I got a letter from the ACLU today, explaining the evils of the (IIRC) recently passed “USA Patriot Act”. Among them, it lists:
-[it will] 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 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?
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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?)
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 for anyone who wants to look it over.
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?
After looking through the text, I found the following: (Bolding is mine)
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…
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.
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.
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?
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:
Why did you leave that part out, Guy Montag? Did it just escape your attention?
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.
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?
