Ironworks Gaming Forum - Liberals and Conservatives agree on disagreeing with the Patriot Act

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Liberals and Conservatives agree on disagreeing with the Patriot Act (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76185)

A spin-off from the Bush = Hitler thread.

Story

Quote:

In Seattle, the public library printed 3,000 bookmarks to alert patrons that the FBI could, in the name of national security, seek permission from a secret federal court to inspect their reading and computer records -- and prohibit librarians from revealing that a search had taken place.

In suburban Boston, a state legislator was stunned to discover last spring that her bank had blocked a $300 wire transfer because she is married to a naturalized U.S. citizen named Nasir Khan.

And in Hillsboro, Ore., Police Chief Ron Louie has ordered his officers to refuse to assist any federal terrorism investigations that his department believes violate state law or constitutional rights.

As the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks approaches, the Bush administration's war on terror has produced a secondary battle: fierce struggles in Congress, the courts and communities such as these over how the war on terror should be carried out. At the heart of this debate is the USA Patriot Act, the law signed by President Bush 45 days after the terror strikes that enhanced the executive branch's powers to conduct surveillance, search for money-laundering, share intelligence with criminal prosecutors and charge suspected terrorists with crimes.

Yet the paradox of this debate is that it is playing out in a near-total information vacuum: By its very terms, the Patriot Act hides information about how its most contentious aspects are used, allowing investigations to be authorized and conducted under greater secrecy.

As a result, critics ranging from the liberal American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Eagle Forum complain that the law is violating people's rights but acknowledge that they cannot cite specific instances of abuse.

"The problem is, we don't know how [the law] has been used," said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who has represented terror suspects in cases in which the government has employed secret evidence. "They set it up in such a way . . . [that] it's very hard to judge."

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and other supporters of the law assert that the act is crucial to allowing the government to fulfill its anti-terror responsibilities, but they say little about how it accomplishes those tasks.

Justice officials praise their newfound ability to share information from foreign intelligence operations with criminal investigators, allowing them to more swiftly disrupt potential terrorist acts before they occur.

Ashcroft also insists that the law has not gone far enough, while an unlikely alliance on the ideological left and the right insists that it has trampled civil liberties and must be curtailed.

This summer, two major lawsuits were filed challenging the Patriot Act's central provisions. The Republican-led House startled the administration in July by voting to halt funding for a part of the law that allows more delays in notifying people about searches of their records or belongings. And the GOP chairmen of the two congressional committees that oversee the Justice Department have warned Ashcroft that they will resist any effort, for now, to strengthen the law.

Viet D. Dinh, a former assistant attorney general who drafted much of the law, said the debate over its merits is constructive. He said the government is gravitating now from "the sprint stage" to the "marathon phase" of confronting terrorism

"Somewhere in this marketplace of ideas, of truths and half-truths, of fact and spin, we get a . . . picture of what the [Justice] Department should be doing," Dinh said. "The debate is healthy to establish the rules of this continuing path toward safety."

Information vs. Security

Exasperated with how little they knew about the ways the Patriot Act was being applied, the ACLU and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington-based public interest group, went to court last October with a freedom of information complaint against the Justice Department. Before a judge dismissed the case in May, Justice officials released a few hundred pages that said little about their activities. One document was a six-page list of instances in which "national security letters" had been issued to authorize searches -- with every line blacked out.

Last year, the House and Senate Judiciary committees -- charged with overseeing the Justice Department -- began to send the agency written requests for statistics summarizing how often Patriot Act provisions had been used. The first replies largely made clear that the information sought by lawmakers was classified.

In such a climate of official secrecy, there are nevertheless small clues to the extent the law is helping authorities' anti-terror work.

In May, the Justice Department told Congress that it had asked courts for permission to delay notifying people of 47 searches and 15 seizures of their belongings. The document said the courts had consented every time but one, but it did not detail why the delays were needed.

The next month, in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft said he personally authorized 170 emergency orders to conduct surveillance, allowing investigators 72 hours before they must seek permission from an obscure, secret court whose role has been expanded under the law.

