Question About the Patriot Act

[Ignatius J.]

The patriot act gives the government the ability to ignore the constitution to pursue terrorists. The big problem that I and many americans have with this is that the powers are extended to the pursuit of suspected terrorists.

Now, suppose that I am a drug dealer. I sell vast amounts of weed to elementary school children in potomac at a huge profit. My weed is grown up in canada or some place that does not support terrorists. However, my name sounds the same as a suspected terrorists so fbi begin to monitor me around the clock without a warrant. Through thier investigations they determine two things, I am a drug dealer, and I am in no way affiliated with a terrorist organization. Is the evidence they gathered through the application of the patriot act admissible in court when used to show that I am guilty of a non-terrorist crime?

[gbear]

yes I believe it is.

[Ignatius J.]

that's a little dissapointing and if true, throws out the argument that the patriot act is about protecting the americans from terrorists.

How did we pass this thing?

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

It is but the only reason you got on that watch list because of your name that is similar. However I do not think if it would be beacuse it was similar but they would watch if you had an affiliation with a terrorist, or you had already been on a watch list. From what the SAIC told me in Buffalo they can't just check you because your name is "similar"

If you happen to be a drug dealer. A very bad and dangerous one at that. I see no problem in the FBI having used something else to get you off the street.

It would be the same case if you were a child molestor. They may have thought you were affiliated with terroists but instead found out you like to touch little boys. Well they nab you and get you off the street.

[gbear]

We were scared. We are scared.

If you ask on this board, there are many who are willing to throw away freedoms for security.

It's also tough because information on when the authorities use the patriot act is kept rather hush. We don't know when it works for it's intended pruposes and we don't know when it doesn't or when it works for other purposes. It's hard to claim it's abused if you don't know.

There was an article a while back about the difficulties in sueing if info is given out under the patriot act. For example, if they go to an isp and ask for where you've been browsing, it's illegal for the isp to have a lawyer review whether or not to give them the info. NOBODY can be told. For all of the dumb things the ACLU has done, challenging this part was one of the better challenges they've had. Of course, it remains to be seen how it turns out (or at least I haven't heard). They were having some trouble because they can't disclose on whose behalf they are acting...make for interesting legal work. Glad I'm not a judge.

[Larry]

Yes, that evidence is admissable.

AFAIK, the Patriot act has only been brought up in court once, so far. The accused was a politician in, I think, NV, who was accused of taking kickbacks. (The Patriot act allows use to investigate terrorism and money laundering.)

I've also read off-the-record quoted attributed to Homeland Security officials saying that they'd recieved over a hundred requests from various law enforcement agencies, saying, in effect "we think this guy's committing a crime, but we haven't got enough for a warrant. Couldn't you guys please say he's a suspected terrorist, order a wiretap, and then give the evidence to us?".

(OTOH, if those quotes are true, then it implies that HS has been saying "no" to these requests.)

[Thiebear]

If its never being used, and there is a "watchdog" group protecting the scared from throwing their rights away..

I still don't like it, but wont freak out unless it is abused.

Then I want the one screwing with the freedoms hunted down and killed cause his name was similar to truckguts...

[Zuck]

Originally posted by Larry

Yes, that evidence is admissable.

AFAIK, the Patriot act has only been brought up in court once, so far. The accused was a politician in, I think, NV, who was accused of taking kickbacks. (The Patriot act allows use to investigate terrorism and money laundering.)

I've also read off-the-record quoted attributed to Homeland Security officials saying that they'd recieved over a hundred requests from various law enforcement agencies, saying, in effect "we think this guy's committing a crime, but we haven't got enough for a warrant. Couldn't you guys please say he's a suspected terrorist, order a wiretap, and then give the evidence to us?".

(OTOH, if those quotes are true, then it implies that HS has been saying "no" to these requests.)

The problem is you don't know because there is no oversight. It relies on the population trusting the government to do the right thing. That is an un-American notion to give the government that much power without transparency.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Thiebear

If its never being used, and there is a "watchdog" group protecting the scared from throwing their rights away..

I still don't like it, but wont freak out unless it is abused.

Then I want the one screwing with the freedoms hunted down and killed cause his name was similar to truckguts...

My take is if you don't want to be on a "watch list" don't do anything illegal.

I have no issue with law enforcement using the patriot act to catch a real criminal.

There hasnt been evidence of any real infringement of rights that leads to unfair prosecution of a crime yet and the act has been in action for a while.

I agree to reserve judgement until a time where abuse is present.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

skin-n-vegas...thank you!!!

I was about to write something similar to this and then read your post.

I know I'll probably be labeled as un-American for saying this, but if you just didn't break the law, you'd have nothing to worry about.

