Son Of Patriot Act Goes From Bad To Worse

[tex]

The following article is one section from Jim Marrs' new book The War on Freedom. Originally scheduled for publication from a major New York publishing house, this book was suddenly canceled by a corporate officer who never read it and despite the fact that it had passed legal review. To see what certain people do not want you to read, order a copy of The War on Freedom by visiting JimMarrs.com or calling 940-433-8094.

In early 2003 there was an effort underway within the Justice Department to further expand the provisions and powers of the PATRIOT Act. And it was all done in such secrecy that even ranking members of congress did not know this act was in preparation.

Even Mark Corallo, deputy director of the Justice Department's Office of Public Affairs appeared unaware of the draft legislation. "This is all news to me. I have never heard of this," he told members of the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based group dedicated to "public service journalism." This center obtained a copy of the document and made it public in early 2003.

A spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee, Jeff Lungren, said, "We haven't heard anything from the Justice Department on updating the PATRIOT Act. They haven't shared their thoughts on that. Obviously, we'd be interested, but we haven't heard anything at this point."

After reviewing the draft legislation, Dr. David Cole of the Georgetown University Law School said raises a "lot of serious concerns." "It's troubling that they have gotten this far along and they've been telling people there is nothing in the works." He added the proposed changes "would radically expand law enforcement and intelligence gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive `suspicion,' create new death penalties, and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups."

Innocently entitled the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," this expansion of both police and government powers was kept deep within the confines of the Justice Department until leaked to the public. As usual, the corporate controlled mass media made little of the story but it sparked outrage on the Internet and from some columnists.

Editorial page writer Errol Louis of the New York Sun wrote, "[This] document is a catalog of authoritarianism that runs counter to the basic tenets of modern democracy." Columnist Jim Hightower termed it "Ashcroft's Latest Assault on Liberty."

A dissection of the PATRIOT Act expansion by Timothy H. Edgar, Legislative Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, revealed the legislation would diminish personal privacy by removing checks on government power by:

- Making it easier to initiate surveillance and wiretapping of U. S. Citizens under the authority of the little-known Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). (Sections 101, 102 and 107)

- Permitting the government, under certain circumstances, to bypass the FISC altogether and conduct warrantless wiretaps and searches. (Sections 103 and 104)

- Sheltering federal agents engaged in illegal surveillance without a court order from criminal prosecution if they are following the orders of Executive Branch officials. (Section 106)

- Creating a new category of "domestic security surveillance" that permits electronic eavesdropping of entirely domestic activity under looser standards than provided for ordinary criminal surveillance. (Section 122)

- Using an overly broad definition of terrorism that could cover some protest tactics such as those used by Operation Rescue or the protesters at Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, as a new predicate for criminal wiretapping and other electronic surveillance (Sections 120 and 121)

- Providing for general surveillance orders covering multiple functions for high-tech devices and by further expanding pen register and trap and trace authority for intelligence surveillance of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent foreign residents. (Sections 107-124)

- Creating a new and separate crime of using encryption technology that could add five years to any jail sentence for crimes committed with a computer. ((Section 144)

- Expanding the PATRIOT Act's definition of nationwide search warrants and giving the government secret access to credit reports with consent or judicial process (Sections 125 and 126)

- Enhancing the government's ability to obtain sensitive personal information without prior judicial approval and providing new penalties for failure to comply with written demands for such records. (Sections 128 and 129)

- Allowing for the sampling and cataloging of innocent Americans ' genetic [DNA} information without a court order or the individual's consent. (Sections 301-306)

- Permitting sensitive personal information to be shared with state and local law enforcement agencies despite any connection to anti-terrorism measures, (Section 311)

- Terminating court-approved limits on police spying, put in place to prevent Mc-Carthy-era style police persecution based on political or religious affiliation. (Section 312)

- Permitting searches, wiretaps and surveillance of U.S. citizens on behalf of foreign governments - to include dictators and human rights abusers' - in the absence of Senate-approved treaties. (Sections 321-322)

- Authorizing secret arrests in immigration, material witness and other cases where the detained person is not criminally charged. (Section 201)