Created a quarter-century ago under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the special court requires a lower burden of proof than criminal courts do when authorizing wiretaps and other forms of surveillance. Before Sept. 11, 2001, its primary focus was foreign intelligence cases.

Under the Patriot Act, investigators can go before the court in cases that are primarily criminal as long as they have some foreign intelligence aspect. Ashcroft told the committee that those 170 emergency FISA orders represented three times as many as had ever been authorized before Sept. 11, 2001 -- but he did not disclose how many of them had involved terrorism cases.

Nor has the department said how often it has used FISA court orders to search libraries, the realm that has provoked perhaps the strongest negative reaction. The Justice Department's interest in libraries revolves around their public computers, over which potential terrorists could communicate without detection. One source familiar with the department's activity said that FBI agents had contacted libraries about 50 times in the past two years, but usually at the request of librarians and as part of ordinary criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism. As for how many times the government has used the law's powers to enter a library, a senior Justice official said, "Whether it is one or 100 or zero, it is classified."

As their main examples of the law's usefulness, Justice officials cite a few high-profile cases, some involving suspected terrorism. Perhaps foremost among these cases, agency officials say, is that of a former computer engineering professor in Florida, Sami Al-Arian, who was charged in February in a 50-count indictment with conspiring to commit murder by helping Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel. Ashcroft has said the indictment was possible only because the Patriot Act allows information gathered in classified national security investigations to be shared with criminal prosecutors.

Actions taken under the Patriot Act do not include designating individuals as enemy combatants, which is a constitutional power granted to the president during wartime.

Massachusetts state Rep. Kay Khan (D) learned about the use of the Patriot Act in her case after repeatedly asking why a $300 wire transfer had not reached her brother. She discovered that her husband's name was on a special list at their bank because it may have been used by someone else as an alias. "So we are on some list, which is scary," she said. "I just feel that it's intrusive."

Critics of the law complain that cases such as Khan's are of greater concern than investigations, such as Al-Arian's, that lead to prosecutions. "We are more concerned about the information that is collected and maintained on potentially thousands of law-abiding citizens who are never going to be charged," said David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Conservatives' Fears

Robert L. Barr Jr., a conservative Republican former House member who now works on privacy issues with the American Conservative Union, is one of many conservatives who argue that expanded surveillance powers and a broadened definition of who may be labeled a possible terrorist ultimately could be used against groups on the right, such as militia members or antiabortion activists.

They contend that the department's reluctance to disclose more about the law's use is unacceptable. "To make this blanket claim of national security that disclosure of the general information regarding the number of times government powers have been exercised and in what matter . . . is absolutely nonsense," Barr said.

The FISA court itself ruled 16 months ago that it is improper for federal authorities to mingle intelligence information with criminal cases, as the law allows. But the Justice Department appealed that decision, and it was overturned by a secret appeals court. Because there was no opposing party in the appeal, the law's critics had no way to challenge that decision.

As the law and the controversy around it near their second anniversary, it remains uncertain whether Congress will change the law -- or how strenuously Ashcroft will insist that it be strengthened.

"There are no plans at this time to introduce legislation," said Barbara Comstock, a Justice Department spokeswoman.

Seeking More Powers

Yet the source familiar with the department's work said Ashcroft's aides have been drafting three proposed expansions of Justice Department authority. They would like to make it easier to charge someone with material support for terrorism, to issue subpoenas without court approval and to hold people charged with terrorism prior to trial.

In the same vein, the Senate Judiciary Committee has been working on a bill, largely devoted to fighting drug trafficking, that in some drafts contains a few extra powers that Justice wants. Committee aides said they are unsure whether the chairman, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), will introduce the bill or what it will contain.

There are signs that lawmakers may not be in a mood to expand federal law enforcement powers. Last spring, Hatch tried and failed to make permanent several parts of the Patriot Act concerning surveillance that are set to expire in two years.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said, "The burden is on the Justice Department to show they are using their authorities in a lawful, constitutional and prudent manner."

