Liberals and Conservatives agree on disagreeing with the Patriot Act

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.

[Skunk]

---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...

[John D Harris]

[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.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: ---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.

[Chewbacca]

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 ]

[Azred]

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]

[Skunk]

--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.

[Donut]

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".

[Skunk]

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.