Congress to Make PATRIOT Act Permanent 1601
955301 writes "As if it was unexpected, the New York Times (free reg...) has an article on attempts by our Congressional Republicans to eliminate the expiration of the Patriot Act. Everyone may thank Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah for getting this 9/11 snowball rolling, and the general population for our current leadership." There's another story in the SF Chronicle.
free reg link (Score:1, Informative)
Reg-free link to article and full text: (Score:5, Informative)
Republicans Want Terror Law Made Permanent
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
ASHINGTON, April 8 -- Working with the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans are maneuvering to make permanent the sweeping antiterrorism powers granted to federal law enforcement agents after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, officials said today.
The move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress who believe that the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the attacks is known, has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans.
The landmark legislation expanded the government's power to use eavesdropping, surveillance, access to financial and computer records and other tools to track terrorist suspects.
When it passed in October 2001, moderates and civil libertarians in Congress agreed to support it only by making many critical provisions temporary. Those provisions will expire, or "sunset," at the end of 2005 unless Congress re-authorizes them.
But Republicans in the Senate in recent days have discussed a proposal, written by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, that would repeal the sunset provisions and make the law's new powers permanent, officials said. Republicans may seek to move on the proposal this week by trying to attaching it to another antiterrorism bill that would make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" terrorism suspects.
Many Democrats have grown increasingly frustrated by what they see as a lack of information from the Justice Department on how its agents are using their newfound powers, and they say they need more time to determine whether agents are abusing those powers.
The Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, said today that without extensive review, he "would be very strongly opposed to any repeal" of the 2005 time limit. He predicted that Republicans lacked the votes to repeal the limits.
Indeed, Congressional officials and political observers said the debate might force lawmakers to take stock of how far they were willing to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.
Beryl Howell, a former Democratic aide in the Senate who worked extensively on the 2001 legislation, said that by forcing the issue, Mr. Hatch "is throwing down the gauntlet to people who think the U.S.A. Patriot Act went too far and who want to cut back its powers."
Justice Department officials in interviews today credited the Patriot Act with allowing the F.B.I. to move with greater speed and flexibility to disrupt terrorist operations before they occur, and they say they wanted to see the 2005 time limit on the legislation lifted.
"The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us," a senior department official said on condition of anonymity.
Another senior official who also demanded anonymity said the department had held discussions with Congressional Republicans about how that might best be accomplished. "Our involvement has really been just keeping an open ear to the issue as it's proceeding, not to really guide the debate," the official said.
With the act's provisions not set to expire for more than two and a half years, officials expected that the debate over its future would be many months away. But political jockeying over separate bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senators Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, and Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, appears to have given Senator Hatch the chance to move on the issue much earlier than expected.
The Kyl-Schumer measure would eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, like a terrorist group.
Advocates say the measure
Re:Not A Joke (Score:5, Informative)
And that is un-American. Period.
Re:Not A Joke (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not A Joke (Score:5, Informative)
http://search.cato.org/query.html?col=allcato&qc=
Re:Not A Joke (Score:5, Informative)
1. Redefines terrorism too broadly: the new definition includes previously protected free speech. If any person feels threatened (rightfully or not) by a lawful protest, then under the patroit act that protest is considered a terrorist act.
2. New surveillance powers circumvent judicial review: Previously federal agencies had to get permission from the courts for wiretapping and other forms of covert surveillance. Under the Patriot Act the agency can arbitrarily label someone a 'suspected terrorist' and conduct surveillance without the court's permission. Moreover, that label doesn't have to be approved by any external agency... and the person gets no chance to defend himself.
3. Abbrogates right to a speedy trial. Previously Constitutional protections guarenteed that a person could be held for only a very limited time without a trial... and they must be charged with a crime. Again, its a question of judicial oversight. Under the Patriot Act the executive branch can, at their own discretion, detain a person for an indefinate period of time. The only legal requirement is that the President considers them a national security risk, but again, he can keep detainees a secret, and there is no judicial review of the process. In fact, he doesn't even have to accuse them of any crimes or place them legally under arrest, just "disappear" them.
Whether or not it successfully stops criminal acts, something which we can debate more or less ad infinitum since the government no longer has to report its actions publically, the primary effect of the Patriot Act is the greatly increase the powers of the Executive branch, and effectively neuter the Judicial branch.
