The Patriot Act

[Guy Montag]

I got a letter from the ACLU today, explaining the evils of the (IIRC) recently passed "USA Patriot Act". Among them, it lists:
- Minimize juditial supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance
-Expand the ability of the government to conduct secret searches (searches without prior notice to the searched party)
-Includes civil disobedience in the new, broader definition of "terrorism"
-Grant the FBI access to sensitive business/student records without having to show [i]ANY evidence that a crime has or even might be committed
-Allow monitoring of communications between people that are detained by the DOJ and their attorney(s), thus violating the formerly-sacred Attorney-Client privilege
-The much debated military tribunals, which aren't required to adhere to traditional rules regarding evidence and law
-Allow monitoring of people in their churches, on the internet, in bookstores, and in libraries--without requiring that any crime is even suspected.
-the arrest of Librarians if they reveal to their patrons that they are being monitored. ( tested this on my own today at the library, I asked the library worker if he had heard of the monitoring. His response: A terse "I'm not allowed to discuss that with you." accompanied by a frown and (to me at least) a defeated sigh)

And last but not least, my friends:
--The authority to silence dissent By equating critcism with terrorism! They declare that public debate would "erode our national unity... diminish our resolve... give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends."

Anyone else seen that commercial from the AdCouncil about the kid in the library? He asks for some books, and the libriarian tells him that they are no linger available. As he is walking away, two KGB-esque men corner him and the Ad asks the rather ironic question: What if America wasn't America?

Does anyone still believe that the war on terror won't dramatically erode the civil liberties of everyday Americans?

[Kalt]

Of course not, but we have to save and protect our children. Surely the children are worth giving up all our mere liberty and freedoms. I mean, they're our most precious resource.

:smack:

[Ramanujan]

Kalt, maybe it's just me, but i thought the beauty of life in america was that liberty and those freedoms. if you are willing to destroy another country's children for not holding those things sacred, what does it say of you if you do not hold those things sacred?

how precious are those resources if they are not free to do and think as they please?

that said, i'm not sure the OP is 100% accurate. or rather, the source that he quotes is not 100% accurate. to equate dissidence with terrorism is to claim that half the students in the country are terrorists. i don't think the american government actually wishes to claim that.

-d-squared

[Blalron]

It's not as if anyone in Congress actually READ the damned 300+ page bill and saw what was in it. They had to pass something, ANYTHING to appear like they were "Patriotic" in the wake of Sept. 11th, which is why they named it the "Patriot Act".

[Kalt]

Ramanujan, please note my sarcasm.

Blalron that is not why they named it the patriot act. They named it the patriot act so there would be no dissenting votes -- anyone who voted against "the patriot act" is clearly not a patriot, and hence is one of the terrorists. That's why the bill passed.

[Guy Montag]

D'oh, I just re-read the letter, criticism is equated to aid to terrorists, not an act of terrorism itself. scary none the less...
I'm searching the internet for the text of the law itself, so I can verify--could take a while though (I'm not well versed in legalese, any lawyers want to lend a hand?)

[waar]

Guy Montag, your name fits this very well.

[Guy Montag]

Why, thank you waar. I wondered how long it would take for someone to figure out the reference--this sure is a sharp bunch.

I found a link with the text of the law, but it takes forever to load on my crummy dial-up connection: here it is (http://personalinfomediary.com/USAPATRIOTACT_Text.htm) for anyone who wants to look it over.

[Bricker]

Quiz, Guy Montag: how much of what you just posted is new to the Patriot Act, how much of it was already extant authority, and how much of your summary is false or misleading?

- Rick

[andros]

Or more specifically, how much of the letter from the ACLU is spun to distort a possible threat?

[Guy Montag]

After looking through the text, I found the following: (Bolding is mine)

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

That seems to be the pertinent clause, and it seems fairly insidious to me. What exactly constitutes coercion? A large croud of protesters (a la The Million Man March) can be fairly intimidating...

[Captain Amazing]

<starts crying> Not again. Please, not again.

[asterion]

One of the things in the Patriot Act that I like (I don't like all of it, by the way) is the roving wiretap. In the days of disposable cellphones, only being able to get a wiretap on a certain phone is ludicrous. The wiretap should be on the person and not limited to the phone.

Remember, this is supposed to sunset in 2006. If you don't want it extended, vote for someone who will vote against any extension of the sunset clause.

[Captain Amazing]

As a serious answer to your question, look at subsection A. The coercive acts need to be dangerous to human life and in violation of the law of the US or any state. So, if I plant a bomb and say "I've planted a bomb in a populated part of the city. It'll go off unless you do X", that might fit under the terrorism law. A peaceful protest would not.

