07-06-2003, 11:37 AM | #1 |
Zartan
Join Date: May 2, 2001
Location: Ulpia Noviomagus Batavorum
Age: 43
Posts: 5,281
|
Alaska Passes Anti-Patriot Act Resolution; Second State to Oppose Feds |
07-06-2003, 10:24 PM | #2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Im sure I am gonna get hammered for this question, but could someone lay out in simple bulleted style the actual provisions in the Patriot Act. That are causing so much angst. Living here in DC where this is being implemented at full bore...and not having noticed any change in my life at all....I just would like to know what the hullabaloo is. Thanks in advance [img]smile.gif[/img] |
07-07-2003, 10:08 AM | #3 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
It's huge first of all -- and has the potential to raise many spectres of governmental usurpation of the Constitution. Here's the text. Here are a ton of articles discussing the many problems with the act, and here is a Law Professor's summary of those problems. Take 'em for what they are.
The professor's not-so-brief list of problems: ____________________________________________ It is a crime for anyone in this country to contribute money or other material support to the activities of a group on the State Department's terrorist watch list. Organizations are so designated on the basis of secret evidence, and their inclusion on the list cannot be challenged in court. Members of any such targeted organization can be deported even if they have not been involved in any illegal activities. The government freely admits that some of the groups it will designate are broad-based organizations engaged in lawful social, political, and humanitarian activities as well as violent activities. The FBI can monitor and tape conversations and meetings between an attorney and a client who is in federal custody, whether the client has been convicted, charged, or merely detained as a material witness. New York City attorney Lynne Stewart (the court-appointed representative of Sheik Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) has been indicted for aiding and abetting terrorism based on conversations with her client. Her trial is set for January 2004, and the prosecution is clearly intended as a warning: Attorneys representing people charged with terrorism-related crimes will be watched as closely as the defendants. Americans captured on foreign soil and thought to have been involved in terrorist activities abroad may be held indefinitely in a military prison and denied access to lawyers or family members. No federal court can review the reason for the detention. Such is the plight of Yaser Hamdi, detained in a Navy brig in Norfolk, Virginia, whose family and attorney made valiant efforts to gain access to him. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a federal trial judge's order that Hamdi be allowed to meet with the federal public defender. The FBI can order librarians to turn over information about their patrons' reading habits and Internet use. The librarian cannot inform the patron that this information has been provided. Librarians, on the whole, are outraged at their new role; some have taken to posting signs in the library warning users not to use the Internet, others to destroying their logs of Internet users. One librarian said to a Washington Post reporter, "This law is dangerous.... I read murder mysteries--does that make me a murderer? I read spy stories--does that mean I'm a spy?" Foreign citizens charged with a terrorist-related act may be denied access to an attorney and their right to question witnesses and otherwise prepare for a defense may be severely curtailed if the Department of Justice says that's necessary to protect national security. Jose Padilla, the American Muslim fingered by Ashcroft last year as a would-be "dirty bomb" builder, is a case in point. Resident alien men from primarily Middle Eastern and Muslim countries must report for registration. And hundreds of the ones who have reported have been detained and arrested for minor immigration infractions. It recently came to light that immigration authorities are refusing to let the men appear with their attorneys, a refusal that is a violation of Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS, formerly the INS) regulations. Lawful foreign visitors may be photographed and fingerprinted when they enter the country and made to periodically report for questioning. The government can conduct surveillance on the Internet and e-mail use of American citizens without any notice, upon order to the Internet service provider. Internet service providers may not move to quash such subpoenas. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) can search any car at any airport without a showing of any suspicion of criminal activity. The TSA can conduct full searches of people boarding airplanes and, if the passenger is a child, the child may be separated from the parent during the search. An objection by a parent or guardian to the search will put the objector at the risk of being charged with the crime of obstructing a federal law enforcement officer and tried in federal court. Travelers in Portland and Baltimore have reported such arrests. The TSA is piloting a program to amass all available computerized information on all purchasers of airline tickets, categorize individuals according to their threat to national security, and embed the label on all boarding passes. The Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) program is designed to perform background checks on all airline passengers and assigns each passenger a "threat level." Passengers will not be able to ascertain their classification or the basis for the classification. The TSA distributes a "no-fly" list to airport security personnel and airlines that require refusal of boarding and detention of persons deemed to be terrorism or air piracy risks or to pose a threat to airline or passenger safety. This is an expansion of a regulation that since 1990 has looked out for threats to civil aviation. Names are added daily based upon secret criteria. Several lawsuits that challenge these regulations are now pending, some from irate passengers who were mistaken for people on the list. American citizens and aliens can be held indefinitely in federal custody as "material witnesses," a ploy sometimes used as a punitive measure when the government does not have sufficient basis to charge the individual with a terror-related crime. The 1984 material witness law allows the government to detain citizens at will for an arbitrary period of time to give testimony that might be useful in the prosecutions of others. A Jordanian man picked up a few days after September 11 was held more than nine