- Threatening public health by severely restricting access to crucial information concerning health risks by facilities that use dangerous chemicals. (Section 202)

- Diminishing corporate responsibility by grant immunity to businesses that provide information to government terrorism investigations even if such actions are taken with disregard for the customer's privacy and show reckless disregard for the truth. (Section 313)

- Undermines basic constitutional rights by overly broad definitions of "terrorism" and "terrorist organization" which could result in stripping a native-born American of citizenship if they wittingly or unwittingly support any organization deemed terrorist by government officials. (Section 501)

- Creating 15 new categories of the death penalty, including one should a death result from otherwise peaceful protests such as Operation Rescue. (Section 411)

- Permitting arrests and extradition of American citizens to any foreign country including ones with bad human rights records, in the absence of a Senate-approved treaty and unfairly targeting immigrants by opening sensitive personal visa files to local law enforcement agencies and extended jail terms for common immigration offenses. (Sections 322, 311 and 502)

- Permitting summary deportations of American citizens deemed a threat to national security by Attorney General Ashcroft, even with no evidence of criminal activity, intent or terrorism. (Section 503)

-Completely abolishing fair hearings for American citizens convicted of minor criminal offenses through a retroactive "expedited removal" procedure and preventing any court from questioning the government' s unlawful actions by explicitly exempting these cases from habeas corpus review. (Section 504)

ACLU counsel Edgar noted that the constitutional protection of habeas corpus (the right to a hearing to determine if any criminal offense has been committed) has not been exempted since the War Between the States.

Edgar added that despite the Justice Department's efforts to characterize both the PATRIOT Act and its proposed expansion as minor tinkering with statutory language, "the DOJ's modest descriptions of the powers it is seeking, and the actual scope of the authorities it seeks, are miles apart." "The USA PATRIOT Act undercut many of the traditional checks and balances on government power, " he explained. "The new draft legislation threatens to fundamentally alter the constitutional protections that allow us as Americans to be both safe and free. If adopted, the bill would diminish personal privacy by removing important checks on government surveillance authority, reduce the accountability of government to be public by increasing government secrecy, further undermine fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under an already over broad definition of `terrorism,' and seriously erode the right of all persons to due process of law."

Many of the provision of the expansion of the PATRIOT Act seem to be so draconian and reprehensible that many people felt it could never be passed in the light of day. But, as noted by Professor Cole, author of Terrorism and the Constitution, this legislation may lay awaiting yet another pretext to make it law.

He said PATRIOT Act II "is troubling as a generic matter that they have gotten this far along and tell people that there is nothing in the works. What that suggests is that they're waiting for a propitious time to introduce it, which might well be when a war is begun. At that time there would be less opportunity for discussion and they'll have a much stronger hand in saying that they need these things right away."

Author and Internet commentator Whitley Strieber expressed similar sentiments by writing, "If there is a horrendous terrorist attack on our country in the next few weeks or months, and there emerges a similar lack of official will to prevent it, and then the Domestic Security Enhancement Act is placed before a terrified and compliant congress, then, in my opinion, the conclusion will be inescapable: the United States of America will have ceased to be a free nation and the first American dictatorship will be under way."

[88Comrade2000]

this will never come law, so we shouldn't have to worry about it.

[AJWatson3]

if it is true then the point isn't that we won't have to worry about it, but that they would consider even doing some of these things. sounds scary to me.

[fansince62]

bring it on!!! I've been desensitized anyway by the constant assaults of the left into my pocketbook and security...what difference does it make at this point? the ACLU and others want to keep murderers and sex offenders in your neighborhoods; they want to use the power of the government to rob you of your earnings and spend it on causes you do not support; they want to control language and thought in the workplace; they want socially engineered "equality"; they want retributive justice enforced by the state regardless of assumption of guilt; they prefer legislation through the courts rather than elected officials; they also havbe been busy manufacturing and systemmatically corrupting information for political ends; they hate the system, its culture it's very lifeblood even more than the people they are hysterically warning us about....I'm all for it: it has devolved to one set of lieing sobs versus another after all....what practical difference does it make at this point?