Sensenbrenner said he and Hatch deterred an effort by Ashcroft last winter to circulate a sequel to the law, known as Patriot II. Sensenbrenner said that Justice officials had begun scheduling meetings with the committees' staffs to discuss such a possibility. "Both Senator Hatch and I told the attorney general in no uncertain terms that would be extremely counterproductive," Sensenbrenner said. "It would still be counterproductive."

In recent months, most legislative efforts have focused mainly on attempts to restrict the law's scope. Bills in both chambers would, for example, exempt libraries from searches.

The most stern rebuke to the administration came in July, when the House voted to cut off money for searches in which the notification is delayed. The sponsor was conservative Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter (Idaho), and his amendment was supported by 111 fellow Republicans who had voted for the original law in 2001. The Senate is unlikely to follow suit.

Justice officials disagree with those who say the original law was passed in anxiety and haste immediately after the nation's worst terrorist attacks. "It's a myth . . . that everyone was rushing in and all had bad hair days and didn't know what they were doing," said Comstock, the Justice spokeswoman. Approval of the delayed notification provision had been bipartisan, she noted.

Still, there are signs the department is worried about preserving its ground. Three days after Otter's amendment passed, an assistant attorney general sent the House an eight-page broadside protesting the vote and an addendum that derided it as a "terrorist tip-off amendment." Ashcroft last month launched a cross-country tour to campaign for the law.

But Otter is drafting other changes. One would repeal the expanded surveillance powers next July, a year before they are to expire; another would place decisions to issue warrants to investigate religious and political groups more firmly into the hands of criminal courts.

"What we are going to have to do is, brick by brick, take the most egregious parts out of the Patriot Act," he said.

[ 09-09-2003, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Right now, America's most dangerous enemy is the Patriot Act; it threatens to destroy all of us. If this piece of "legislation" isn't removed, it will force this country to turn on itself. *sigh*

We have a similar piece of legislation here, *sigh*. I could understand it, sort of, on Sept 12 (though whether it would've stopped 9/11 I doubt...these guys were smooth operators). Now, it seems overly simplistic and ham-fisted. We all need to seriously prioritize here, and figure out what the best balance between security and freedom is. The Patriot Act is not it.

It's hard to see how the Patriot Act helps to fight terrorism. Terrorists are not stupid, they know how to cover their tracks in advance. Look at the provisions of the act and you can see how easy it is for non-law abiding citizens to get around the new powers - which tends to suggest that it is aimed more at controlling the law-abiding folk:

1. Security services can now look at your library records
Terrorist: "No problem, I'll study the books at the library without checking them out - or I'll use a fake ID to obtain a library pass
2. Security services can read your mail/email and tap your phone without your knowledge
Terrorist: Duh! Who uses their own phone and email account for secret stuff anyway? I phone folk with stolen/pre-paid cell phones or with payphones and all I do for email is connect to my annoymous hotmail account with a computer connected to the net with a stolen cell phone/ pay phone" As for paper mail, it's simply too insecure to use"
3. Security services can gather detailed phone/internet activity information from your supplier.
Terrorist: As above, I don't use traceable phones/internet connections to do 'business' - so if you want to know how many times I called the Pizza man and how long I was on the phone to the bus company, it's no problem with me."
3. Security services can search your home without your knowledge
Terrorist: "Well hello! Do you really think that I will keep anything incriminating at my (temporary) home???

And so on...The only people who would be vunerable under this legislation are law-abiding citizens who never felt the need to cover their tracks...

The Hijackers weren't smooth operaters, nor did they use non normal means of comunication, The fact is this is a country of nearly 300,000,000 people and NOBODY is watching everybody all the time. If they were then over half of the population would have to be secret gov't spys. People it is easy to commit crimes or acts of terrorism. If anyone doubts that read a newspaper or watch the local news, "hale" they are both full of what crimes were commited that day.

[ 09-10-2003, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Quote:

Originally posted by John D Harris:
Anyone note the words federal court? That means a judge must ok any search ie: warrent, sounds Consitutional, DOH!

They do not have to provide just cause for seeking such a warrant. They only have to state: "I believe that X is engaged in terrorism". That's it! No smoking gun, no nothing. And it is a *secret* federal court hearing.