Its been publically admitted by many of the acts proponents that it drastically reduces the Judicial branches powers, greatly restricts personal freedoms, and grants the executive branch almost police state powers, but that was always prefaced with the promise that it was a temporary measure for a particularly volatile period. Now, the 'temporary' measure appears to be a permanent fixture, which is probably only fair since the "war on terrorism" itself will likely last longer than any of us will live.
Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (Score:1, Informative)
September 2001 - WTC and Pentagon bombings.
August 1998 - US Embassy Bombings.
April 1995 - Oklahoma City Bombing (US Citizen).
February 1993 - First World Trade Center Bombing.
That doesn't include the various hijackings over that involved Americans. I also don't see the point in distinguishing between US citizens and foreigner attackers. It doesn't matter to those who die.
Just because you are an ignorant child doesn't mean that we all are.
Re:Now, now... (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the president is far from the only job in the federal government. Seeing as how the whole damned House and a third of the Senate were up for grabs in 2000 and '02 (just like every election year), I am quite comfortable with blaming the voting public in general.
Especially so when you consider that all President Bush has essentially done is rubber stamp any and every piece of legislation that comes across his desk, having yet to veto anything.
Fight Back! (Score:5, Informative)
Immediately go the ACLU's action page [aclu.org] where you can send a free fax to your representatives. It'll take you all of 15 seconds.
Next, call both of your Senators and your representative. Politely but firmly demand that they vote against this. Make clear that how your senator votes on civil liberties issues is very important to you.
If you haven't already done so, Register to Vote [fec.gov] (PDF document).
Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Doesn't have to be a great work of prose, just give an example or two of how the PATRIOT Act threatens the constitution. Give the Ben Franklin quote. Letters to the Editor is one of the most read sections of the newspaper, and politicos read it closely.
Tell your friends. Sure, some people get irritated when politics gets brought up, but that's a small price to pay for the future of American democracy.
Lastly, act on your belief when election time comes around. Donate, volunteer, and vote for candidates who are on record supporting constitutional liberties.
History Lesson (Score:2, Informative)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Not A Joke (Score:2, Informative)
No this is not correct. Technically you have to be labeled as a terrorist first. I belive a judge has to do this, so it isn't quite a police state yet. Not that I am defending the Patriot Act. However, what briciu said is untrue and would be illegal, as it violates the 5th and 6th Amendments.
To answer the grand-parent post's question. The Patriot Act makes it easier to be classified a terrorist, and it has become much easier to invade the privacy of citizens. As a cynic, I think the government has been doing this for years anyway and would reguardless of this legislation. The Patriot Act simply makes the government better able to Act on this info. We have lost freedom, but it isn't 1984... yet.
I encourage everyone to read the EFF and Cato analysis it only takes a minute and is broken down quite nicely.
Re:The general population is responsible. (Score:5, Informative)
1. There was no civil war in 2000. There was just a recount, as established in Florida law. What happened was a massive and wel-financed campaign in both the courts and the cable news networks to shut down the recount.
2. The recount was FINALLY proceeding according to law when the Supreme Court stepped in to stop it, citing (privately and vehemently) the necessity of stopping the Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court from enabling the recount.
3. In a decision condemned by nearly a totality of constitutional law professors, Scalia stopped the election because the results of the recount might cast doubt on the legitimacy of Bush's election. Scalia also incredibly stated that their decision could not be a precedent for any other cases.
4. If Gore had been the called winner before recounts had begun, there truly would have been a civil war, the radical right vs. the US. For the last 27 months, infinite lawsuits would have been filed, the RW press would have screamed about Gore's illegitimacy day and night, Gore wouldhave been accused of crime after crime, and the American people would be convinced that Gore stole the 2000 election. There would have been unremitting war against Gore.
Notice that, in contrast, railing against Bush's legitimacy gets one's microphone taken away, metaphorically and really.
5. Election results have been contested thousands of times inthe nation's history without civil war. That's the purpose of elections -- to prevent civil war. The Supremee Court unbelieveably shut down an election to bring closure wihout the messy bit about actually counting the votes, in order to put their ideological copatriot in power.
6. In the media consortium sponsored recount, Gore won. Amazingly, the NYT headline declared Bush the winner, and the incredible results were swept into the dustbin.