[Burgold]

Fan,

Are you okay this morning?

[Larry]

Funny, I don't remember ever hearing a member of the ACLU stating that they "want to keep murderers and sex offenders in your neighborhoods", or any of the other deliberate misstatements you're attempting to label them with.

In fact, their primary mission, (and the thing that really ticks off the folks who think the government should have the authority to do whatever it wants, as long as it doing it to people we don't like), is defend people against "retributive justice enforced by the state regardless of assumption of guilt".

OTOH, I have heard official spokesmen for our government stating that our government has always had the right to sieze an American citizen, throw him in jail, and keep him there for as long as they want, without any due process before or after the arrest. No phone call, no trial, no lawyer, no judge, not even any charges. They say this was justified because somebody (who doesn't have to even identify himself) had a reason (that he isn't required to state).

(And, they haven't just stated their opinions that it's OK, they've been doing it.)

I'll give you a hint: Any time a politician tries to justify his actions by agreeing with the placing of Japaneese-Americans in concentration camps (and siezing their property), or Lincoln's decision to suspend Habaes Corpus, then the politician (and the law) are wrong. (It's like a German politician trying to justify something by saying "well, Hitler did it.")

[AJWatson3]

fan, you can be first in line for insertion of your personal information and tracking chip.

[Cskin]

It isn't the broad...."They've stolen my money, my property, and my rights" claims that scare me. It's the incremental and continued whittling away of our privacy and right to pursue happiness that has me on edge.

As for the ACLU, look no further than the current case in Michigan regarding the welfare program. Conservatives and alike are pushing a bill that would require people receiving welfare benefits to first be drug tested. They reaffirm that people addicted to alchohol and drugs prefer to spend their checks on drugs and alchohol instead of feeding and sheltering their children. Did you know that the busiest days for drug dealers and ABC stores are on the days the welfare checks are received by the welfare ranks? That's been proven!!!! Testing them, and subsequently placing the failures into drug programs and counseling (another Govt. program spending our tax dollars) would insure that the welfare benefits are more likely to be spent on the children and not illicit drugs and alchohol. Guess who is against drug testing for welfare recipients? Yep....the ACLU. They claim the drug testing would violate their 4th amendment rights..... the one about illegal search and seizure. Tell me, aren't federal employees drug tested? Shouldn't those that RECEIVE Federal benefits be tested?

[tex]

Originally posted by Cskin

It isn't the broad...."They've stolen my money, my property, and my rights" claims that scare me. It's the incremental and continued whittling away of our privacy and right to pursue happiness that has me on edge.

As for the ACLU, look no further than the current case in Michigan regarding the welfare program. Conservatives and alike are pushing a bill that would require people receiving welfare benefits to first be drug tested. They reaffirm that people addicted to alchohol and drugs prefer to spend their checks on drugs and alchohol instead of feeding and sheltering their children. Did you know that the busiest days for drug dealers and ABC stores are on the days the welfare checks are received by the welfare ranks? That's been proven!!!! Testing them, and subsequently placing the failures into drug programs and counseling (another Govt. program spending our tax dollars) would insure that the welfare benefits are more likely to be spent on the children and not illicit drugs and alchohol. Guess who is against drug testing for welfare recipients? Yep....the ACLU. They claim the drug testing would violate their 4th amendment rights..... the one about illegal search and seizure. Tell me, aren't federal employees drug tested? Shouldn't those that RECEIVE Federal benefits be tested?

I'm sitting on a fence when it comes to the drug testing issue.

I am against it if for no other reason than what a false positive test result will do to your life.

I do however agree that airline pilots and others responsible for people's lives should be tested.

[Larry]

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.

If you don't mind, could you point out the part that says "unless you're on welfare"?

Or do you intend to argue that requiring someone to prove, to your satisfaction, that they haven't committed a crime is "reasonable"?

Or, perhaps, that merely being on welfare, by itself, constitutes "probable cause" to assume that a person has committed a crime? (I would claim that "probable" means "better than 50% chance". Do you intend to claim that half of welfare recipients are using drugs?)

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Larry

If you don't mind, could you point out the part that says "unless you're on welfare"?

