handful of Patriot Act sections that are actually being reviewed, the debate is sharply limited, and fails to confront fundamental civil liberties questions. Consider Section 218, which allows the government to obtain warrants for wiretaps and searches in criminal investigations without showing probable cause of criminal behavior, so long as the investigation also has a "significant [foreign intelligence] purpose." "Foreign intelligence" wiretap warrants have increased by 74 percent over the past four years, and now annually outstrip criminal wiretap warrants. In no other area have the courts permitted criminal search or wiretap warrants on less than probable cause of crime. Yet because the government credits this provision with collapsing "the wall" between law enforcement and intelligence agents, and everyone seems to agree that the wall was a bad thing, this section is almost certain to be made permanent.
In fact, federal law never barred intelligence agents conducting a foreign intelligence investigation from sharing evidence of crime with prosecutors. Many defendants were successfully prosecuted using information obtained during foreign intelligence searches before the Patriot Act was enacted. But the myth of "the wall" is so widely accepted that there's hardly room for disagreement.
The more fundamental myth is that "foreign intelligence" investigations are about terrorism. The government repeatedly claims, for example, that the Patriot Act merely extended to terrorism investigations various tools--such as roving wiretaps, telephone traces and document subpoenas--previously available for drug crimes. But such tools have long been available for investigation of terrorist crimes. What the Patriot Act did was to extend them to "foreign intelligence" investigations, which may have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism or crime. A "foreign intelligence" investigation need only concern foreign-policy-related information about an agent of a foreign power--defined so broadly that it includes any foreign national employee of any organization not composed substantially of US citizens.
Thus, the Patriot Act permits tools previously limited to criminal investigations to be used to investigate, say, a British lawyer working for Amnesty International who is not suspected of any involvement in terrorism or crime. Yet no one has suggested limiting the definition of an agent of a foreign power to "terrorists and spies," the examples the government invariably uses when it defends the law.
The same point applies to Section 215, the libraries provision. The government claims that the power to demand records from libraries or other business entities established in Section 215 already existed before the Patriot Act, in the guise of a grand jury subpoena. But a grand jury subpoena is available only when the government has sufficient grounds to believe a crime has been committed to go to the trouble of empaneling a grand jury. Section 215 can be triggered without any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever--the law would justify a search of library records to see who has checked out the same books as the Amnesty International lawyer, for example. The critical shift is from an investigation focused on crime to one focused on political activity of foreign agents. Yet critics of Section 215 have not suggested narrowing the expansive definitions of "agent of a foreign power" or "foreign intelligence," which are at the root of the problem.
So the Patriot Act debate will focus on at most a handful of provisions in a sweeping law. It will not address many of the most troubling provisions of that law, or other practices of the Administration that raise far more substantial constitutional questions. And even with respect to the few provisions that will be addressed, the most fundamental issues will be skirted. This is attributable to two factors. First, many of the most pernicious aspects of the Patriot Act, and of the "war on terror" generally, affect foreign nationals exclusively, or nearly exclusively. The act's immigration provisions haven't generated the same concern as the surveillance provisions, not because they are less problematic but because they apply only to "them," not "us." The same is true with respect to practices like torture and rendition, tactics largely reserved for foreign nationals, which have failed to generate the kind of grassroots concern that the libraries provision has.
This double standard also infects the surveillance provisions. The foreign-intelligence-gathering powers apply very differently to visiting foreign nationals (those who come to this country to work, study or visit) than to "U.S. persons" (citizens and permanent residents). In order to invoke these powers against the latter, the government must show something much closer to criminal probable cause and may not rely solely on First Amendment-protected activity. There is no logical or legal reason why a foreign student living here should have fewer privacy or speech rights than her US citizen classmate. The reason is political--it is always easier to impose such burdens on the most vulnerable.
The second reason for the inadequate debate is less deeply rooted, but no less troubling. These days it seems that the only issues on which the current national political stage offers liberals any traction are those of mutual concern to conservatives. Understanding this, the ACLU has entered into an alliance, called Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, with conservative groups such as Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Members of the House of Representatives have similarly formed a "tripartisan" "Patriot Act Reform Caucus" featuring unlikely bedfellows Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent; Butch Otter, an Idaho Republican; and John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat.