Quote:

As a result, critics ranging from the liberal American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Eagle Forum complain that the law is violating people's rights but acknowledge that they cannot cite specific instances of abuse.
Anyone notice the words "they cannot cite spcific instances of abuse."?

Since everything is done in secret, it can't be audited. No-one knows who is being spied on. The man who suddenly disappeared last week could turn up in five years time after being released from a secret detention centre. The security services are not obliged to share arrest information with relatives or even the local police force.
So yes, it is very hard to cite specific abuses and the lack of transparency is the problem - the system can not be policed.

Quote:

Ok folks here's the big question what freedoms have any of you lost because of the Partriot Act? I can sure as "HALE" tell you it ain't the freedom of speach! If it was you wouldn't be able to write many of the posts I've seen on this board.

As a foreigner I can not travel to the United States and engage in free speech. If I drop the wrong remark or if my remarks are misunderstood, the security services can use that to obtain a warrant to search my home/lodging and spy on me. They can even lock me up without telling anyone and throw away the key. Hell, I'm sure that I've made enough comments on this board to have them do that already.

A few months ago the University of Virginia decided to hold an international conference on the Middle East - they invited the leading professors from each field from both abroad and from home. 90% of the foreign guests refused to come, fearing persecution and the lack of rights that they now have under Patriot. The venue was moved to Toronto where *all* attended.

No-one who resides in the US and posts on these boards will know whether they are being monitored. They do not know if the security services are checking their telephone, internet and banking records - they do not know if their home has already been searched because of an off the cut remark about 'Bushes war of Terror'.

They simply do not know - and the fear of that will put off many people from speaking their mind and engaging in public debate. Who wants to risk having their home searched without their knowledge?

I can say what I want on these boards without fear of persecution because I do not reside in the US. How ironic it is that such things are not possible in the 'home of democracy'.

Quote:

Originally posted by Skunk:

As a foreigner I can not travel to the United States and engage in free speech. If I drop the wrong remark or if my remarks are misunderstood, the security services can use that to obtain a warrant to search my home/lodging and spy on me. They can even lock me up without telling anyone and throw away the key. Hell, I'm sure that I've made enough comments on this board to have them do that already.


Yeah its rampant, people are being locked up in droves...thousands of them..no millions so better not come here [img]smile.gif[/img]


A few months ago the University of Virginia decided to hold an international conference on the Middle East - they invited the leading professors from each field from both abroad and from home. 90% of the foreign guests refused to come, fearing persecution and the lack of rights that they now have under Patriot. The venue was moved to Toronto where *all* attended.


Obviously men who stand with their convictions men who errr face any umm danger to speak and be free to spread their words of truth and wisdom....who let them selves be ruled by fear and cowardice.....Yep we lucked out.


No-one who resides in the US and posts on these boards will know whether they are being monitored. They do not know if the security services are checking their telephone, internet and banking records - they do not know if their home has already been searched because of an off the cut remark about 'Bushes war of Terror'.


Actually any sane person knows that the internet being a public environment knows anything typed is being stored and seen by millions....any thoughts of privacy on the internet is foolishness

They simply do not know - and the fear of that will put off many people from speaking their mind and engaging in public debate. Who wants to risk having their home searched without their knowledge?


Ummm since you have admitted you don't live here, cannot visit here it seems to me that you speak from ignorance. I live here. I travel here. I say what I want...and yet...I am not locked up, not harrassed and my home hasn't been searched. (dogs would have to be either killed or drugged) Amazing...I must be one of the "elite protected" :rolleyes: come on guys, this place is sounding like the conspiracy center of North Dakota.


I can say what I want on these boards without fear of persecution because I do not reside in the US. How ironic it is that such things are not possible in the 'home of democracy'.


I will say here "GEORGE BUSH IS AN ASSHOLE".....Ill be waiting for the gestapo.... geez get a clue.

Skunk I posted to you because you have the most warped view of the US I have ever encountered. Perhaps you should visit before making judgements.


[ 09-11-2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Magik is right. I've been to the USA and it's not a bad place at all.

But will it even be the same place after 25 years of following the 'patriot act' path?