months before being released. And last week a federal judge in Oregon ordered that Mike Hawash, a software engineer and long-time naturalized American citizen who has been held in solitary confinement in a federal prison for more than a month, be questioned by April 29, 2003. It is notable, however, that the judge has already conducted a secret hearing that determined Hawash's detention to be lawful. Immigration authorities may detain immigrants without any charges for a "reasonable period of time." The BCIS need not account for the names or locations of the detainees, and what constitutes a "reasonable period of time" is not defined. American colleges and universities with foreign students must report extensive information about their students to the BCIS. BCIS in turn may revoke student visas for missteps as minor as a student's failure to get an advisor's signature on a form that adds or drops classes. College personnel cannot notify students to correct the lapse in order to save them from deportation. To a very large extent, campus police and security personnel have become agents of the immigration authorities. Accused terrorists labeled "unlawful combatants" can be tried in military tribunals here or abroad, under rules of procedure developed by the Pentagon and the Department of Justice. All it takes to be named an unlawful combatant is the affidavit of a Pentagon employee, who is not required to provide the rationale for his or her decision, even to a federal judge. (In the case of Yaser Hamdi, the federal appellate court ruled that it has no authority to look behind this affidavit and question the determination.) Unlawful combatants are also denied counsel and contact with family members. In fact, hundreds of "unlawful combatants" are still being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without attorneys, without family contact, and under conditions said by some to be tantamount to physical and psychological torture. A federal court ruled in March that these persons had no access to the federal courts since they were on Cuban, not American, soil. A warrant to conduct widespread surveillance on any American thought to be associated with terrorist activities can be obtained from a secret panel of judges, upon the affidavit of a Department of Justice official. If arrested as a result of the surveillance (as was the case with the attorney, Lynne Stewart), the defendant has no right to know the facts supporting the warrant request. The FBI can conduct aerial surveillance of individuals and homes without a warrant, and can install video cameras in places where lawful demonstrations and protests are held. Facial recognition computer programs are used to identify persons the FBI deems suspicious for political reasons. An ACLU employee in South Carolina was recently indicted for the federal offense of being in a "restricted area" at the Columbia, South Carolina airport in October 2002, when President Bush made a political campaign appearance. (The South Carolina AG, who happens to be the son of retired Senator Strom Thurmond, authorized the indictment.) Most of these restrictions on liberty were not part of the letter of the Patriot Act; they were shaped by means of rules and regulations adopted in agencies and departments of government with little notice to the public. That's because the Patriot Act granted sweeping new powers to agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, and BCIS to go their own way in prosecuting the war on terror. Will the Clinton/Bush expansion of federal powers help much in protecting the country from terrorism? That is an imponderable, since we can't know what might have happened by now, or what might happen going forward, in their absence. But the arrests hyped by Ashcroft so far don't suggest that his new powers are yielding much. One of the most notorious cases involved Jose Padilla, an American-born Muslim arrested for allegedly plotting to build a dirty bomb. Padilla is still being held without charges, and many believe it's because the government has no real case against him. (The file on Padilla is secret, obviously, but some news accounts have suggested his sole crime was attempting to download "dirty bomb" construction plans from the Internet.) Several people charged with terrorist-related acts have pled guilty to some charges, such as visiting an al Qaeda training camp (as defendants in Buffalo have recently done), or to lesser non-terrorist-related offenses (money laundering instead of financing terrorist activities), in order to avoid the risk of conviction and longer sentences. The Justice Department seeks grand jury indictments of the "kitchen-sink" variety--throw in everything remotely chargeable, and then declare victory when the defendant pleads to one or two charges. What we do know about these laws is that they allow government agents to be more aggressive and, when they wish, more abusive. Most of the people indicted in Buffalo and Portland have been charged with being terrorist sympathizers because they were in the presence of people themselves labeled as terrorist sympathizers (visiting their homes, for instance) or because they had contributed to a non-profit organization that the government has decreed to have a connection to terrorism somewhere in the world. Attorney Lynne Stewart was indicted for the "crime" of zealously representing a convicted terrorist she was court-appointed to defend. [ 07-07-2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ] |
07-07-2003, 11:14 AM | #4 | |
Galvatron
Join Date: January 22, 2002
Location: california wine country
Age: 60
Posts: 2,193
|
Quote:
__________________
“This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. <br />Some people call you the elite. <br />I call you my base.”<br />~ George W. Bush (2000) |
|
07-08-2003, 10:57 AM | #5 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
TL, I attempted to post this yesterday...lets see if I make it today.... It is all well and good to point me at a stack of a million documents and words...what Im asking for is a simple bullet list of the provisions that have people all in a flap. As of today here int he nations capitol, I have seen diddley squat impact on my life. |
07-08-2003, 12:05 PM | #6 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
MagiK, that IS the bullet-point list. Read it. Each paragraph is a bullet point. The act is HUGE, so summaries are going to be lengthy. Just because it isn't impacting your life, doesn't mean it shouldn't offend you. You are a WASP (no offense, but IIRC it's accurate), so the act is targeted at most everyone else more than you. But, woe be it to you if you have a friend named Aziz who happens to write you a letter one day.