Crisp, Larry.

[RabidFan]

Anybody seen Gattica? :laugh:

[Cskin]

Crisp yes....flawed logic and all.

I'm not about to try and decipher the interpetation of the 4th amendment by constitutional lawyers and their staff.... I'll leave that to someone who has the time and energy. I'm also not sure what the correlation is between that and this issue, I just remember reading the report, and more specifically the "objectors" argument.

When I apply for a federal job aren't I drug tested? If I fail that test aren't I eliminated as a potential canidate and subsequently refused the benefits of employment, up to and including a salary and medical care based on the results? Isn't my life altered by loosing the cushy federal job due to my penchants to smoke weed? I had a choice and I blew it!!!!!!!

If I apply for a job with a corporation, public or private, and I fail the drug test and am subsequently not hired.... who's fault is that? Same for the federal govt. Aren't they reserving the right to protect themselves from hiring drug induced employees who statistically lack in productivity, attendence, and overall dependability? Why wouldn't welfare recipients be held to the same standard? Are they better.... more pitiful..... more challenged..... less motivated than the others?

How about a little personal responsibility and accountability here. I know... I know... big words and a hard concept to understand for the bleeding heart liberals and "finger pointing" left wing contingents. It's always the govts. fault, or someone else's fault for people's failures and lack of responsiblity on their

part. If the govt. offers these drug test failures counseling and help, than allows them to retest for the benefits.... doesn't everyone win? Isn't it the ultimate goal to help these people get off the welfare rolls, whether that includes getting them off drugs and alchohol first or not? Remember, there are children at stake here as well.

Drug Test them, identify the users and get them help, and work towards getting them all off the rolls all together. That's my vision. I equate the current policy of not drug testing the recipients to giving my wallet to recipient and hoping he isn't a drug user/alchoholic/child abuser/ and telling him to do something positive with it... .like feeding his kids... paying the rent.... keeping the electricity on..... and then watching him/her walk around the corner and out of my sight. Wonder what he/she did with my wallet and money? Is that the way to spend our money... .on hopes and dreams.... or on guarantees? Hummm....

[fansince62]

comicly...you guys don't get it......I have engaged on a personal transformation from the far left to the right over the years (as many others I know have) as I witnessed the self-delusionary, and very often dishonest, policy prescriptions of the left taking hold. As a matter of instinct, I now reject anything the left has to offer - even when I know there is a kernel of truth.

No further. We will fight your agenda in every instance from now on. This is the ultimate legacy of the left. You know, the same folks who grow warm and fuzzy over some woman's mediocre performance at a PGA tournament, but are remarkably silent, decade after decade, about a certain Senator whose irresponsible actions actually killed a woman (but votes appropriately, so is acceptable). We know you for what you are. Your hypocrisy has been allowed free play long enough. As we see very undemocratic actions taking hold with judicial noiminations and redistricting protests, there is no compunction whatsoever in answering..."ok........the power that is held will be used to jam down your throat a different course....absent compromise, absent negotiation, absent a recognition of your interests and desires....".......that's the state our politics have degenerated to.....carp on fellas...........

[Cskin]

Fansince62...... "I like it, I like it ALOT".... <----Dumb and Dumber

Kudos, although I sense frustration in your tone. March on, keeping spouting the truth, one day all will hear you and nod their head. Well.. then I woke up and....

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by fansince62

I have engaged on a personal transformation from the far left to the right over the years (as many others I know have)

Do we have a genuine chickenhawk aboard? Boy, I'm pinching myself with excitement.

fan, just curious: did you dodge the draft?

From Hitler to Cheney to Bush Jr., there's a curious pattern of draft-dodging followed by bloodlust in later life. These chickenhawks are running this administration and pack the think tanks like PNAC that are driving us toward scorched-earth Armageddon.

For a good laugh, go visit the chickenhawk database. Hey fan, do you keep a copy of this under your mattress?

[DraftNik]

the question is one of moderation. Our country seems to always run not in absolute majorities, but more like 51/49 propositions, with time being the only indicator of who is right in the end.