In the short term, such alliances may well be necessary. It's hard to see how else to get anything done in Congress. But the cost of this compromise has been to submerge significant parts of the liberal reform agenda. The ACLU's brief on what Congress should do about the Patriot Act does not mention the immigration provisions detailed above, nor the use of secret evidence to close down charities. Material support is buried at the end of the memo. The memo does not even take on the double standard embedded in foreign intelligence law. These are not issues that conservative groups have championed, and therefore the ACLU's focus has become the conservatives' focus--the surveillance provisions that might be used against American citizens.
Balancing short-term gains against long-term costs is never easy. Were I in the ACLU's shoes, I might do the same thing. With the conservatives, liberals have a chance of achieving some reform; without them, there might well be no chance. But we should not ignore the long-term costs associated with such an approach--we reinforce the notion that the rights conservatives care about are somehow more important.
A more promising strategy for the long haul, particularly given the anti-alien character of so many initiatives in the war on terror, would be to emphasize a human rights approach. Human rights, after all, are owed to every person, by virtue of their human dignity, irrespective of the passport they carry. As a strategic matter, human rights campaigns can tap into the power of world opinion and bring it to bear at home, especially when the United States selectively abuses the rights of other countries' nationals. By shrinking the world, the Internet has made international mobilization far more efficient and effective. Such a human rights strategy has proved particularly successful, for example, with respect to Guantánamo Bay, where the Bush Administration has been forced from confident assertions of literally unchecked power to a search for a face-saving exit strategy. Critical voices from abroad, especially Europe, mobilized by human rights concerns, created pressure that forced the Administration to negotiate and likely led the Supreme Court to take the legal challenges more seriously than it otherwise would.
One of my favorite postelection maps showed the United States divided along the traditional, and increasingly ossified, red and blue state lines. But it was a map of the world, not only of the United States--and the rest of the world was blue. That may not be entirely accurate, but it does suggest that we might find more fruitful allies by appealing to international human rights and principles of human dignity than by joining forces with progun, antitax conservatives.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 9, 2005 07:36:09 PM
Tell you what, logansdad, you stick to believing what some liberal op-ed writer tells you....and I'll stick with both the dems and the republicans who have ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of how the Patriot Act HAS been VERY effective.
Think you were pulling the wool over everyone's eyes by not making them aware that your last c&p was but ONE liberals opinion?
posted on June 9, 2005 08:07:47 PM
LOL...but this one's even better.
logan, you can't possibly believe the words from this guy....he's got a 'wacko' reading off the top of the charts.
['Justice' Blasted Over Patriot Act Prosecutions By Greg Szymanski]
Here's three other articles he's given HIS opinion on....and any one who's that far out....needs true help...he believes our own government PLANNED 9-11 year ago?
posted on June 9, 2005 10:35:24 PM
Linda - is there any particular reason you don't want the FBI to be subjected to any oversight? Any reason that you don't think they should actualy show a modicum of proof and reason before they start demanding personal information?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on June 10, 2005 05:50:55 AM
We don't need Patriot Act or anything similar.
Government needs to enforce the laws on the books and [/b]enforce[/b] procedures and processes already in place.
More government intervention is a waste of tax dollars.
posted on June 10, 2005 08:20:13 AMTell you what, logansdad, you stick to believing what some liberal op-ed writer tells you....and I'll stick with both the dems and the republicans who have ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of how the Patriot Act HAS been VERY effective.
Actual knowledge of the Patriot Act...Yeah that is right...The Patriot Act was written overnight and passed the next day. Law makers were given copies of the Patriot Act that were still hot off the press. Now are you going to tell me that all 100 members of Congress actually read the Patriot Act before they voted on it.
Here's three other articles he's given HIS opinion on....and any one who's that far out....needs true help...he believes our own government PLANNED 9-11 year ago?
No different than roughly 50% of the residents of NYC believing the government knew about the 9/11 attacks and failed to stop them. This is according to a Zogby poll. Aren't you the one that put high credibility into the Zogby polls. Are you now going to tell me Zogby is a crackpot too? This is the same Zogby that did a poll showed a majority of Americans supported Bush's plan for Social Security. It was you the posted this.
