Well, I started off worried. Then I started getting scared. Now that I’ve read through the full implementation that Ashcroft is trying to get passed as the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, I am really, truly ticked.
I started a thread back on 9/16 about some of the wiretap expansion issues that initially worried me. And now that I’ve read through all of it, I’m not just worried anymore. Some of the interesting modifications that Ashcroft is trying to make are utterly, absolutely ridiculous. But they’re horrifyingly so.
Here is the September 19th Draft of the Anti-Terrorism Act 0f 2001 (ATA).
It’s a tough decision as to which part of it scares me the most, but I think section 352 is probably the most disturbing. According to Epic.org:
**
The A.C.L.U. is referring to these as “Sneak and Peek” searches, and they point out:
**
The next section that’s dangerous is Section 156. Once again from Epic.org:
**
These are just a couple of examples of the items that A.G. Ashcroft is currently attempting to push quickly through congress. I personally find it alarming that he is trying to push it through so quickly, without time to analyze what the long-term and broad effects will be. And I find it disturbing that Ashcroft has the temerity to say that this isn’t really much of a change:
**
I just absolutely cannot believe this crap. I don’t trust Ashcroft, and looking at past history, I can’t bring myself to believe that if measures like this are passed, they won’t be abused. It’s really starting to piss me off that he’s trying to get this passed NOW, when people are more scared of being attacked than worried about their civil liberties.
Even if this legislation applied only to terrorism, I would find it somewhat excessive. But much of it applies to domestic criminal investigations, as well. Across the board. That means that in the course of a criminal investigation, they can break in, search your house, and not tell you anything about it for an extended period of time. And you don’t have to have done anything WRONG, they just have to have “probable cause”. So I can’t live with the “I’m not doing anything wrong” attitude. Not at this level. The whole thing just goes WAY too far.
If the cops search your house with what you believe is an overbroad or otherwise flawed warrant, you would move to suppress any fruits of that search before trial. You submit a motion in limine to exclude the fruits of the search once you’re arrested or indicted. The Commonwealth has thirty days to respond to your motion. The judge sets a hearing date. Supplemental motions are possibly filed. You argue the motion. This is the system now.
What possible harm do you incur if the government has to wait up to 90 days before telling you they searched?
I heard President Bush on the radio today, and he said these provsions are only going to be used against terrorists. People who law enforcement think look like they might be terrorists don’t have a thing to worry abou-#@^*&^%…
Sorry, Brick, I gotta come down with Stiletto on this one. Sure, it’s no big deal if the Feds wait ninety days to let me know they searched through my old porno mag… uh, Smithsonians looking for a gun, but I’m in the information business. And the value of information depends in large part on who has it. If Uncle is going to be nosing around my file cabinets and my hard drive, I ought to have contemperaneous knowledge of that. There are also self-incrimination issues that arise when a potential defendant is unaware of a search having been conducted.
And I certainly ought to have the warrant passed on by a judge. I still remember when Rudy was the bad-guy-who-doesn’t-care-about-Civil Liberties-or-even-whether-the-guy-actually-did-it prosecutor, back before he became the Hero Who Saved New York.
I like this new Rudy a lot, but I’m mindful that there are plenty of old Rudies running around prosecutors’ offices. I want a judge.
What I’ve failed to see mentioned, partly because I think I know the answer to this, is what makes the feds think with those changes in place that the acts of the eleventh wouldn’t have taken place?
Why can’t they say they dropped the ball. Or at least acknowledge that complacency led to oversight.
Coming after our civil rights because the government has egg on it face, and somehow believes that with these changes in effect that the WTC act might not have happened, is borderline offensive.
It’s a good thing, in my opinion, that congress has put the brakes on this passing right away, amid the rush to kick ass. Let’s just hope the more invasive aspects of this bill are removed by the time it’s implemented.
I admire you optimism, Cnote, but I don’t think hope is enough. Write to your congress person and scream bloody murder if you don’t like what’s going on.
Well, first off, Bricker, maybe I need to emphasize that the biggest problem I have with this is the lack of notification. I understand that if my premises are searched under a flawed or overbroad warrant, I can file a motion to exclude. But if I’m not notified that the search ever took place, then I can’t do that. Like Manhattan, I’m in a situation as a consultant wherein I may have confidential client information in my home office. If that information is transmitted to other agencies, it may be in violation of one of my contracts. Under the current laws, I can’t do anything but file the motion and notify my client that the information may have been released to legal authorities. This is acceptable. But under the proposed legislation, the information gathered can be transmitted to other agencies which may or may not have a need for that information. And once it has been transmitted, there are not necessarily sufficient controls in place to prevent unauthorized transmission to other parties. That’s my biggest problem with it. Other than that, maybe it’s not a big deal for you if law enforcement officials break into your house and search it without telling you. But it’s a big deal for me. Not because I have anything to hide, but because it violates the rights that I expect to have as a citizen in this country. And because it just gives me the creeps.
And for those of us who don’t necessarily know how to contact the aforementioned congress-person…
While I usually don’t much care for mass-produced responses by any of the civil liberties or privacy organizations, the A.C.L.U. does have a quick link to send a message to your particular set of congress-persons. It can be found here.
As far as I know, my congressman has already made up his/her mind on the recommendations of their respected political parties’ platform alone. I doubt they ever make policy decisions on which side voices their opposition the most.
More effective, from my standpoint at least, is to send words of encouragement and support to the ACLU. Better yet, I could send off some cash.
Thanks. You helped me come to a decision.
Preview reveals a post from Stiletto.
‘pears to me heah is that the less’n of da day is that if y’all were just as dumb as a fuckin’ fencepost out across the yard a piece, nobody would give you a second recon.
Problem here is, y’all are way too smart for ya own good. Dumb up, people !!!
p.s. That man frightens me so badly, I just can’t tell ya. J.Edgar Hoover must be doing the Lindy right now in pure glee… a dark page in American History is being written in wet blood. How awful. How truly awful. :mad:
Oh? Why ought you? And what self-incrimination issues?
The right to be free some self-incrimination is not the same thing as the right to lie if you think you won’t get caught.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Any warrant, or functional equivalent of a warrent, like a subpoena duces tecum, should be subject, in my view, to a showing of probable cause before a neutral, detached magistrate.
But – there’s no such limitation now on a subpoena duces tecum. What is the additional power that the “administrative” subpoena will have that a subpoena DC doesn’t?
I could have sworn that the idea of not notifying people of searches was part of earlier proposed laws, and did not originate with Ashcroft or the Bush administration. Anyone else remember?
Either way, on matters like this, I generally side with the ACLU. However, I’m certainly sympathetic with any AG who wants more law and order and all that. After all, that’s why we have a Bill of Rights, not to guard against the possibility of evil despotic tyrants eroding our liberties, but as protection against well meaning leaders who would otherwise trade liberty for the security the people desire.
What, besides posting on the matter, does one do to request a thread-transfer? Is there a “Calling Dr. Bombay” function on the SDSM? Do I e-mail my local moderator and lobby him or her?
Well, I certainly don’t have a problem with it. It was /supposed/ to be a rant…but I guess it didn’t really work out that way. How exactly do you petition to transfer it?