[David Simmons]

It is amazing to me that Congress passed all of those laws for the purpose of combating terrorism. A new cabinet department has been created to combat terrorism by presumably beefing up "internal security." Osama bin Laden was public enemy No. 1. And all of a sudden there was a switch to Saddam Hussein. How will any of the restrictions on liberty such as military trials, snooping by use of a plan formulated by Adm. Poindexter (USNRet), watch lists like the one the FBI circulated, the Patriot Act and on and on, combat new public enemy No. 1, Saddam Hussein?

Does anyone know what is going on and what the real threat, other that Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, is?

[Duckster]

Originally posted by Blalron
It's not as if anyone in Congress actually READ the damned 300+ page bill and saw what was in it. They had to pass something, ANYTHING to appear like they were "Patriotic" in the wake of Sept. 11th, which is why they named it the "Patriot Act".

Actually, it's now a time-honored tradition in government to create word acronyms such as this.

The USA PATRIOT Act (capitals required) is fully titled,

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.

You can believe it (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR03162:@@@T).

:D

[Blalron]

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.

I'm sure that was just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Guy Montag
That seems to be the pertinent clause, and it seems fairly insidious to me. What exactly constitutes coercion? A large croud of protesters (a la The Million Man March) can be fairly intimidating...

But not illegal under the Patriot Act, as Captain Amazing cogently points out. You quoted 18 USC § 2331(B) above, and, interestingly enough, failed to mention section A, which says that, in addition to being "coercive," must: ...involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State.

Why did you leave that part out, Guy Montag? Did it just escape your attention?

- Rick

[ElJeffe]

Out of curiosity, can anybody here point to real, concrete example of either themselves, or anybody they know, or anybody they have heard of, having a previously held right curtailed by the Patriot Act? Slippery slope arguments not withstanding, it doesn't exactly seem that comparisons to Big Brother are quite yet warranted. But I'll certainly change my opinion if people can provide real-life examples.

Jeff

[Blown & Injected]

Bricker:
You seem to be on the ball with this issue. A good lawyer only asks a question when they know the answer. So out with it.

I have heard the news man say things that were mentioned in the OP and it is disturbing. But I've also heard the man say lots of other things that I know are not true. So what's TSD?

[Apos]

Even if there was something to worry about, these problems are easily solved with a little creativity, ACLU. For instance, as the honorable Erik and Seanbaby demonstrated during their intterogation by the Secret Service for posting President-killing enabling comments on Sean's Fat Chicks in Party Hats website, the current situation in Iraq has given revolutionaries a perfect means of escape if they think they are being watched or listened to by the government.

It works like this: simply add "of Iraq!" to the end of any properly phrased anti-government/President" comment.

For example:

"I am planning on killing the President... (CIA agents draw their weapons)... of Iraq!"

or

"Tommorow I we shall bomb the capital of the United States... or Iraq! The United States of Iraq!"

Problem solved: go forth and plot terror in total safety from criminal repercussions.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Blown & Injected
Bricker:
You seem to be on the ball with this issue. A good lawyer only asks a question when they know the answer. So out with it.

I have heard the news man say things that were mentioned in the OP and it is disturbing. But I've also heard the man say lots of other things that I know are not true. So what's TSD?

If you're asking me if I know the answer to the question I asked Guy Montag above, I don't.

One inference, and, frankly, the strongest on I can see right now, is that he left out that section as a rhetor's device: that is, because he was seeking to persuade the audience that the Patriot Act was dangerous, he quoted a section and suggested it might apply to demonstrations, long a cherished freedom of Americans. Because the section A language clearly refuted that premise, he omitted it.

Another inference, of course, is that he either carelessly missed the language, or read it but was unable to understand it.

But I don't know which inference is correct - so I asked.

- Rick

[Eva Luna]

Has anyone actually read the darn thing? I've had several e-mails forwarded to me by people whose analysis I normally trust, stating the the USA PATRIOT Act will allow the government to access and combine information from sources that were never intended to have anything to do with antiterrorism efforts, such as, say, credit card purchases and library card records, for analysis by intelligence agencies that is supposed to point out suspicious patterns of activity.

Now, my tastes in books are a little geeky but relatively boring, but the thought that this sort of monitoring activity would become legal, without the need for the subject of monitoring to be suspected of doing anything wrong, terrifies me. Can anyone point me to the provision of the proposed Act which would allow this, so I can read it myself and make an informed decision on how I feel about it? I hate going on sound bites, but the reality is that I'm not likely to slog through 300+ pages, plus any revisions.

[Guy Montag]

bricker: apparently, I mis-read the semi-colon after section (A) to mean OR rather than AND. I assumed that, if all of it had to be met to be illegal, it would be included under one heading as the parts of section (B) are. As I said before, I'm not well versed in the language of law. If you are, I would appreciate yourinput on which parts of the text the ACLU might be refering to.
I really don't appreciate the insinuation that I was attempting to spin the message of the law to suit my own views, but I can see where you could make that (false) connection. As you can see above, I included the whole of section 802 of the law, the part that I think pretains to that particular issue, I didn't omit section (A).