Sometimes I wonder what these people who constantly chirp for all these freedoms are doing behind closed doors!

[chomerics]

Originally posted by TD_washingtonredskins

skin-n-vegas...thank you!!!

I was about to write something similar to this and then read your post.

I know I'll probably be labeled as un-American for saying this, but if you just didn't break the law, you'd have nothing to worry about.

Sometimes I wonder what these people who constantly chirp for all these freedoms are doing behind closed doors!

Because we're all illegal drug dealers, why else would we be against illegal searches and seizures, I mean it's not like it's in the Bill of Rights or anything jesh. . .

[AJWatson3]

hell yeah, that info is admissable.

i have heard about them already using the Patriot Act ot round up more than just potential/suspected terrorists by design.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Zuck

The problem is you don't know because there is no oversight. It relies on the population trusting the government to do the right thing. That is an un-American notion to give the government that much power without transparency.

Nail meet head.

Exactly the problem with the patriot act, it's the authoritative power the government has over it's citizens with no oversight. I don't trust the government one iota, espically after the past 4 years. You only need to look throughout history to realize the power an unaccountable government can abuse.

[Thiebear]

NO Dictator really needs to take over..

It's normally just handed to them.

And of course 99% of the population are bad people :doh:

I am normally against things that infringe on freedoms for a perceived percentage of freedom....

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Because we're all illegal drug dealers, why else would we be against illegal searches and seizures, I mean it's not like it's in the Bill of Rights or anything jesh. . .

But that's the whole point. The Patriot Act doesn't give them the power to just knock on your door for no reason. If you're a suspected terrorist, I don't give a F what the Bill of Rights says.

If for some reason I was labeled a suspected terrorist and the FBI paid me a visit and found out the claim was incorrect, you better believe I'd be thrilled they looked into it. Not pissed off they actually came to my house to bother me.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by AJWatson3

hell yeah, that info is admissable.

i have heard about them already using the Patriot Act ot round up more than just potential/suspected terrorists by design.

Heard what? Were they breaking the law?

So far only 1 reported instance of abuse and that was :kickbacks"

Still no evidence of misuse overall.

Everyone needs to chill a little.

There is no "Big Brother" issue yet, why not wait and see?

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

Once again based on my several convos with the SAIC in the Buffalo FBI Field Office I am more willing to accept the Patriot Act.

The key thing he told me as to why abuse will be as limited as possible is because each of those agents realize, and are taught, that they could one day be on the recieving end of the abuse. Or their spouse, or the kids, or their friends.

The Patriot Act was apparently a key in the Lockawana case up in Buffalo that got the "Lockawana 6" Being able to share info and monitor these guys after an annonymos letter showed up helped the Buffalo FBI Office break the case and make some key arrests.

Without it all they would have is some annonymos letter saying a few guys in Lockawana, NY are bad people

[ross3909]

I have yet to hear of any abuses of the Patriot Act and it has been in force for almost 2 years now. I would think that anyone with a real case would be paid a kings ransom including legal fees by the ACLU to bring a case to trial. The fact is that this is a essential tool to enable law enforcement to cut through all the red tape and legal protection that these scum are hiding behind and put them away. I have heard time and time again where people that were guilty as sin walked because they lawyered up and used the system against itself. Well it is no longer murderers that we are releasing back into society...it is terrorists which wont stop at 10 or 20 dead.

[Zuck]

Originally posted by ross3909

I have yet to hear of any abuses of the Patriot Act and it has been in force for almost 2 years now. I would think that anyone with a real case would be paid a kings ransom including legal fees by the ACLU to bring a case to trial. The fact is that this is a essential tool to enable law enforcement to cut through all the red tape and legal protection that these scum are hiding behind and put them away. I have heard time and time again where people that were guilty as sin walked because they lawyered up and used the system against itself. Well it is no longer murderers that we are releasing back into society...it is terrorists which wont stop at 10 or 20 dead.

There are several cases of it being abused. One of the most highlighted ones is that kid in the midwest (can't remember his name). He was put on a national most wanted list for being a terrorist. They later admitted they made a big mistake but he was locked up for a few weeks.

As well, since the patriot act is not transparent to the public it will be almost impossible to know when it's being abused. That's the problem many people have with it.

[troyster]

Zuck,

If the patriot act was visible to the public, don't you think it would be awfully easy for terrorists to get around it? Also, I feel really bad for the kid you mentioned and he should be compensated for the mistake. However, this is one case and there are 250-300 million people in our country. If this thing was being abused regularly, I really think more cases would come up. If they make a mistake, they will eventually release the person and that person can tell their story to whomever they wish, its not like they're going to execute them to shut them up. I just don't see much evidence against the Patriot Act except for the "slippery slope" arguement which is not vaid in my eyes because its based on speculation, not facts.