7. As a result of the Supremes declaring Bush the winner to "avoid a civil war", the Bill of Rights have been shut down. Bush's people ignored Clinton's anti-terrorism advisor who beggedthem to make bin-Laden the number one problem. Tax cuts for the very wealthy will destroy the social safety nets in the yearsto come. Foreign investors are withdrawing from the U.S. Treaties have been trashed. Fear and marketing have been used toconvince Americans that Iraq took down the World Trade Center, and that lie has established the Holy American Empire's first conquest in the Middle East. The USA has committed massive war crimes - not that anyone here cares - by invading another nation without provocation.
I'd rather have the civil war.
Re:I am confident (Score:3, Informative)
Get your facts straight before jumping on the bandwagon.
Cross burning is only illegal if it is intended to intimidate someone. You can burn a cross in your own yard all day long, if that's simply your idea of art (assuming no local ordinances against bonfires or you have the proper permit). This is actually a victory for civil liberties; previously states could (and did) rule all cross burning was illegal.
actual copy of the act (Score:4, Informative)
Is it just me, or is it hard to find an actual copy of the act?
Patriot Act (text) [gpo.gov]
Re:My God. (Score:1, Informative)
Not so. They could have recused themselves, considering how much political stake the Five had in the outcome of the election.
They could have refused to take the case, and neither the pro-Bush or pro-Gore camps would have had a word to legitimately say.
But Scalia, Thomas, and the other three Republicans tortured Federal law to stop the election because, as Scalia so eloquently put it, the recount might cast doubts on the legitimacy of the petitioner, Mr. Bush. In other words, Scalia decided that Bush had won, and letting a recount proceed might have given Gore the Presidency, which would have harmed Bush.
The Five also withheld their decision for days, releasing it minutes before their deadline for the recount. So that even if the Florida Supreme Court had tried to restart the recount under Scalia's restrictions, they had 30 minutes or so to do it. A raw, nasty tactic to stop the recount.
This was not a sad, judicious attempt to resolve the situation. It was a in-your-face grab of power.
The sad thing is that you are not more disgusted with the criticism of this naked ideological takeover of the executive branch. Because there hasn't been any criticism in the popular press. The Scalia five got away with it clean.
Common Cause Megavote (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not A Joke (Score:3, Informative)
Wasn't Hitler elected to a limited term?
And yep, Bush was appointed, etc. Any political movement that can shut down 225 years of law to insert their leader against the will of the people will not stonker about shutting down future elections. Hell, the present war itself is being used to silence his opponents -- look at what the Repubs are saying about Kerry. Apparently no one should criticize Bush during "wartime" -- which apparently can last forever.
I also don't think that your characterization of the mixing of business power and government power is accurate at all. Sure there are former business executives in power, but the right wing has a lot of those. So what? The government does represent the interests of big business, sometimes way too much (i.e. at the expense of small business, and individual liberty), but I think this is a characteristic of modern American politicians in general that you can't pin solely on the Bush camp.
True, it is true in general, because of our campaign finance laws. But the present Admin is purely monster corporate power. Lobbyists for the same companies now are the regulators of their companies they formerly represented. This isn't a minor point -- the businesses ARE the government.
As for the rest of your analogies, right wing hawks will be right wing hawks. That doesn't mean that a right wing republican, especially a neoconservative like many of the Bush team, is the same as an old school Italian fascist or Nazi german.
On the face of it, a slam dunk argument. But it's not. We're not saying that Bush is the same as the old-school fascists. He doesn't hate Jews, that we know of, or resents paying reparations to Europe for our part in WW I.
What he is doing is using the SAME TECHNIQUES that the Fascists used -- and in that, is a fascist himself. Takedown of the critical media. Building a media network (FoxNews) to hammer propaganda. Creating external enemies, or using minor ones, to justify the shutdown of democratic government. Aggrandizing himself and identifying his rule with the power of the armed forces. Invading other nations on false pretexts to obtain resources, and to garner popular acclaim. Shutting down criticism, deeming it treasonous. Identifying his ideology with patriotism, and denying the validity of other viewpoints. Demonification of foreign powers. Profiteering from the all the above.
Tired...
Re:My God. (Score:2, Informative)
Most US states (especialy in the south) still have laws almost identical to that one on the books...but like you say
"...although no police officer is stupid enough to enforce this law in the manner it is written."
Exactly. Which brings us to...
