Get Ready for PATRIOT II

[Die Hard]

Just curious... what are Americans thoughts on this article?

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15541

By Matt Welch, AlterNet

April 2, 2003

The "fog of war" obscures more than just news from the battlefield. It also provides cover for radical domestic legislation, especially ill-considered liberty-for-security swaps, which have been historically popular at the onset of major conflicts.

The last time allied bombs fell over a foreign capital, the Bush Administration rammed through the USA PATRIOT Act, a clever acronym for maximum with-us-or-against-us leverage (the full name is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism").

Remarkably, this 342-page law was written, passed (by a 98-1 vote in the U.S. Senate) and signed into law within seven weeks of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

As a result, the government gained new power to wiretap phones, confiscate property of suspected terrorists, spy on its own citizens without judicial review, conduct secret searches, snoop on the reading habits of library users, and so General John Ashcroft wants to finish the job. On Jan. 10, 2003, he sent around a draft of PATRIOT II; this time, called "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003." The more than 100 new provisions, Justice Department spokesperson Mark Corallo told the Village Voice recently, "will be filling in the holes" of PATRIOT I, "refining things that will enable us to do our job."

Though Ashcroft and his mouthpieces have issued repeated denials that the draft represents anything like a finished proposal, the Voice reported that: "Corallo confirmed ... that such measures were coming soon."

You can read the entire 87-page draft here. Constitutional watchdog Nat Hentoff has called it "the most radical government plan in our history to remove from Americans their liberties under the Bill of Rights." Some of DSEA's more draconian provisions:

Americans could have their citizenship revoked, if found to have contributed "material support" to organizations deemed by the government, even retroactively, to be "terrorist." As Hentoff wrote in the Feb. 28 Village Voice: "Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But – and read this carefully from the new bill – 'the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.'" (Italics Hentoff's.)

Legal permanent residents (like, say, my French wife), could be deported instantaneously, without a criminal charge or even evidence, if the Attorney General considers them a threat to national security. If they commit minor, non-terrorist offenses, they can still be booted out, without so much as a day in court, because the law would exempt habeas corpus review in some cases. As the American Civil Liberties Union stated in its long brief against the DSEA, "Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus – a protection guaranteed by the Constitution – since the Civil War."

The government would be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at "detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities." Samples could be collected without a court order; one need only be suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement officer. Those refusing the cheek-swab could be fined $200,000 and jailed for a year. "Because no federal genetic privacy law regulates DNA databases, privacy advocates fear that the data they contain could be misused," Wired News reported March 31. "People with 'flawed' DNA have already suffered genetic discrimination at the hands of employers, insurance companies and the government."

Authorities could wiretap anybody for 15 days, and snoop on anyone's Internet usage (including chat and email), all without obtaining a warrant.

The government would be specifically instructed not to release any information about detainees held on suspicion of terrorist activities, until they are actually charged with a crime. Or, as Hentoff put it, "for the first time in U.S. history, secret arrests will be specifically permitted."

Businesses that rat on their customers to the Feds – even if the information violates privacy agreements, or is, in fact, dead wrong – would be granted immunity. "Such immunity," the ACLU contended, "could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft's Operation TIPS."

Police officers carrying out illegal searches would also be granted legal immunity if they were just carrying out orders.

Federal "consent decrees" limiting local law enforcement agencies' abilities to spy on citizens in their jurisdiction would be rolled back. As Howard Simon, executive director of Florida's ACLU, noted in a March 19 column in the Sarasota Herald Tribune: "The restrictions on political surveillance were hard-fought victories for civil liberties during the 1970s."

American citizens could be subject to secret surveillance by their own government on behalf of foreign countries, including dictatorships.

The death penalty would be expanded to cover 15 new offenses.

And many of PATRIOT I's "sunset provisions" – stipulating that the expanded new enforcement powers would be rescinded in 2005 – would be erased from the books, cementing Ashcroft's rushed legislation in the law books. As UPI noted March 10, "These sunset provisions were a concession to critics of the bill in Congress."

I wouldn't be writing this article today had an alarmed Justice Department staffer not leaked the draft to the Center for Public Integrity in early February. Ashcroft, up to that point, had repeatedly refused to even discuss what his lawyers might be cooking up. But if 10,000 residents of Los Angeles had been vaporized by a "suitcase nuke" in late January, it is reasonable to assume that the then-secret proposal would have been speed-delivered for a congressional vote, even though Congress has not so far participated in drafting the legislation (which is, after all, its Constitutional role).