[Stu]

I posted this before but it generated little comment. Keep in mind, I think some skepticism of the government is understandable given the history of our beginnings. But compare the Patriot Act to the following period in history. Things returned to normal after the Civil War as is the case in present day Amercia as well.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1100e.asp

Lincoln Crossing the Rubicon

by Charles Adams, November 2000

WHEN THE CIVIL WAR started in the Roman Republic, Julius Caesar defied the civil authority and crossed the River Rubicon in 49 B.C. This was a violation of the Roman constitution, for no army was to cross the Rubicon and enter Rome under arms.

Within a few months Caesar was the master of Rome and Italy. He was elected by the senate as consul and appointed dictator for life, when by the constitution such appointments were for six months only. When the civil war finally ended with the triumph of Caesar’s adopted son, Octavian, Cicero lamented, “Our beloved republic is gone forever.” How right he was, for republican government would not return to Rome and most of Western civilization for almost 2,000 years.

Caesar rode roughshod over the Roman constitution, and that resulted in his assassination. The killing of a tyrant was a patriotic act, a belief held by both the Romans and the Greeks. John Wilkes Booth felt that way about Lincoln.

There are other similarities between Caesar’s story and that of Lincoln. Both held supreme military command. Both suspended civilian authority and tossed their respective constitutions out the window in the interest of public order. But the final outcome was not the same, as civilian authority returned in America, but not in Rome.

It is not necessary to go back into ancient history to see a common pattern unfold: in a time of national crisis, a strong leader assumes extraordinary powers; constitutional rights are suspended; and a dictator rules by decree and perpetuates himself after the crisis is over.

This happened in Germany in the 1930s, which ended the Weimar Republic and put the National Socialists in power after suspending the German constitution. Fidel Castro overthrew the Batista regime and offered to institute democratic elections and a restoration of the 1940 constitution. But once in power, Castro assumed and kept dictatorial powers. America was lucky. The dictatorial pattern did not remain following the Civil War, but it could have and, for a time, the Constitution hung by a thread.

Suspending the Constitution

Fort Sumter was bombarded on April 12, 1861. By the end of the month, the Republican administration had ripped the guts out of the Constitution, as constitutional government passed away in the United States, not to return for almost five years. Here is the sequence of events:

First, on April 15, Lincoln called up the militia from all of the states to put into the field an army of more than 75,000 men. The Constitution puts this power with the Congress: Article I, Section 8, sets forth the powers of Congress: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections....”

Six governors rejected Lincoln’s call as illegal. The governor of North Carolina, John Ellis, responded,

I regard the levy of troops made by the administration for the purpose of subjugating the states of the South as in violation of the Constitution, and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina.

The other five governors answered in the same vein.

Second, also on April 15, Lincoln called Congress into session, as required by the Constitution for “extraordinary Occasions,” but delayed the meeting of Congress almost three months. By contrast, when Pearl Harbor was attacked, Roosevelt called Congress into session the very next day, December 8, 1941.

Third, less than a week later, April 21, he ordered the purchase of war materials, five naval vessels, which under the Constitution required congressional appropriations.

Fourth, the same day, he ordered the navy to blockade all Southern ports. A blockade is an act of war, requiring the resolution of Congress.

Fifth, on April 27, he suspended the right of habeas corpus — unquestionably one of the most important of our civil liberties, for it prohibits government from making arrests without just cause, that is, from locking people up and throwing the key away, so to speak. In time, more than 10,000 were arrested and imprisoned by military officers, often for crimes that never existed in any law book, manufactured by the generals, often just plain silly. One unfortunate fellow, while drunk, was arrested and imprisoned for shouting, “Hurrah for Jeff Davis!” Under the Bill of Rights, a person cannot be charged with a crime except by an indictment from a grand jury, nor can a person be convicted except by a jury of fellow civilians. No military trial of civilians was permitted, or so said the Constitution.

Lincoln’s denial of these most basic constitutional rights led to the destruction of civilian government in Maryland, where in late 1861 he had soldiers arrest and imprison the members of the legislature believed to be Southern sympathizers and who might vote for Maryland’s secession. Democratic government ceased in Maryland for the duration of the war.

Preceding the arrest of the Maryland legislators, Lincoln’s most shocking, even treacherous act, swept under the rug by Lincoln’s loving biographers, grew out of ex parte Merryman. John Merryman was a known Southern sympathizer in Maryland. He was arrested by General Cadwallader and imprisoned in Fort McHenry in Baltimore. Merryman petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted by Chief Justice Roger Taney, and the general was ordered to bring Merryman into court for adjudication. The general refused.