"Walking about aimlessly at night is forbidden [justice.gc.ca], for some reason. It wasn't 'till I read this why police officers were able to arrest people for walking about the city at night. On this you are assumed guilty and must prove your innocence."
I've actually been arrested for that here in Florida, but I'd imagine most US states have similar laws. Its called "Loitering and Prowling": which basically boils down to "I want to arrest you and can't find anything else to arrest you for."
Same shit, colder weather if you ask me.
Left or Right or Wrong? It's all good. (Score:3, Informative)
Left or Right or Wrong, it doesn't matter. Okay, so Republicans ultimately favore life over liberty, and Democrats ultimately favor liberty over life (this is an oversimplified generalization given the comments I've read here so far). Neither is more admirable than the other, and the constant bickering between the two sides is exactly what our system of government is designed to facilitate.
The result is a continuous national awareness of threats to both our lives and liberties, and therefore the best possible protection of either given assaults on the other. Sure, the balance fluctuates, but it is exactly that flucuation that keeps us aware of our political discontents. Isn't this exactly what we want?
Re:Not A Joke (Score:3, Informative)
The FBI can now search just about any record (financial, medical, legal, whatever) provided it relates to a terrorism investigation. There don't need to be grounds for the investigation, or the relationship -- we just have to trust the FBI. Also, these searches are totally secret, and anyon who discovers one is forbidden to discuss it. Naturally, I have no idea how broadly this power has been used or how it has been abused, but the FBI's record is dismal in this regard.
Also, non-citizens can be held for up to six monthes with no procedures, not even a procedure to establish their citizenship. Several thousand people have been held on these grounds without being acused of any actual criminal activity. I don't know of any citizens "accidentally" included, but there'd be no way to know.
This isn't all, it's just what comes to mind. More information is available from the ACLU [aclu.org]
And those hippie idiots... (Score:3, Informative)
victim of the Patriot Act (Score:1, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/04
whos going to make my Intel cpu's now?
Re:My God its full of stars! (Score:4, Informative)
I'll use Rome as an example, though this applies to pretty much everyone else.
The Romans understood single combat to be the greatest test of manliness and the general quality of a man ever devised. In order to prove himself, a Roman youth would fight in the army for a number of years, at first in high risk combat in the front lines, and then as he improved, falling back until he was in the Triarii, a fairly safe portion of the Legion.
Since Rome had a fairly warlike culture service in the army was a great honor, and was generaly self financed. People fought in the army as volunteers, received no pay, and dished out a substantial chunk of cash to do so. So many people wanted to fight that property requirements were set in place to restrict those who could.
As Rome adopted Helenistic Greek Culture the role of combat diminished in judging the worth of a man. Other things, such as wealth, power, artistic and athletic ability rose to the forefront. Roman aristocrats shrank from the duties of the Army because power and wealth could be attained in less dangerous and uncomfortable ways.
This caused a shortage of persons in the army, but it also caused an overabundance of aristocrats who wanted to run large farms etc. This created a class of landless urben poor who needed money, food, shelter etc.
Thus is born the professional army (middle to late republic.... particularly due to massive losses in the second Punic war. So starting in 216 BC and moving forward to around 180 BC with total privitization).
The professional army eliminates war as a threat to the rich classes. Officers may be pulled from the ranks of the wealthy, but the fighting men never are. The professional army is better trained, better equiped, and better prepared to meet the challenges of the world. It is also a powerfull institution in and of itself, and demands both use and funding. Thus Rome expands.
But with expansion comes the need to defend territory. Eventualy an equilibrium between the armies strength and the size of the empire is reached. Stagnation sets in, and with it decline.
The same pattern is observable in the United States. WWII and before is our era of glory through combat. Vietnam paralells the second punic war, devistating losses tarnishing the preceived glory of fighting for the contry.
Today we have a professional army, all volunteer, well trained, well equiped, and very powerfull. The existance of this military force encourages its use, and as we use it the percentage of the world we are concerned about expands. This streatches the military thinner and thinner until an equilibrium is reached. Stagnation and then decline will set in at that point.
Now this may take hundreds or even thousands of years. Rome tought us that the world can move very slowly if it wants to. It may also happen nearly overnight. I promise you that in 400 AD no one suspected that Rome would be conquered within their childrens lifetimes, not once, but several times.