Quote:

I travel here. I say what I want...and yet...I am not locked up

You say exactly the things that the government likes to hear - so *you* have nothing to fear - others who do not tow the government line have plenty to fear.

Quote:

not harrassed and my home hasn't been searched. (dogs would have to be either killed or drugged)

Maybe they were - how can you be sure? Or do you think that the CIA couldn't figure a way to get around a couple of dogs without anyone noticing?

Quote:

Skunk I posted to you because you have the most warped view of the US I have ever encountered. Perhaps you should visit before making judgements.

I have - many times - before the patriot act. Love the country - hate the fascists of the current administration, dislike the foreign policy of most of the past administrations.

Ok skunk, I know the lure of the "Conspiracy" is strong for some people. So enjoy.... it's harmless I suppose.

As for the dogs....thy havent been drugged and they haven't had any CIA men for lunch and there are four not a couple. [img]smile.gif[/img] Usually Mysti is home all day long any way. As for saying exactly what they want me too...LOL hardly. I complain and bitch and moan too, I just do it about things I care about and believe in....say Guns...Im pretty sure the facists would not want me having guns...Didn't the REAL facists round up all the privately owned guns?

Um we also have an alarm system and while parts of it can be shut down externally [img]smile.gif[/img] the motion sensors are only accessible from inside...and I would know if the power had been cut [img]smile.gif[/img] ...Oh sure given an unlimited budget and lots of time they could break in....but "they" don't exist and IT isn't happening.

Will the USA be nice in 25 years...not if the democrats get back in power (in my opinion) Of course Im right PO'd at GWB for caving on the prescription drug issue and for not facing down Hillary and company. And for not forcing the dems to act on the Judicial nominations and several other issues. Im hardly the "Party Man" you think I am.

Quote:

---MagiK
Ok skunk, I know the lure of the "Conspiracy" is strong for some people. So enjoy.... it's harmless I suppose.

[qoute] Skunk
They do not have to provide just cause for seeking such a warrant. They only have to state: "I believe that X is engaged in terrorism". That's it! No smoking gun, no nothing. And it is a *secret* federal court hearing.[/qoute]
They still have to show probibale cause, as for it being *secret* does anybody think that when the FBI got a warrent to bug John Gotti's social club, John Gotti's lawyer was notified before hand, or even after the warrent was issued? There has always been a *secret* court room in either the State Dept or INS I can't recall off hand which one for issuing certain orders.

Since everything is done in secret, it can't be audited. No-one knows who is being spied on. The man who suddenly disappeared last week could turn up in five years time after being released from a secret detention centre. The security services are not obliged to share arrest information with relatives or even the local police force.
So yes, it is very hard to cite specific abuses and the lack of transparency is the problem - the system can not be policed.
The judge is a normal judge one that has been apointed in the propper manner and confirmed in the propper constitutional manner. Almost any court case that involves national security is held in secret already.

No-one who resides in the US and posts on these boards will know whether they are being monitored. They do not know if the security services are checking their telephone, internet and banking records - they do not know if their home has already been searched because of an off the cut remark about 'Bushes war of Terror'. No one would have known before the Patriot act either, please look at the opening artical and I quote "In Seattle, the public library printed 3,000 bookmarks to alert patrons that the FBI could, in the name of national security, seek permission from a secret federal court to inspect their reading and computer records -- and prohibit librarians from revealing that a search had taken place." The FBI would still have to obtain a search warrent, then they would have to notify Ziroc, if not then why would the phrase "and prohibit librarians from revealing that a search had taken place." be in there? If the FBI didn't have to go through somebody else there is no need for that Phrase.

Now here's a question for those fearing the Patriot Act What the "Hale" makes anybody think they are so important that the US government would be looking at them? There's nearly 300,000,000 people in the USA "Hale" the FBI couldn't even find 1 wacko abortion clinic bomber, it took blind A** luck and a rookie cop to do it (Eric Rudolf). And the FBI is going to come looking anyone of you?

This is not the movie "Enemy of the State" or any other "Big Bad Gov't" Movie.

