Some things have changed. For example, before the government had to ask a judge for permission to conduct such a search - this meant, assuming the judge took his duties seriously, that the government had to show some kind of cause. Now, under the Patriot Act, the government just has to notify a judge that it is conducting a search - the judge no longer has the right to deny the search.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 did give the government broad searching powers in a few circumstances - basically it was intended to be used in espionage cases. And it did have a court that could deny the requests, although in reality it almost never denied a request. The Patriot Act lifted the foreign intelligence restiction and removed any pretense of judicial review. And many people would argue that FISA was already a bad law and should have been repealed not expanded.
In theory, the Patriot Act only applies in investigations involving terrorism. However, the act defines terrorism so broadly that as to make any restriction moot. The act creates the crime of “domestic terrorism” which is defined as committing any criminal act or endangering any person in a way that might influence or coerce the government. As I pointed out in my previous post, this has already been defined broadly enough to cover a bribery investigation - the strip club owner was indeed breaking a law and trying to influence the government by bribing city councilmen - but I don’t think most people would have agreed it was worth setting aside the Constitution to apprehend him.
It is NOT more complicated than that, actually. I don’t think you’ve proved your point there. Sounds like classical water-muddying. Torture is such a heinous act that we shouldn’t commit it. I don’t trust our troops or operatives to handle torture of any description. I used to think sleep deprivation was OK, but after seeing how far things go and how fast they get there, I am opposed to ALL torture. And those who are for ANY torture, are for ALL torture, because that’s what it’ll wind up being.
I think it’s simple. It’s the golden rule: the US should not do anything to prisoners in its control that it would not want to happen to US citizens captured by other countries. Would Dick Cheney want a US senior officer to be held in a sleeping bag until he dies? If not, then he shouldn’t defend US personnel doing that to an Iraqi.
I could go for “Anything not covered by the Armed Forces field manual or the Geneva Convention.”
That’s kinda my whole problem with torture … the slope is VERY slippery indeed. We start out talking about relatively humane, non-injurious forms of coercion, then we have Attorney General “Scumboy” saying it’s not really torture if it doesn’t cause pain equivalent to death or organ failure, then we have all these guys winding up beaten to death in our torture chambers, er, holding facilities. We sure went from 0 to 60 fast, didn’t we, John? We zipped down that old slippery slope from “humane coercion” to “tortured to death” like an Olympic tobogganist whizzing down a mountainside. If we don’t have any more control than THAT, then I say we gotta get completely outta the torture biz.
Pain OR suffering, physical OR mental, remember. If these aren’t severe, it isn’t torture under that particular definition, obviously. There’s no list of “this is severe, this isn’t”, it’s left up to courts and tribunals to determine in practice. Here’s an example of the International Criminal Tribunal determining that a particular act constitutes torture - rape, in this case.
Yes, I agree. My point is that there is lots of ground between what is in the Army Field Manual (ie, the basis of the McCain legislation) and acts that cause “severe” pain.
A lot of the stuff allegedly practised by the CIA, which Cheney and co want to continue by stopping McCain’s amendments, do not and are not intended to cause severe physical pain. Waterboarding, for instance, does not cause such pain - there’s no physical hurt caused, usually. But there’s certainly an excellent argument that waterboarding and similar practices inflict severe suffering or severe mental suffering. That’s what they’re designed to do.
As long as you don’t use tortured syntax, I think we’re OK.
I personally would consider waterboarding a form of torture, but I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that that particular procedure is considered “approved” by the CIA. If it is, I’d disagree with that approval.
I guess this kind of personal disagreement is why we need a set of specific approved standards for people, eg armed forces and intelligence, to follow. It’ll help cover those kind of grey areas where necessary, by removing the question of ‘torture’ from day-to-day operations, and giving the people on the ground a set of “dos and don’ts”.
I didn’t read that in my review of the act. As far as I can tell it still takes a judge’s approval. I say this knowing that none of the requests had been turned down in the first year. If you have a cite that says a judge cannot deny a search I wouldn’t mind a link.
The Patriot Act had a sunset clause in it for 2005 and it was again voted in. Not sure if the current one also has a sunset law. I’ve been following terrorism for years and I definitely don’t have a problem with a relaxation of judicial review during a time of war. This is the kind of legislation that can be undone with the same speed it was created.
To the extent it is abused I cannot say but I’m certainly in favor of watchdog groups keeping an eye on it.
This is based on Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which amends Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The new text of Section 501, Subsection C, Paragraph 1 states “Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.”
Not true at all. Before the Act, in order to conduct a search of any citizen on U.S. soil, there had to be a search warrant or probable cause. The search had to have a specific reason that could be defenced, and there had to be (I think) a short statement of what you expected to find. Now instead, the “law” can conduct secret searches, and can do this without a warrant. They may have to tell some judge afterwards, but they don’t have to tell anyone else. Under the heading of searches, “they” can do a sneak and peak of your property and never tell you or anyone else. “They” can go go the library and check your reading habits. They can get access to your financial and health records. These sort of things were not that way before. The constitution talks about unreasonable search and seizure for a reason. It talks about the right to be secure in our persons and our homes for a reason. If these things already existed, there would have been no reason, no need to deliberately write them into law under the Patriot Act - which (I saw from the very beginning as an assault on privacy and a carte blanche for law enforcement for no perceivable benefit).
Having read McCains arguments in Newsweek I liked his arguments about not legislating for exceptions but for general rules. He mentions the ticking bomb scenario for example. He correctly IMO says that this scenario is an exception and shouldn’t be included… because these openings mean a lot of stretching the rules and misuse.
His article is very well written and supported... I admire him more than before. Even his being a conservative republican.
