RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Liberals and Conservatives Unite Against The Patriot Act

Quote:

---

Left-Right Coalition Rises to Oppose USA Patriot Act Provisions

WASHINGTON, D.C., Mar 24 (OneWorld) - A novel coalition of conservatives and liberals normally at each other's throats over the nature of government and free speech have made common cause to oppose key parts of the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law.

The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) (ACLU), long vilified by conservatives, has joined forces with right-wing groups the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Free Congress Foundation to spearhead the ''Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances'' coalition.

The Patriot Act's supporters have said it has kept America safe since 2001 but opponents have said the law is intrusive and threatens to let the government spy on innocent Americans. The new coalition will lobby Congress to roll back provisions allowing law enforcement agents to look at library users' records and to conduct unannounced searches of homes and private offices.

''Checks and balances are absolutely essential, even and especially during times of threat,'' said coalition leader Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman from Georgia who voted for the law in 2001. ''Our message is universal. Liberty is not divisible, even in the face of terrorism, and we must not allow any part of it to be sacrificed in our efforts to defeat acts of terrorism.''

Administration and Justice Department (news - web sites) officials have said that the law contains strong civil liberties safeguards and that no civil liberties complaints have been filed against the legislation itself. Rather, they said, many of the complaints offered by civil libertarians have nothing to do with the law's provisions.

The coalition came together to prevent politicians from branding Patriot Act opponents un-American or suggesting they are willing to help terrorists, as happened when the law first was debated, coalition members said at a news conference.

''We don't want this argument to be obscured by those who would suggest that anyone who is for more and more government power is somehow on the side of the right, and those who are against it or are skeptical of such grants are on the side of the wrong,'' said David Keene of the American Conservative Union. ''This is an important question for all Americans on the left, the right, or in the middle.''

Key Patriot Act provisions are scheduled to expire on Dec. 31. The Senate and House Judiciary committees plan to open hearings in the next month on whether they should be renewed.

The coalition focused on three of the law's most controversial provisions, asking that the wording of each be clarified to limit its scope to fighting terrorists and to prevent law enforcement agencies from using the law to silence dissent or go on fishing expeditions.

It urged that a provision giving agencies access to library, medical, and gun purchase records be modified to require law enforcement officials to present evidence to a federal judge supporting a link with suspected terrorism before warrants are served.

It sought similar limits on a provision allowing so-called ''sneak and peek'' searches of homes, businesses, and personal property without property owners' or residents' knowledge and with warrants delivered afterwards.

And it asked that the language of a provision allowing surveillance of protests be rewritten to require a definite connection with suspected terrorism.

''The Patriot Act went too far, too fast, and now is the time to determine what freedoms have been unnecessarily lost in the name of national security,'' said the ACLU's Laura Murphy. ''Now is the time for Congress to restore those freedoms.''

Short for the ''Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,'' the USA Patriot Act originally passed by 357-66 in the House of Representatives and 98-1 in the Senate.

President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s administration proposed the law, shepherded it through Congress, and enacted it in the immediate aftermath of the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the U.S. Senate's evacuation because of anthrax.

The measure passed with neither chamber issuing the usual reviews of proposed legislation. ''As a result, it lacks background legislative history that often retrospectively provides necessary statutory interpretation,'' according to a detailed analysis of the law prepared by the Washington, D.C.-based Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose powers the law has greatly expanded, have called for the act's renewal. Gonzales has suggested that provisions expanding the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates, and financiers should be strengthened.

''Debate about government exercise of powers that might infringe upon privacy or civil liberties, I think that's an appropriate debate,'' Gonzales 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.''

The coalition faces a difficult fight in making changes to the law, Barr told reporters. The ACLU's Murphy, however, said grassroots opposition to the law is growing.

Some 375 local and state governments representing more than 56 million Americans have passed resolutions opposing the law or some of its provisions, the ACLU said.

While many of these resolutions have no practical effect, proponents have said the measures serve to notify federal policymakers and agencies of public disapproval. Most of the resolutions called upon Congress to bring the Patriot Act back in line with the Constitution.

Foreign governments also have looked askance at the law, which gave the government new authority to collect information not only about U.S. citizens but also about visitors to the United States.

Last year, Latin American countries objected to sending census data and voter records to U.S. law enforcement agencies and Canadian officials warned that complying with the Patriot Act would violate Canadian law.

Other groups in the new coalition include the American Policy Center, Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

---

Quote:

---

rex said:
some parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional and therefore illegal

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
So, Rex, with all due respect, what you are saying is that you consider the act unconstitutional but are unable to say why or even site a passage that supports your opinion?