Quote:

Originally posted by Skunk:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />---MagiK
Ok skunk, I know the lure of the "Conspiracy" is strong for some people. So enjoy.... it's harmless I suppose.

I'm not into conspiracy theories either. However, I remain concerned that, since the system can not be audited by an independent body, it remains open to abuse by over-zealous intelligence and law enforcement officials and possibly by 'rogue' officials working on a private agenda - not impossible as Watergate demonstrated.

What about the so-called 'No-fly' list for example? Once your name gets on the list, no one knows who to contact to find out why you are on the list and how to have your name removed... I think that you might change your mind about such measures if your name suddenly appeared on it. In the case of Rebecca Gordon and Janet Adams, was this the work of an over-zealous law enforcement official or a government supporter keen to disrupt the legal political activities of the two? Who can say? There is no right to find out who put your name on the list and why... [/QUOTE]Do you know how hard it is to review an out of line federal judge now? It's Damn near impossible to do in the open court system already. The vast majority of judges wouldn't even try to do something stupid in a criminal case, that is usally reserved for a highly charged emotional issue ie: seperation of Church & State, Lordy federal Judges have been running from 2nd admendment cases for decades. The Patriot Act (as per the artical) has been up held by a judge already in open court, he threw it out.

If innocent people should have nothing to fear from government, why have a bill of rights in the first place?

I think the "if your innocent what are you concerned about" line of reasoning is as invalid as the blind and without question trusting of people in positions of authority.

[ 09-12-2003, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because the framers had seen what kinds of abuses of power were common in the European monarchies and they wanted to make sure those abuses did not happen here. Ultimately, the Patriot Act will be found to be unconstitutional and be thrown out.

As far as being "innocent" and thus having no need to worry about governmental monitoring...well, since in that way I am innocent I have nothing to hide, thus the idea of being searched with a warrant is fine; however, being searched without a warrant would get me upset, but I'm not sure if my protestations would amount to anything (my rights versus the current Patriot Act). Bottom line, it amounts to how much worrying do you want to have in your life? I have many things much more pressing on my mind that whether or not the government is interested in monitoring me--if they want to they will whether I like it or not.

Skunk, the only problem with having an independent body to monitor the government to make sure they play fairly by all the rules is this: who will monitor those who monitor the government? How many levels of "independent bodies" can exist, with each layer monitoring the layer beneath itself?

Conspiracies are only ever "discovered" after the fact. A set of essentially random event occur, we ask "why?", and then some creative individual comes up with a plausible scenario that explains how a small group of powerful individuals maniuplated events to bring about exactly the result that happened.
On the other hand, perhaps events are progressing as the conspirators desire. A terrorist attack, a quickly-devised but flawed Patriot Act v1.0, it gets thrown out as unconstitutional, a subsequent terrorist attack, leading to a much more powerful Patriot Act v2.0 that cannot be thrown out. [img]graemlins/firedevil.gif[/img]

Quote:

--Azred
Skunk, the only problem with having an independent body to monitor the government to make sure they play fairly by all the rules is this: who will monitor those who monitor the government? How many levels of "independent bodies" can exist, with each layer monitoring the layer beneath itself?

Well the 'old' system worked just fine. You went to get your warrant - the judge would issue the warrant. You gave a copy to the guy being searched - the guy knew that his property was being searched and had a right to challenge that search in court. No extra layers required. Not a perfect system - but a very fine one nonetheless - in fact, it's so good that no other democracy has ever come up with an alternative that balances justice between accuser and accused in a fairer way.

Patriot Raid
A month ago I experienced a very small taste of what hundreds of South Asian immigrants and U.S. citizens of South Asian descent have gone through since 9/11, and what thousands of others have come to fear. I was held, against my will and without warrant or cause, under the USA PATRIOT Act. While I understand the need for some measure of security and precaution in times such as these, the manner in which this detention and interrogation took place raises serious questions about police tactics and the safeguarding of civil liberties in times of war.

That night, March 20th, my roommate Asher and I were on our way to see the Broadway show "Rent." We had an hour to spare before curtain time so we stopped into an Indian restaurant just off of Times Square in the heart of midtown. I have omitted the name of the restaurant so as not to subject the owners to any further harassment or humiliation.