As a result of the leak, and the ensuing bad press, opposition to the measure has had time to gather momentum before the first bomb was dropped on Saddam's bunker. Some of the criticism has originated from the right side of the political spectrum – a March 17 open letter to Congress was signed not only by the ACLU and People for the American Way, but the cultural-conservative think tank Free Congress Foundation, the Gun Owners of America, the American Conservative Union, and more.

One does not have to believe that Ashcroft is a Constitution-shredding ghoul to find these measures alarming, improper and possibly illegal. Glancing over the list above, and at the other DSEA literature, I can see multiple ways in which a Fed with a grudge could legally ruin my life. Removing checks and balances on law enforcement assumes perfect behavior on the part of the police.

Safeguarding civil liberties is an unpopular project in the most placid of times. Since Sept. 11, the Bush Administration has shown that it will push the envelope on nearly every restriction it considers to be impeding its prosecution of the war on terrorism. This single-minded drive requires extreme vigilance, before the fog of war becomes toxic.

Detailed critiques of the Patriot II draft have been prepared by the ACLU and the Center for Public Integrity. The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights also has a useful 98-page report on post-Sept. 11 civil liberties, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center maintains an outstanding PATRIOT-related site.

Matt Welch is the Los Angeles correspondent for the National Post, and an editor of the L.A. Examiner. He also maintains a weblog about current events.

[Riggo-toni]

No way is this gonna pass. A lot of lawmakers have stated that they regret signing on to the first one. It is pretty scary, though...

[codeorama]

Communist USA.

[Yomar]

The United States of Authoritarianism

never say never riggo-toni

[codeorama]

I personally feel like a bunch of the people that supported it at first were just caught up in the post 9/11 atmosphere but now have had time to realize the implications.

[Kilmer17]

Certain aspects are needed, but it'll never pass in that form. At least I hope it doesnt.

We do need more power to keep tabs on foreigners in this country, as well as more ability to track homegrown terror groups.

[Yomar]

has the Patriot Act been contested in court yet?

[88Comrade2000]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

We do need more power to keep tabs on foreigners in this country, as well as more ability to track homegrown terror groups.

You can brand them with the word: FOREIGNER. :mad:

I hope that act never passes- it's unamerican. Even the current act has some things I think shouldn't be there.

You should never pass things in haste. They never debated the first act and jsut passsed it in the aftermath of 9/11.

You should discuss and debate any major act- just like that. Many of those politicians didn't even know what was in it.

Trust me- you're giving the government way to much power. They say they use it to fight terror but they can use it for other things.

Don't you Richard Nixon would've love PA 1 or what they want for PA2. Even Bill Clinton could find uses for that act.

[Canyonero!]

Originally posted by Yomar

has the Patriot Act been contested in court yet?

None that have made it to the Supreme court yet. My guess is that the Supreme court would rule it's unconstitutional, but then again they say the DMCA is just fine.

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

I honestly hope Patriot 2 does not pass. If you read the bill in deatail it reins in our basic rights guranteed by the bill of rights.

[Glenn X]

If the Patriot Act or its sequel are truly as loathsome as some claim they are, (call me crazy, but) I have faith in our system of checks & balances to iron this out.

I can't recall the specifics, but wasn't there a federal law passed regarding sedition, circa 1920, that was later overturned by the Supreme Court because it was found to be too broadly written and an impingement on the 1st Amendment?

[Kilmer17]

You can brand them with the word: FOREIGNER.

They are foreigners. Why is that a bad word now? I want every foreigner tracked when they enter the US. If they dont like it, they dont have to visit. My problems with it lie with the seizure and surveillance of American citizens. Seems to me though that this is just the starting point. Much like a tax bill, it will get whittled down to an acceptable level.

Hokie, our rights are reigned in all the time. We have freedom of speech, but you cant yell fire in a crowded theater.

[TheKurp]

I think everyone needs a chip implanted at birth; kind of like the chip one can get implanted in their dog.

Then a universal national scanning system should be imbedded in all hardware used in commercial and banking industries. The emerging RFID (radio-frequency identification) technology would lend itself perfectly to this type of application.

Here's the caveat. It would take a court order to activate one's chip ID before the tracking of that individual's whereabouts and actions could take place.