My basic gripes: no one should be held indefinately (or for over 12 hours, IMO) without a charge being filed, and no one should ever be denied a lawyer (which is a constitutional right if you're a citizen -- but which this law calls into question). Think about it, you're arrested today, and it's THREE DAYS before the feds let you see a lawyer. Do you know how long most confessions take? Can you endure 3 straight days without sleep, fielding complex questions, being told you are an evil liar and you should just come clean, having FOOD held as a reward for saying what they want (whether or not it's the truth)? If YOU could endure that, SHOULD you? But, there are many other little problems -- check the list, just because one hasn't bitten you in the arse yet doesn't mean it can't or won't. |
07-08-2003, 12:19 PM | #7 |
Banned User
Join Date: March 1, 2001
Location: VT, USA
Age: 63
Posts: 3,097
|
I believe that anyone who values their freedoms and rights should be able to find something in the USA PATRIOT Act that they feel is harmful to America.
I'm ashamed to say that I was not aware until recently, that letters in title of the act actually mean something: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act I wonder how much effort it took to come up with this acronym? Mark |
07-08-2003, 12:36 PM | #8 |
Galvatron
Join Date: January 22, 2002
Location: california wine country
Age: 60
Posts: 2,193
|
Here is a good breakdown of the 120+ page Patriot II act. Lots of fun stuff in there:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PA2ACLUbrkdn.html
__________________
“This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. <br />Some people call you the elite. <br />I call you my base.”<br />~ George W. Bush (2000) |
07-08-2003, 01:44 PM | #9 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Ok, I see that the bullets are umm larger than I thought. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Now...Im not a WASP at all Im a White Anglo Saxon Catholic or WASC. That being said. You are worried (or at least it appears to me) by what "may" be interpreted into it. The fact remains, that however you slice it. Honest law abiding citizens who do not associate with criminals or suspect persons are not going to be affected. The average Joe Schmoe or even Achmed Falaffel isn't going to be targeted. The act hasn't done away with any civil liberties that I can see. I realize as a lawyer you have to be concerned about that 12 hour issue. Some times 12 hours isn't enough. I still say there are steps that need to be taken for national and civil security against terrorists...AND there are a LOT of people (especially around universities) that are just the kind of people who should be rounded up and have their visa's revoked. That being said...let me take some time to wade through this muss and see what is up. |
|
07-08-2003, 02:40 PM | #10 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
There my honest reactions to the points. I do see that there MAY be possibilities for abuse, but I have faith in our system that it will move quickly to squash any true abuses that are comitted. Agree or disagree thats your right and priveledge [img]smile.gif[/img] I will wait and watch and see what comes to pass. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lizard Man REBELLION!!!! | spydar | Icewind Dale | Heart of Winter | Icewind Dale II Forum | 8 | 10-06-2004 10:43 AM |
Patriot Act and Administration Ideology | Timber Loftis | General Discussion | 35 | 01-13-2004 10:27 AM |
PATRIOT II: With a Whisper, not a bang | Rokenn | General Discussion | 1 | 12-30-2003 04:18 PM |
The Peasant Rebellion | Lord Shield | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 204 | 08-23-2002 06:58 PM |
Are you a patriot? | Neb | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 5 | 02-14-2002 08:28 PM |