Is this, or is this not, a substantially accurate representation of the proposal? If not, in what regard is it at variance?
It is not.
As posted above…from Vance vs. Terrazas; 1980, Jimmy Carter, et., etc…
What zigaretten said. Patriot II makes explicit that which was already implicit in law: that intent can be derived from conduct.
FYI, here is the document in PDF. Warning: it’s big, 12 MB. The DOJ commentary on Section 501 is on pp. 30-31 of the cover memo, and Section 501 itself is on pp. 78-79 of the attached legislation.
I’m having to step out the door for a while, so I’ve only taken a cursory glance. A couple of things that jump out at me:
-
As noted, the concept that intent may be proved from conduct is already enshrined in law; this just makes it explicit (this should be common sense: how else, short of a full confession, will you prove intent?).
-
The definition of “terrorist organization” is not defined at John Ashcroft’s whim; the term only includes those organizations designated as such in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and then only if the organization is at the time engaged in hostilities towards the US, its people, or its national security interest. IOW, Congress, not John Ashcroft, determines what is or is not a “terrorist organization.”
More later.
So, if I’ve got this right, and Lord knows I doubt it…
Your point is that no change has been effectively made, the same unjust and high-handed effect was already in place, hence the current proposal does not advance the cause of injustice, but merely affirms and applauds such perfidy.
No, that can’t be it. Nobody would waste so much mental ammunition on such an utterly trivial distinction. I await clarification.
No, 'luce, the section in question does institute a change: for purposes of expatriation, it essentially puts Al Qaeda on the same footing as Iraq’s Republican Guard. Just as joining a foriegn military is grounds for expatriation, so under this proposal would be joining one of the listed terrorist organizations at a time it is engaged in hostilities with the US.
What it doesn’t do, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, is give additional power to the AG, allow John Ascroft to define “terrorist organization,” or permit the summary dissolution of citizenship – as a simple reading of the proposed text clearly shows.
Under this section of the proposal, a person accused of joining Al Qaeda has the same procedural protections as a person who stood accused of joining the Republican Guard. If for some reason the two are treated differently in some way, the source of that disparate treatment is most assuredly not Section 501.
Yes, that’s it.
The proposed new law makes no new bad things happen. The bad things, to the extent they exist, were already a part of our law.
Nor is the distinction a waste.
- Rick
Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the proposed law would make no new bad things happen. I haven’t slogged through the entire text yet (I do have a job, after all! in spite of what a pain in the ass it’s becoming to deal with the current immigration bureaucracy, and let’s just say I’m not exactly optimistic for its future, with current INS functions to be split between Homeland Security law enforcement-type functions and a newly created Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, but I’ll write that Pit rant when the day arrives, as it surely will).
What Beagle says is certainly true; the 20 or so pages I’ve read so far seem to contain a lot of housekeeping provisions to handle things like ensuring that definitions are uniform, that new legislation doesn’t contradict existing legislation, and that existing legislation doesn’t get left behind by the realities of technological and sociopolitical developments. (And BTW can some kind could please explain to me what the hell a “pen register” is?)
However, there is indeed a certain notable creep toward restriction of civil liberties; a couple of provisions seem to be taking this opportunity to get rid of some current legal provisions that aren’t exactly law enforcement-friendly, but which do indeed serve very important purposes. (An example is on p. 18, Section 312, which would discontinue certain existing consent decrees which limit the ability of certain local law enforcement organizations to conduct surveillance of otherwise legal political activities. Lefty activists, beware!) I’ll make a complete list of my issues when I’m done reading, but frankly, it gives me the creeps.
A pen register is a type of telephone tap that records the numbers that are called, but not the contents of the conversations.
When I click on that link, I get an article titled “Islamic Charity Leader Arnaout Pleads Guilty to Racketeering.” Which I don’t think has anything to do with Patriot II.
My guess is, the link wasn’t to a specific article, only to the article that happened to be at the top of the stack at the time you made the link. Do you have a link that goes to the article you want us to see specifically?
It is a record of calls that does not reveal the content of the conversation. An entry might be something like (number)(number)(time). Dammit, dammit, dammit, Bricker. Right again. You people are fast, just waiting to pounce on a question.
tracer Yahoo probably has some of those links that move around like the news channels. Sorry. It was the same story PBS had in shorter form. Someone suggested the media would not cover the story. It is being discussed, but with war and such.
I heard the PATRIOT Act II mentioned on Fox News. Not in a favorable light, I might add.
Exactly. Even pushing all the deadlines around in favor of law enforcement is more creep in the same direction.
We’ve been heading this way since the early 1980s.
Although the SCOTUS did say we could burn the flag. In a couple years, if we have troops in Iran and Pakistan, and have dispensed with search warrants entirely, I might do it myself.
I think the great legal battles of the next few years may focus around the definitions of “terrorism” related terms. Remember when Reno said the Davidians had a meth. lab* to get tanks? That is what the War on Drugs gave us, armored battles against citizens with chemical weapons (CS gas) tanks. I have high hopes for the War on Terror, excesses wise.
*OOPS, those people used to live there.
[bump]
Has anyone managed to slog through the full draft yet? If so, any more interesting surprises there? Things have been (not surprisingly) loony at work, so I haven’t made it through yet; also, AILA (the American Immigration Lawyers Association) is amazingly silent on the issue so far. All they’ve done for their membership as of this afternoon is forward news that the draft exists, unaccompanied by their usual extensive and well-thought-out commentary.
If they post anything new, or if I manage to plow through the remaining 100 pages, I’ll post my own analysis. What the hell, I’ve got a 4-day weekend coming up…guess it’s as appropriate way as any to spend Presidents’ Day.
I knew AILA (the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association) would have commentary on this eventually…it probably just took them a while to go through the darn thing, and then to decide how confrontational they wanted to be. (My Congressperson feels the same way they do, and I back her 100%.) There’s some other interesting commentary on immigration-related news items, too.
[snip]
“This proposal, entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (also dubbed Patriot II), would grant government authorities unprecedented enforcement and intelligence-gathering powers. It would authorize secret arrests, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive “suspicion,” and create new death penalty offenses. There is even a provision, Section 501, that would take American citizenship away from a person who belongs to, or supports, groups that the U.S. has designated as “terrorist organizations,” thus potentially consigning them to indefinite imprisonment as undocumented aliens in their native country. The draft provision would accomplish this by “inferring” intent to relinquish citizenship from the individual’s conduct. ** Such conduct could even include activities that currently are considered legal.”** (bolding mine)
http://www.aila.org/contentViewer.aspx?bc=10,1431,2369#section2
Now do you skeptics believe me, or is AILA also too biased for your tastes?
It’s not a question of believing you or not believing you.
Which we all seem to have agreed on already, this would add supporting “terrorist groups” to the list of seven acts which I’ve posted before.
Can’t this already happen? I’ve already posted the list of seven actions which can already lead to loss of citizenship, it appears to me that at least two of those (#6-renouncing in time of war and #7-committing an act of treason or other seditious act ) could happen without leaving the US.
Already allowed. See Vance vs Terrazas.
Already possible. See the wording “committing an act of treason or other seditious act specified in the statute.” Surely this wording opens the possibility that any number of acts which are considered legal today could, tomorrow, be grounds for expatriation.
As far as Section 501 goes, I don’t see where this changes anything that we’ve already hashed out.