Again you focused on the first post. I bet you didn't even read the 3rd post which was supported by both liberals and conservatives.
I bet you are also going to deny the fact that there are entire US cities that are not co-operating with federal authorities when it comes to the provisions in the Patriot Act. Why you ask? Because those cities believe the Patriot Act violates peoples civil rights.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
[ edited by logansdad on Jun 10, 2005 08:37 AM ]
posted on June 10, 2005 10:52:05 AMNo different than roughly 50% of the residents of NYC believing the government knew about the 9/11 attacks and failed to stop them
Believing the government failed to stop a terrorist act and believing that the government participated in carrying out said terrorist act are not anywhere near the same thing.
As for the 50% number from whatever poll that was taken from, I can only say that I spend a significant portion of every single day working in Manhattan and I don't know a single person who believes that. Most people around here tend to put the blame for 9/11 right where it belongs - on the scumbags who flew the planes.
posted on June 10, 2005 10:55:34 AM
Fiset, I didnt believe the poll results either. I posted it because it was Linda who believed Zogby had accurate polls.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 10, 2005 12:10:17 PM
fiset - Good counter-point. I don't think logan understands the difference between the two.
and logan - Let's see where the poll [you NEVER use - but just did] supports your claim.
How about a link that shows us all that 50% of New Yorkers believed our OWN government had planned the 9-11 attack years ago.
I hear New Yorkers are a little different than most people [kidding classic and fiset ] but I don't for one minute believe that many thought/believed the US government had planned out this destruction.
I think you're VERY confused from reading to many of these 'looney-bin' op-ed writers.
posted on June 10, 2005 01:36:25 PMand logan - Let's see where the poll [you NEVER use - but just did] supports your claim.
I am surprised the Google Queen could not find it for herself.
Here is the proof that roughly 50% of NYC residents beleived the government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,"
Now Linda as long as we are posting proof of our claims, why dont you supply the proof that I had previous posted Zogby poll results as you have claimed that I have. This is the only time I have ever posted a Zogby poll result.
I think you're VERY confused from reading to many of these 'loony-bin' op-ed writers.
Now Linda, it was you that thought the Zogby polls were so credible. I guess it is YOU that believe in in loony - bin pollsters since I am the one that has discredited Zogby.
Now it is no wonder why only the Zogby poll is showing the majority of people backs Bush's social security plan.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 10, 2005 02:03:59 PM
logan, thanks for posting the link to the poll.
Two problems though....the results were from only 808 people....not a representative number, imo, to judge how ALL New York people felt...nor how the country felt as a whole.
Second point is that is NOT what your own link from, Greg...the outof-touch idiot said. He said, and you used as proof that our government had PLANNED the 9-11 attacks for years. He remains without credibility. He's a looney-toon.
And no, I won't be taking the time to pull up where you used these polls to support your own position. So don't be holding your breath. It's not important enough to me to waste the time searching for it.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act; 66%
They didn't say...our government PLANNED the attacks as your op-ed link nut-case states. Reading his other articles, one can easily see he's seeing black helicopters flying over his head all the time.
posted on June 10, 2005 04:31:32 PMAnd no, I won't be taking the time to pull up where you used these polls to support your own position. So don't be holding your breath. It's not important enough to me to waste the time searching for it.
That's because they dont exist otherwise it would have been easy for the Google Queen to find them.
He said, and you used as proof that our government had PLANNED the 9-11 attacks for years.
I used as proof that not everyone is in favor of the Patriot Act as you want to believe. I never used it as proof that MY GOVERNMENT planned the 9/11 attacks.
Two problems though....the results were from only 808 people....not a representative number, imo, to judge how ALL New York people felt...nor how the country felt as a whole.
Nice try Linda, 808 people are not enough to be representative of all New York people.
The Zogby poll that you had posted used the following information:
The poll of 1,006 likely voters was conducted May 23-25 and has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points.
Now how can 808 people not be representative of a state that has a population of roughly 19 Million but your poll of 1,006 people is supposed to be representative of a country that has over 290 Million people.
It must be more of that Republican math that was taught back in the 60's.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
] but I don't for one minute believe that many thought/believed the US government had planned out this destruction.