Ordering the arrest of the chief justice

In response, the Court ordered federal marshal Bonifant to bring the general and Merryman to court. Taney could have organized an armed posse of deputy marshalls to arrest the general, but that might have resulted in bloodshed and was avoided.

As an alternative approach, Taney wrote a blistering opinion — today considered one of the greatest opinions of the Supreme Court — and had a copy delivered to President Lincoln. The opinion condemned the action of the president and reviewed the leading authorities on English as well as American constitutional law.

An undoubtedly enraged Lincoln took it upon himself to execute an order to arrest the chief justice for having the gall to give orders to the president and to condemn his acts against the Constitution. And remember: Taney was simply doing his duty, as under the Constitution the Supreme Court has the final say on Constitutional issues, not the president, not the Congress, not anyone else.

According to the writings of U.S. Marshal Ward Hill Lamon, questions arose about serving the arrest order on the chief justice, and where he should be imprisoned. Lamon recalls that Lincoln gave the arrest warrant to him with instructions to “use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he receive further orders.”

Lincoln was saved the condemnation of history, possibly impeachment and removal from office as well, by a reluctant federal marshal who wisely refrained from arresting the chief justice of the United States. But notwithstanding the failure to arrest the chief justice, this episode marked the end of constitutional government in the United States, as a British periodical, Macmillan Magazine, observed in 1862:

There is no Parliamentary (congressional) authority whatever for what has been done. It has been done simply on Mr. Lincoln’s fiat. At his simple bidding, acting by no authority but his own pleasure, in plain defiance of the provisions of the Constitution, the Habeas Corpus Act has been suspended, the press muzzled, and judges prevented by armed men from enforcing on the citizens’ behalf the laws to which they and the President alike have sworn.

Judicial murder

The final crime against the Constitution came with the arrest and military trial of those accused of having conspired to assassinate Lincoln. There was no indictment by a grand jury, no trial by a jury, no appellate review. Just a hanging for the public to see.

The one innocent victim, put to death for having an association with John Wilkes Booth, was Mary Surratt, a Catholic and Southern sympathizer who happened to operate a boarding house where Booth stayed at times. Her lawyer, who later became famous in American jurisprudence, said it was a tribunal “organized to convict,” no matter what the evidence.

As the tribunal was illegal under the Constitution, this meant that the execution by the tribunal was no more legal than a lynching, and this, as sad as it may be, was simply — in the words of many who studied the case — “judicial murder.” It was predictable that Lincoln’s use of the military to try and punish civilians would end in such a tragedy, and it proved the wisdom of the Founders in framing the Bill of Rights.

Soon after the war, President Andrew Johnson reinstated the constitutional right to habeas corpus, and the matter soon came before the Supreme Court in ex parte Milligan. The government wanted to indict Milligan, a citizen of Ohio, for treason, but a grand jury refused to do so on the ground that the evidence was insufficient. The matter then went to a military tribunal, as with Mary Surratt, and Milligan was quickly convicted and sentenced to be executed. A review by the Supreme Court threw the military conviction out and held that when civilian courts are open, no military court may try civilians. Period! Thus making the more than 10,000 military trials, convictions, and punishments during the Civil War illegal.

Slowly most civil rights reemerged after the military dictatorships during Reconstruction. But lurking below the surface of American society, military supremacy lay dormant, only to emerge in wartime — in the First World War, then in the Second World War with the “relocation” of more than 100,000 American citizens of Japanese ancestry. In late 1944, the Supreme Court threw in the towel on the Japanese internment by ruling that during wartime the military has supreme authority to do as it pleases with the civilian population. Thus we still live with the threat that the military can toss the Constitution and the Bill of Rights out the window at their pleasure when the military thinks it is necessary — exactly as Lincoln believed in 1861.

Mr. Adams, the world’s leading scholar on the history of taxation, is author of When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000); For Good and Evil; Those Dirty Rotten Taxes; and Fight, Flight, and Fraud.

[Zuck]

Originally posted by troyster

Zuck,

If the patriot act was visible to the public, don't you think it would be awfully easy for terrorists to get around it? Also, I feel really bad for the kid you mentioned and he should be compensated for the mistake. However, this is one case and there are 250-300 million people in our country. If this thing was being abused regularly, I really think more cases would come up. If they make a mistake, they will eventually release the person and that person can tell their story to whomever they wish, its not like they're going to execute them to shut them up. I just don't see much evidence against the Patriot Act except for the "slippery slope" arguement which is not vaid in my eyes because its based on speculation, not facts.

I don't know. I don't think it's just me but giving the government a lot of power and then having to trust them to do the right thing is kind of scary. It's so tempting for it to be abused.

As well, if people are abused by it they may not even know that it was used against them. I don't think the government tells people they used the patriotic act to spy on them.