When it comes to the ACLU, I definitely disagree with many of the suits they have brought in the past, including ones trying to protect the anonymity of prior sex offenders (yes, they have fought sex offender database laws every time they have popped up...while this doesn't constitute them actively trying to keep sex offenders in your neighborhood, they certainly aren't doing anything to keep the public safe or at least aware of them).

The drug testing is a touchy issue. On the one hand, you want to make sure that the taxpayer's money is not going to waste on welfare recipients who don't need it or misuse it (and most would agree that there are plenty of people on food stamps who buy drugs or get weekly manicures), but you're right--you can't subject them to tests without implying a suspicion of guilt, and that's unfair.

While the ACLU is annoying as hell sometimes, I sure as hell want them out there fighting against things like this upgrade to the Patriot Act and DARPA's LifeLog proposal, because I see the Bush administration and the Justice Department chipping away ever-so-slowly at our civil liberties. It has been rehashed over and over on this board, but this government (Republicans and Democrats) has been overzealous to an extreme when it comes to righting wrongs. Since 9/11, the Bush Administration has assumed an all-encompassing right to increase the powers of the Justice Department beyond what is explicitly stated in the Constitution. After Worldcom and Enron, the government (through the Sarbanes bill) has put essentially a chokehold on public companies, stifling the economy by tying up much of the funds of the honest companies out there in order to punish the crooks.

I'm glad we're in a democracy that can reverse its extremist trends when they finally get out of balance, but if Ashcroft and co. get too far, will there be any opposing voice left to speak up against it? And if the democrats are for the most part remaining silent on these issues, who will anyway??

[Larry]

ASF,

I suggest you find another term to replace "chickenhawk", since it also has another slang meaning.

However, as to the subject you're bringing up:

I recall once in college, seeing a professor who had a fake "exam" posted outside his office. The "questions" were deliberatly worded to carry a political message, like:

Which of the following would you rather do without:

• Your air conditioner.
  
• Your planet.
  

But one "question" did seem to actually have some thought behind it. It was:

Which do you think says more about the character of a candidate:

• What Bill Clinton did to avoid service in a war he opposed.
  
• What Dan Quayle did to avoid service in a war he supported.
  

[fansince62]

ASF.......you don't pay much attention, do you? I have posted several times that I served for over 20 years in the armed forces. look, instead of teasing us with empty promises or defaulting to the spousal unit when you can't muster the gumption yourself.....try to follow up on at least one statement and actually act on it: get the blazes out of the country now. but don't continue this mealy-mouthed pandering to the board beseeching solace for your poor, tortured soul. make a decision ya big wuss to stay or leave. the drama certainly isn't killing any of us.

nice try Larry...once again we have an equivocation.....assuming that he acted on his convictions (although one can never be certain with Clinton if he has any) as this line of thought suggests....this doesn't change the quality of the act one iota - the correct comparison when addressing character is with those who opposed the war but obeyed the law and served when drafted......but nice try just the same!

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by fansince62

ASF.......you don't pay much attention, do you? I have posted several times that I served for over 20 years in the armed forces.

I pay plenty of attention, fan. I'm aware you recently retired from 20 years of service in the Navy. Congratulations on your retirement and on your service.

However, I was asking if you dodged the Vietnam draft. Feel free to dodge that question again, if you wish.

[fansince62]

ASF...for someone who prides himself on the most hallucinogenic suppositions about people and their intentions, I'm surprised you can't reason your way to a solution on this one. whoops, forgot, assume/believe the worst unntil facts are actually in hand: your modus operandi. I registered for the draft as required. I also graduated from high school in 1974 - you figure out the rest.

[NavyDave]

I did over 20 years also.

What is your excuse ASF?

I wasnt old enough to do Nam but would ve went. My ROE would ve been contrary to what the paper pushes and liberals had the majority doing and right now in Iraq there would be a curfew if it was up to me and leathal response would be the word of the day in Saddams hometown, since I'm not afraid to tell peaceniks to kiss it where sun doesnt shine.

So the criminals get caught before they can put their plan into effect because their cell phones are tapped and they are smart enough to profile likely thugs thinking of destructuion.

Boo friggin Hoo