[Bricker]

Sorry for the invidious inference, Guy Montag. As I said, I didn't know, so I asked.

As it happens, I do have some familiarity with reading legal writing.

If you're interested in my commentary on your quotation of the ACLU's concerns:

-Minimize juditial supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance

I'm not clear how judicial supervision is minimized. The requirement to present probable cause for a criminal investigation to a neutral, detached magistrate is not changed by the Act. It is true, however, that the Act has been interpreted to permit an investigation whose primary purpose is counterterrorism to proceed with oversight by a special federal court, not the ordinary federal magistrate. But there is still judicial supervision.

-Expand the ability of the government to conduct secret searches (searches without prior notice to the searched party)

Yes, that's true. The Act does lengthen the time in which certain searches may be conducted in secert, before notice must be given to the searched party. In an ordinary situation, notice of the warrant is served simultaneous to the search, so a person whose property has been searched is immediately aware of the search.

The specifics, which may be found in 18 USC § 3103(a) et seq, provide that the goivernment may ask a judge for special permission to delay the notice of a search warrant, if and only if "...the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result..."

Even if that's so, the notice must ultimately be given. It just doesn't have to be given instantly.

While it's true that this is a new provision, frankly it doesn't strike me as that terrifying.

-Includes civil disobedience in the new, broader definition of "terrorism"

This statement appears to be absolutely false and without any support in the actual language of the law.

-Grant the FBI access to sensitive business/student records without having to show ANY evidence that a crime has or even might be committed

This language appears to refer to 50 USC § 1861 et seq. But the law specifies that the material sought must relate to international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, the request must be approved by a neutral, detached magistrate -- in other words, the FBI cannot merely dash out on their own and demand records - and, most importantly, an investigation under this section cannot be conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

-Allow monitoring of communications between people that are detained by the DOJ and their attorney(s), thus violating the formerly-sacred Attorney-Client privilege

Once again, the ACLU language you mention tells only a part of the story. Monitoring of communications can only be done with a judge's consent, and any information received cannot be transmitted to the prosecutors involved. In other words, if there is good reason to believe that the imprisoned individual is using his lawyer to send messages to people on the outside, in an effort to accomplish terrorism, then the communications can be monitored. But they cannot be monitored by the same team that is prosecuting the person, and no information can be shared between the monitoring team and the prosecution team.

-The much debated military tribunals, which aren't required to adhere to traditional rules regarding evidence and law

It's unclear to me where the Patriot Act establishes military tribunals.

-Allow monitoring of people in their churches, on the internet, in bookstores, and in libraries--without requiring that any crime is even suspected.

This is false. The Act accomplishes no such thing.

-the arrest of Librarians if they reveal to their patrons that they are being monitored. ( tested this on my own today at the library, I asked the library worker if he had heard of the monitoring. His response: A terse "I'm not allowed to discuss that with you." accompanied by a frown and (to me at least) a defeated sigh)

Uh huh.

Well, it is true that 50 USC § 1861 (a)(2)(B)(1)(d) provides: "...No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."

This means that if the FBI got a judge to approve it, your librarian could be asked to provide tangible records, and, if he later disclosed to you that such a request was made, he could be in violation of this section.

Of course, the request could only be made if, as I said above, your library activities were in furtherance of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, and a judge agreed with it.

The FBI could not, in other words, investigate your reading habits just for fun, or jail your librarian with similar abandon. They have to show that you are furthering international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, and they must convince a neutral, detached magistrate of this.


And last but not least, my friends:
--The authority to silence dissent By equating critcism with terrorism! They declare that public debate would "erode our national unity... diminish our resolve... give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends."

Despite the fact that you quote this section, the words you mention do not appear in the Act.

So my take on this, since you ask, is that the ACLU, assuming you've quoted them accurately, are in this instance utterly devoid of anything approaching intellectual honesty.

- Rick

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by ElJeffe
Out of curiosity, can anybody here point to real, concrete example of either themselves, or anybody they know, or anybody they have heard of, having a previously held right curtailed by the Patriot Act? Slippery slope arguments not withstanding, it doesn't exactly seem that comparisons to Big Brother are quite yet warranted. But I'll certainly change my opinion if people can provide real-life examples.

Jeff

See this cite. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dirty25nov25.story?null)

"Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

There are doubtless court decisions concerning this amemdment and I would appreciate hearing about any that support the US Government's actions in this case.

Now it might be argued that this amemdment doesn't apply because the individual referred to in the cite isn't yet the subject of a "criminal prosecution" since no charges have been filed. But that is the "slippery slope" that is so insidious in various actions of the Justice Department since Sept. 11. Our so-called leaders seems to have lost track of what the foundations of liberty are.