---

Quote:

---

Uschi said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
So, Rex, with all due respect, what you are saying is that you consider the act unconstitutional but are unable to say why or even site a passage that supports your opinion?

---

All that would mean is that he's not a politician. I don't understand the jibberish, myself.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
That way we could discuss REX's opinion, not someone else's. I was curious as to what he thought. Same with Uschi.

---

Quote:

---

Uschi said:
"Homeland" Security... heh. Heimat!!!

---

Quote:

---

Patriot Act's renewal unites unlikely allies

By Frank Davies, Knight Ridder Newspapers Tue May 3, 6:27 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Congress is moving steadily toward re-enactment of the USA Patriot Act, which gave the federal government extensive search and surveillance powers to fight terrorism.

But there are a few surprises.

An unlikely coalition of groups including civil libertarians and gun owners want changes, Republican senators are asking tough questions, and a former top legal adviser in the FBI told Knight Ridder that some of the Patriot Act's powers are too broadly defined.

"The law as written simply does not inspire sufficient confidence to overcome the fear of abuse," Michael Woods, chief of the FBI's national security law unit when the act was passed in 2001, wrote in a law journal article to be published later this month.

Woods, in an interview Monday, said he favored allowing investigators access to personal records only if the data were directly relevant to an investigation and if a judge was given more discretion in approving the government's request for them.

"Right now that section is broader than the people who use it intended it be, so some of the criticism has been valid," said Woods, who now works for MZM Inc., a defense contractor.

The overall tone of the debate over the Patriot Act has shifted from often-emotional opposition, sometimes marked by misunderstandings, to a carefully targeted examination of the 342-page bill, which Congress passed hurriedly six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"There were plenty of exaggerations and fear-mongering in the beginning from both sides," said Mary DeRosa, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The act was either the only way to stop terrorism or it was going to lead to a dossier on every American."

Even the American Civil Liberties Union concedes that much of the act isn't controversial. Suggestions for change, such as Woods' recommendations, often focus on tightening legal language.

Viet Dinh, who as assistant attorney general was a primary author of the act, said Tuesday that he feels vindicated by this year's debate.

"The act was never as controversial or dramatic as it was made out to be," said Dinh, a Georgetown University law professor. "I think it will be re-enacted with few changes."

But the law, designed to prevent more terrorist attacks, was certainly far-reaching. It broke down barriers between law enforcement and intelligence officials, and it made it easier for them to tap phones, search records, monitor Internet transactions and collect data. It also lowered the standards for warrants in some cases.

Even defenders of the Patriot Act conceded it didn't get close attention on Capitol Hill at the time of passage, so they attached a "sunset" requirement in which 16 provisions of the bill, including the one offering easier access to records, be reviewed this year. If they aren't renewed, they expire.

"That was a brilliant piece of engineering," said Neal Katyal, a Washington lawyer and former Justice Department official, because it gave Congress some leverage over the Bush administration.

Since March, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, FBI Director Robert Mueller and other top officials have trooped to Congress each week to defend the act and seek reauthorization.

Their message is that the new powers are essential but have been used with restraint. On Tuesday, Chuck Rosenberg, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General James Comey, said special "sneak and peek" searches - in which the subject is informed of a search long after it's conducted - constituted about two out of every 1,000 searches in the last three years.

And special searches under the controversial records-access section have been used only 35 times, Gonzales said. Those were mainly for drivers' licenses and hotel records and didn't include libraries or medical records or gun sales.

But because these searches were approved by special federal courts that operate in secret, it's difficult even for Congress to monitor how the act has been used.

Members of both parties are mindful of history. Even if the FBI has been careful in using the new police powers, Democrats cite the abuses of the 1960s and 1970s, when the FBI spied on antiwar and civil rights groups.

Librarians remember the Library Awareness Program, when the FBI snooped on foreigners' reading habits, and they fear that the Patriot Act could be used to override privacy protections.

Republicans warn that a future administration might misuse the Patriot Act. Some conservative groups seeking changes worry that the act's definition of domestic terrorism is too broad and could apply to anti-abortion groups.

A bill by Sen. Richard Durbin (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., and Sen. Larry Craig (news, bio, voting record), R-Idaho, would narrow the standards for surveillance and set time limits on delayed-notification searches.

So far, the debate on Capitol Hill has been methodical and low-key, focused on nuance, not nastiness. The House Judiciary Committee plans another hearing Thursday, more later this month, and hopes to pass its version of Patriot Act renewal by early June, spokesman Jeff Lungren said.