We helped ourselves to the buffet and then sat down to begin eating our dinner. I was just about to tell Asher how I'd eaten there before and how delicious the vegetable curry was, but I never got a chance. All of a sudden, there was a terrible commotion and five NYPD in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us.

"Go to the back, go to the back of the restaurant," they yelled.

I hesitated, lost in my own panic.

"Did you not hear me, go to the back and sit down," they demanded.

I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging in age from late-teens to senior citizen. One of the policemen pointed his gun point-blank in the face of the waiter and shouted: "Is there anyone else in the restaurant?" The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen.

The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors. Shouts emanated from the kitchen and a few seconds later five Hispanic men were made to crawl out on their hands and knees, guns pointed at them.

After patting us all down, the five officers seated us at two tables. As they continued to kick open doors to closets and bathrooms with their fingers glued to their triggers, no less than ten officers in suits emerged from the stairwell. Most of them sat in the back of the restaurant typing on their laptop computers. Two of them walked over to our table and identified themselves as officers of the INS and Homeland Security Department.

I explained that we were just eating dinner and asked why we were being held. We were told by the INS agent that we would be released once they had confirmation that we had no outstanding warrants and our immigration status was OK'd.

In pre-9/11 America, the legality of this would have been questionable. After all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

"You have no right to hold us," Asher insisted.

"Yes, we have every right," responded one of the agents. "You are being held under the Patriot Act following suspicion under an internal Homeland Security investigation."

The USA PATRIOT Act was passed into law on October 26, 2001 in order to facilitate the post 9/11 crackdown on terrorism (the name is actually an acronym: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.") Like most Americans, I did not recognize the extent to which this bill foregoes our civil liberties. Among the unprecedented rights it grants to the federal government are the right to wiretap without warrant, and the right to detain without warrant. As I quickly discovered, the right to an attorney has been seemingly fudged as well.

When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official informed me that I do have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be brought down to the station and await security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: "Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month."

We insisted that we had every right to leave and were going to do so. One of the policemen walked over with his hand on his gun and taunted: "Go ahead and leave, just go ahead."

We remained seated. Our IDs were taken, and brought to the officers with laptops. I was questioned over the fact that my license was out of state, and asked if I had "something to hide." The police continued to hassle the kitchen workers, demanding licenses and dates of birth. One of the kitchen workers was shaking hysterically and kept providing the day's date, March 20, 2003, over and over.

As I continued to press for legal counsel, a female officer who had been busy typing on her laptop in the front of the restaurant, walked over and put her finger in my face. "We are at war, we are at war and this is for your safety," she exclaimed. As she walked away from the table, she continued to repeat it to herself: "We are at war, we are at war. How can they not understand this?"

I most certainly understand that we are at war. I also understand that the freedoms afforded to all of us in the Constitution were meant specifically for times like these. Our freedoms were carved out during times of strife by people who were facing brutal injustices, and were intended specifically so that this nation would behave differently in such times. If our freedoms crumble exactly when they are needed most, then they were really never freedoms at all.

After an hour and a half the INS agent walked back over and handed Asher and me our licenses. A policeman took us by the arm and escorted us out of the building. Before stepping out to the street, the INS agent apologized. He explained, in a low voice, that they did not think the two of us were in the restaurant. Several of the other patrons, though of South Asian descent, were in fact U.S. citizens. There were four taxi drivers, two students, one newspaper salesman – unwitting customers, just like Asher and me. I doubt, though, they received any apologies from the INS or the Department of Homeland Security.

Nor have the over 600 people of South Asian descent currently being held without charge by the Federal government. Apparently, this type of treatment is acceptable. One of the taxi drivers, a U.S. citizen, spoke to me during the interrogation. "Please stop talking to them," he urged. "I have been through this before. Please do whatever they say. Please for our sake."

