# I can't believe Ashcroft is trying this...(long) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 25, 2001, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807 "2001-09-25T22:41:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Stiletto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@Stiletto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stiletto)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/1 "2001-09-25T22:41:24Z")
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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=87702) 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)](http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/20010919_ata_bill_draft.html). 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](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/ata_analysis.html): > [@](#): > > \*\* > The proposed ATA (Section 352) contain a far-reaching provision that would eliminate the current requirement that law enforcement must provide a person subject to a search warrant or order with contemporaneous notice of the search. This significant change in current law would apply to all government searches for material that “constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States” and is not limited to investigations of terrorist activity. Currently, delayed notification of a search is authorized only under a very small number of circumstances (such as surreptitious electronic surveillance). The expansion of this extraordinary authority to all searches would constitute a radical departure from Fourth Amendment standards and could result in routine surreptitious entries (break-ins) by law enforcement agents. \*\* The [A.C.L.U.](http://www.aclu.org/congress/l092401a.html) is referring to these as “Sneak and Peek” searches, and they point out: > [@](#): > > \*\* > The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures requires the Government to both obtain a warrant and give notice to the person whose property will be searched before conducting the search. The notice requirement enables the person whose property is to be searched to assert his or her Fourth Amendment rights. Without notice, a person has no ability to protect himself or herself against a warrant that is inaccurate or overbroad. \*\* The next section that’s dangerous is Section 156. Once again from [Epic.org](http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/ata_analysis.html): > [@](#): > > \*\*Section 156 would grant the government the authority to “by administrative subpoena, require the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) that are relevant” to an intelligence or terrorism investigation. Although the Justice Department has characterized this provision as applying to “business records,” the scope of the proposed authority is far broader. The breadth of the power is compounded by the lack of any judicial involvement. Current law permits access to specified records only upon court order; the proposed amendment would allow access under a subpoena issued by investigators. Thus, the amendment removes judicial oversight and a reviewable standard from the process of obtaining access to a broad range of private records. \*\* 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: > [@](#): > > - > > [Quoted from Ashcroft’s September 24 Testimony] > ([http://www.justice.gov/ag/agcrisisremarks9\_24.htm](http://www.justice.gov/ag/agcrisisremarks9_24.htm))\* > \*\*These changes would streamline intelligence gathering procedures only. We do not seek changes in the underlying protections in the law for the privacy of law-abiding citizens. \*\* 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. -Stil ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/2 "2001-09-25T23:23:39Z")
Oh, good grief. **Stiletto** , what difference does it make? 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? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/3 "2001-09-25T23:36:11Z")
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-#@^\*&^%… Damn, there goes another sarcasm module. Third one this week, too. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/4 "2001-09-25T23:39:21Z")
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. Congratulations on the new hod, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![CnoteChris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/278dde/32.png) [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/5 "2001-09-25T23:52:10Z")
Frightening indeed, **Stilleto**. 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. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Devil\_s\_Grandmother](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/74df32/32.png) [@The\_Devil\_s\_Grandmother](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Devil_s_Grandmother)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/6 "2001-09-25T23:59:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CnoteChris \* > \*\*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. ---
**Author:** ![Stiletto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@Stiletto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stiletto)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/7 "2001-09-26T00:06:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*Oh, good grief. > > **Stiletto** , what difference does it make? > > 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? > > - Rick \*\* 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_. -Stil ---
**Author:** ![Stiletto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@Stiletto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stiletto)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/8 "2001-09-26T00:13:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Devil’s Grandmother \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by CnoteChris \* > > \*\*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. \*\* 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](http://www.aclu.org/action/liberty107.html). -Stil ---
**Author:** ![CnoteChris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/278dde/32.png) [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/9 "2001-09-26T00:20:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Devil’s Grandmother \* > \*\*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. \*\* That’s where my optimism ends. 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**. -That cinches it. A note and a donation!! ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/10 "2001-09-26T01:03:00Z")
‘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: ---
**Author:** ![CnoteChris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/278dde/32.png) [@CnoteChris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CnoteChris)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/11 "2001-09-26T02:15:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cartooniverse \* > **J.Edgar Hoover must be doing the Lindy right now in pure glee…** … and in a pink dress. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/12 "2001-09-26T03:13:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. 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? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/13 "2001-09-26T03:52:30Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/14 "2001-09-26T07:14:34Z")
Looks like the domestic half of all my worst fears are struggling to come true. Heeeey…thaaat’s greeaaat. sigh ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/15 "2001-09-26T08:55:05Z")
> [@](#): > > I can’t believe Ashcroft is trying this…(long) I don’t know about you, but the thread title sounds dirty. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/16 "2001-09-26T15:00:56Z")
What is this model of rationalized debate doing in the Pit, where so many fear to tread? Can I petition for its transferral? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/17 "2001-09-26T17:06:53Z")
Please do, Mandelstam, i’d like to see this discussed in Great Debates. This is desperately important. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/18 "2001-09-26T17:24:06Z")
Wait…there’s a **Fourth** Amendment to the Constitution? Has anyone advised the Supreme Court of this? ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/19 "2001-09-26T17:36:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \* > \*\*Please do, Mandelstam, i’d like to see this discussed in Great Debates. This is desperately important. \*\* :o 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? ---
**Author:** ![Stiletto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@Stiletto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stiletto)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/20 "2001-09-26T17:38:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > \*\*What is this model of rationalized debate doing in the Pit, where so many fear to tread? Can I petition for its transferral? \*\* 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? -Stil [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807.md?page=2)