Another reason for the change in tone is the conciliatory approach of Gonzales. Unlike his predecessor, John Ashcroft, Gonzales has met with critics of the Patriot Act, including the ACLU and the American Library Association, and said he will consider modifications - but not major changes.

"It was a very refreshing meeting," said Carol Brey-Casiano, president of the library association, who met with Gonzales Monday. "He listened to us. We never had that opportunity with an attorney general in the recent past."

---

Quote:

---

Secret vote on Patriot Act angers some conservatives

WASHINGTON - A closed-door vote by the Senate Intelligence Committee to expand law enforcement powers under the USA Patriot Act is prompting sharp criticism from some conservative leaders who are otherwise among the most vocal allies of President Bush and the Republican leadership.

The conservative leaders, who have formed a coalition with critics on the left, including the American Civil Liberties Union, vowed to press their concerns in public statements, rallies and advertising.
...
"It is a slap in the face to the Constitution," said Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, who leads a bipartisan coalition of groups calling for limits on the act, which was passed six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In a separate interview, the head of the American Conservative Union, David Keene, said he was upset that the administration appeared to be encouraging reauthorization of the expiring Patriot Act provisions through the more-secretive Senate Intelligence Committee, despite pledges of openness.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/32217...

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
I think the posting of on topic political cartoons can be a good way to revive a long dormant, but still potentially relevant thread, or just stimulate conversation.

I had no problem with whomod doing it either, provided they were on topic.

I acknowledge that the non-wacko opponents of the Patriot may have good intentions. On the other hand, and something the cartoon touches on, even well intentioned efforts can have dangerous results.

In the cartoon at hand, the opponents of the Patriot Act are telling the military/government that they believe the act is unnecessary to the war on terror. However, the cartoonist argues (through his picture) the Patriot Act is a major weapon in that war and taking it away would cripple our defenses.

There's nothing in the cartoon to really suggest that the opponents actually want Al Quaeda to win, simply that their efforts, however well intentioned are taking away a valuable weapon in the war on terror.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
I think the posting of on topic political cartoons can be a good way to revive a long dormant, but still potentially relevant thread, or just stimulate conversation.

I had no problem with whomod doing it either, provided they were on topic.

---

Quote:

---

I acknowledge that the non-wacko opponents of the Patriot may have good intentions. On the other hand, and something the cartoon touches on, even well intentioned efforts can have dangerous results.

In the cartoon at hand, the opponents of the Patriot Act are telling the military/government that they believe the act is unnecessary to the war on terror. However, the cartoonist argues (through his picture) the Patriot Act is a major weapon in that war and taking it away would cripple our defenses.

There's nothing in the cartoon to really suggest that the opponents actually want Al Quaeda to win, simply that their efforts, however well intentioned are taking away a valuable weapon in the war on terror.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

---

Subsection 203(b): Permits the sharing of grand jury information that involves foreign intelligence or counterintelligence with federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense or national security officials

Subsection 203(d): Gives foreign intelligence or counterintelligence officers the ability to share foreign intelligence information obtained as part of a criminal investigation with law enforcement.

Section 223: Amends the federal criminal code to provide for administrative discipline of federal officers or employees who violate prohibitions against unauthorized disclosures of information gathered under this act.

Quote:

---

http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm

Quote:

---

Agents' visit chills UMass Dartmouth senior
By AARON NICODEMUS, Standard-Times staff writer

NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."

Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.

The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.

The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.

"I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book," Professor Pontbriand said. "Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it."

Although The Standard-Times knows the name of the student, he is not coming forward because he fears repercussions should his name become public. He has not spoken to The Standard-Times.
The professors had been asked to comment on a report that President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to spy on as many as 500 people at any given time since 2002 in this country.

The eavesdropping was apparently done without warrants.

The Little Red Book, is a collection of quotations and speech excerpts from Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung.

In the 1950s and '60s, during the Cultural Revolution in China, it was required reading. Although there are abridged versions available, the student asked for a version translated directly from the original book.

The student told Professor Pontbriand and Dr. Williams that the Homeland Security agents told him the book was on a "watch list."
They brought the book with them, but did not leave it with the student, the professors said.

Dr. Williams said in his research, he regularly contacts people in Afghanistan, Chechnya and other Muslim hot spots, and suspects that some of his calls are monitored.

"My instinct is that there is a lot more monitoring than we think," he said.

Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at risk.

"I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web sites, what the government must think of that," he said. "Mao Tse-Tung is completely harmless."