Three days later I phoned the restaurant to discover what happened. The owner was nervous and embarrassed and obviously did not want to talk about it. But I managed to ascertain that the whole thing had been one giant mistake. A mistake. Loaded guns pointed in faces, people made to crawl on their hands and knees, police officers clearly exacerbating a tense situation by kicking in doors, taunting, keeping their fingers on the trigger even after the situation was under control. A mistake. And, according to the ACLU a perfectly legal one, thanks to the PATRIOT Act.

The PATRIOT Act is just the first phase of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. From the Justice Department has emerged a draft of the Domestic Securities Enhancement Act, also known as PATRIOT II. Among other things, this act would allow the Justice Department to detain anyone, anytime, secretly and indefinitely. It would also make it a crime to reveal the identity or even existence of such a detainee.

Every American citizen, whether they support the current war or not, should be alarmed by the speed and facility with which these changes to our fundamental rights are taking place. And all of those who thought that these laws would never affect them, who thought that the PATRIOT Act only applied to the guilty, should heed this story as a wake-up call. Please learn from my experience. We are all vulnerable so speak out and organize, our Fourth Amendment rights depend upon it.

Jason Halperin lives in New York City and works at Doctors Without Borders/Medicins San Frontieres. If you are moved by this account, he asks that you consider donating to your local ACLU chapter.

Having travelled to many, I can recognise the signs of a Police State - can you? Having seen legal persecution of minority groups, I can recognise it quickly when I see it - can you too?

Fortunately, I live in the last continent of democracy and freedom - so I have nothing to worry about. But I worry for my friends and hope that they manage to finalise their emigration plans before its too late.

Quote:

Originally posted by Skunk:


Fortunately, I live in the last continent of democracy and freedom - so I have nothing to worry about. But I worry for my friends and hope that they manage to finalise their emigration plans before its too late.

Don't be so sureThe only difference is that our Police have to account for their actions.

Police use of terror act challenged

Civil rights campaigners have won the right to challenge police use of anti-terror powers against protesters at an arms fair.

The campaign group Liberty will get a full hearing in the High Court in London after applying to Mr Justice Maurice Kay for permission to seek a judicial review of the police action.

"This hearing has important implications for the future policing of demonstrations in this country," a Liberty spokesman said.

"The essence of our case is that anti-terrorist legislation should not be used to curb legitimate protest."

Police have now arrested a total of 138 people since 1 September, in moves against protests at the Defence Systems and Equipment International (DSEi) exhibition at the ExCel Centre in east London's Docklands.

Two of the arrests at the four-day fair were on Thursday - when two men climbed onto the roof of a Docklands Light Railway train - and 57 on Wednesday.

Most of the arrests were under public order legislation, for offences such as blocking the highway and criminal damage.

But police said at least two arrests this week had been under the 2000 Terrorism Act.

And Liberty said "dozens" of others were stopped and searched using section 44 of the Act.

One man, apparently in his teens, told Channel 4 News his rucksack had been searched "for terrorism" when it had only contained a jumper and potato salad.

Home Secretary David Blunkett has demanded an explanation from police as to why they used the act at all.

He said police use of the law had been authorised in the run-up to the second anniversary of 11 September.

But it was intended for use against "terrorist attacks or measures that we had to take to counter terrorists," he said.

He told MPs on Thursday the Act would be discredited if it was wrongly used by police.

"Initial findings overnight indicated that two non-British nationals were picked up and the police believed that they were justified in doing so under the Terrorism Act.

"I need to know that other people on whom the Act was applied were justified," he said.

Police who used the same powers against demonstrators at RAF Fairford in July, but Mr Blunkett said they had acted properly because some protesters had been armed with "cudgels and swords".

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin on Wednesday warned against a "slippery slope" towards use of the laws as part of normal policing.

And London Mayor Ken Livingstone also said he would be seeking an explanation from Scotland Yard.

He said: "Londoners have a democratic right to protest their views through peaceful protest within the law.

"It does not seem appropriate that powers in the Terrorism Act 2000 should be used when policing such a peaceful protest."

Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner Andy Trotter said the law had been used "appropriately" in "exceptional circumstances".

Quote:

The only difference is that our Police have to account for their actions.

Well that's the difference between a police state and a democratic state; the right to judicial review and transparent due process vs. no right.