Otherwise, the power to activate the reading of one's ID would lie with the individual and would be company specific. In other words, if I wanted to simply debit my bank account as I passed through the scanner at a grocery store, I would give explicit written permission to that company.

Sound like a workable idea?

[Kilmer17]

I know your joking, but I would bet we see a form of that in the future. Specifically in the form of medical IDs.

[88Comrade2000]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

They are foreigners. Why is that a bad word now? I want every foreigner tracked when they enter the US. If they dont like it, they dont have to visit. My problems with it lie with the seizure and surveillance of American citizens. Seems to me though that this is just the starting point. Much like a tax bill, it will get whittled down to an acceptable level.

Hokie, our rights are reigned in all the time. We have freedom of speech, but you cant yell fire in a crowded theater.

I'm not talking about foreign citizens who are in the U.S. as students or visiting. You can stop that by deny entrance. Just say the United will no longer allow vistors from these countries. The United States will no longer students from these countries. The United Stated will no longer allow immigrations from those countries. Personally I think that's a bit extreme but it wouldn't shock me if it's been suggested.

I'm talking about LEGAL foreign immigrants who have permanent residence or immigrants like me who become naturalized citizens.

If I have an anti- goverment view, am I going have my citizenship and be booted; just because I don't agree with the government.

One main of the requirements of Islam is to give certain portion of your income to charity every year. How am I going to know if a charity I give maybe involve in something that isn't right. I can't track down every charity. The government can label any group as underdesired-whether's it's security related or not.

I am an American. Been here since I was 8 months old. Some of that patriot act 2 is just scary. If do something the government finds unacceptable or maybe donate money to group that does something with my donation, I don't know about- they could give me the boot. Or if I was anti-war; the government could brand me as a Saddam symthazier and whisk me away. What in the hell am I going to do in another foreign country?

Let's say Bill Clinton was president with PA2. He could say pro-lifer protesters are a threat to a security and round them up.

I just think this act is ripe for abuse. You can protect the security of the United States and also not abuse the cival liberties. Those who engage in criminal or terrorist acts- will be found act throught their actions. What it seems they want to do, seems like it can be severly abused and innocent people lives ruined. It isn't just immgriants but also american born people.

[88Comrade2000]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

I know your joking, but I would bet we see a form of that in the future. Specifically in the form of medical IDs.

See the "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise. Some of that could happen soon.

[Bigkatt]

The document being discussed is very long and boring. Many articles have been written about how this act will take our rights away. In some cases the author even says the administration is trying to destroy the constitution. The common thread in all such attacks is that they never quote anything that is actually written in the document. It's possible that the reason for this is that if they quoted it people would find out that it's directed at Illegal Aliens, Terrorists and Foreign Nationals. After reading this document I am confident that I could refute all the charges that have been leveled against it. Yet to do so would require an explanation of each line and I am not that ambitious. For those who want to make up their own minds read the text here. Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003

[Yomar]

that is interesting, so the Justice Department is only requesting the authority to revoke the citizenship of illegal aliens, foriegn nationalists and terrorists...well, I'm ok with the first two, but they are also asking for the right to brand an individual with no politcal or terrorist group affiliation a terrorist...so then we have to deal with what exactly constitutes terrorism, and there is certainly enough grey area there for this to be a very dangerous piece of legislation.

[Bigkatt]

What document are you reading? Nothing of the sort was contained in the copy I read. Please either post a link or quote the section number this is located in please.

[Yomar]

bare with me, this is taking a while to download, but once its downloaded, I will be referring to section 501 if you care to prepare a response

[Bigkatt]

Do you have a problem with designating an idividual who is determined to be guilty of international terrorism but who is not affiliated with known terrorists or groups a Foreign Power? Yes most of these determinations will be made by Judges so yes as with any legal decision there is a grey area but also there are checks and balances to prevent abuse.

[Yomar]

what are the checks and balances as you see them that would protect against abuse?

[Yomar]

still waiting to download, frankly I don't know if my home computer can handle this...

[Yomar]

I'm sorry, I'll try to post the text later, it has been stuck on (2 items remaining) for a long time now and I have to go get ready to go out, but I would like to continue this, I'm always open to the ideas of others.

[Bigkatt]

Sorry about your slow download it is 12MB. Lots of extra junk is included that you really don't need and of course it's worded in their best legal terminology so as to be at least twice as long as it needs to be.