---

This is exactly the type of scenario wire-tap critics worry about. Not only was this a wasted effort on the part of the government, but now it looks like professors are going to feel limited in what they can teach and students will feel the same in terms of what they're allowed to research, because someone's going to blow it out of proportion and get the wrong idea, making a big deal out of nothing, which could have serious reprecussions regarding whether people's freedom of speech (in a university setting, at least) is really being protected by this.

Surely there are more serious threats to go after than students conducting research for school in order to learn about what's going on in the world for when they're adults and they're the ones calling the shots.

This is why oversight and search warrants are necessary, to make sure we snag the people we're supposed to snag, and not someone reading the wrong book at the wrong time.

---

Quote:

---

Killconey said:
That's true, but I think the size of the gun is exaggerated.

---

Quote:

---

Pig Iron said:
If the government really wants the patriot act to work they better get on the border situation first after that i'll consider the patriot act legitimate.

Until then screw the patriot act.

---

Quote:

---

Darknight613 said:

A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."

This is exactly the type of scenario wire-tap critics worry about. Not only was this a wasted effort on the part of the government, but now it looks like professors are going to feel limited in what they can teach and students will feel the same in terms of what they're allowed to research, because someone's going to blow it out of proportion and get the wrong idea, making a big deal out of nothing, which could have serious reprecussions regarding whether people's freedom of speech (in a university setting, at least) is really being protected by this.

Surely there are more serious threats to go after than students conducting research for school in order to learn about what's going on in the world for when they're adults and they're the ones calling the shots.

This is why oversight and search warrants are necessary, to make sure we snag the people we're supposed to snag, and not someone reading the wrong book at the wrong time.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

Killconey said:
That's true, but I think the size of the gun is exaggerated.

---

It's a cartoon! You're not familiar with the concept of characture, are you.

As far as your comment about wire taps and internet monitering not being our only weapon, you're absolutly right, but it seems that we take away one weapon and if we don't get struck then we assume we're safe and we take another away. In another thread I used the anology of inching up on a dog house to see how long teh leash was. If we keep getting closer we're going to get bit and it will be in a big way.

---

By a lopsided 89-10 vote Thursday, 14 of the act’s 16 provisions were made permanent and two others were renewed for four years. The act, passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on this nation, was designed to give government the prosecutorial and surveillance tools it needs to go after suspected terrorists. Mostly it was aimed at allowing intelligence agencies to collaborate with law enforcement.

And while the act has provided fodder for a good deal of paranoid - and often partisan - yammering about its impact on civil liberties, in the final analysis it was subjected to only minor tinkering.

A Brooklyn federal judge dealt a blow to a group of Muslim men who claim they were unlawfully rounded up and detained immediately after 9/11 - ruling that authorities were well within their rights to hold illegal immigrants as they investigated the terror attacks.

"After the September 11 attacks, our government used all available law-enforcement tools to ferret out the persons responsible for those atrocities and to prevent additional acts of terrorism," Judge John Gleeson wrote in a 99-page decision made public yesterday.

"We should expect nothing less," the judge said.

Gleeson tossed out portions of a class-action lawsuit originally filed in 2002 against former Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI head Robert Mueller, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the warden of Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center and numerous prison guards.

Gleeson - the lead prosecutor in the 1992 racketeering and murder trial that put mob boss John Gotti away for life - said "the government was allowed" to make the immigration roundups.

Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller said: "The department is very pleased that the court upheld the decision to detain plaintiffs, all of whom were illegal aliens, until national security investigations were completed and plaintiffs were removed from the country."

A spokesman for the group suing the government said it would appeal Gleeson's ruling.

The American Civil Liberties Union on Friday dropped a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the USA Patriot Act. The ACLU said it was withdrawing the lawsuit filed more than three years ago because of ``improvements to the law.''

The Justice Department argued last month that amendments approved by Congress in March 2006 had corrected any constitutional flaws in the Patriot Act.

The lawsuit, filed in July 2003 on behalf of the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor and five other nonprofit groups, was the first legal challenge to Section 215, the part of the Patriot Act that lets federal agents obtain such things as library records and medical information. The ACLU said the revisions allow people receiving demands for records to consult with a lawyer and challenge the demands in court.

The Justice Department, which first asked that the lawsuit be dismissed in December 2003, said it was pleased by the ACLU's action, which was contained in a one-paragraph notice filed with U.S. District Judge Denise Page Hood in Detroit. "We ... reiterate that the Patriot Act is a legitimate and important tool that has better helped law enforcement fight terrorism while simultaneously protecting our valued civil liberties," Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said.