The Son of Patriot Act Also Rises

Wired ^ | Jun. 14, 2004 | Kim Zetter

[steve-b]

I am not familiar with a lack of judicial review

The open-ended prohibition on disclosure creates a de facto absence of judicial review, because the subject of the search obviously cannot challenge the legality of a search if he is never informed that it occurred. A third party has no particular interest in your privacy, and for all anybody knows (or can ever know given the notification prohibition) will gladly accept an agent's flipping open an old laundry list for a half second as the showing of a "warrant".

A reasonable and strictly limited delay on such disclosure, in cases where there is legitimate reason for concern about destruction of evidence or exposure of sources is acceptable (after the clock runs out, the legality of the search itself and the notification delay can be challenged through the usual legal channels).

[steve-b]

LOL -- yeah, and I suppose a kid can go to the teacher and just ask her to replace all the answers marked wrong with the correct ones and re-grade the test.

[AmishDude]

When you come up with an analogy on the spot to aid the weak-minded it may have some flaws. Next time, I'll construct an airtight one for you, 'kay?

[AmishDude]

an agent's flipping open an old laundry list for a half second as the showing of a "warrant".

Muddying.

[macrahanish #1]

I notice that one group in absent from the list. We wouldn't want to offend them, now would we?

[freeeee]

I notice that one group in absent from the list.

Yes. Its glaringly absent, while "Make numerous references to US Constitution" (HORRORS!) is prominently featured. Given the absurd criteria for "terrorist" given in that list, one has to suspend disbelief to believe these "war powers" won't be soon aimed at civic minded Americans.

Yet we're supposed to trust a government with such twisted priorities as these with yet more powers.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Attorney General Clinton will find this very useful. I'm sure President Kerry will finally endorse Homeland Security Secretary Gary Hart's work at last.

[steve-b]

Nope. How, exactly, do you propose to prevent it if you permit a blanket prohibition on notification?

[ellery]

The sneak and peek searches codified in Patriot are fundementally different. Here's an explanation (the Senate killed the Otter Amendment by the way, even though it passed overwhelmingly in the House):

The Otter Amendment would effectively prohibit any implementation of section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, which permits federal agents to obtain sneak and peek warrants under a very low evidentiary standard, making them far easier to get than before the bill was passed. Sneak and peek or "black bag" warrants, as they are also called, allow agents to search homes, confiscate certain types of property and essentially "bug" computers, without notifying the subject of the search that it is happening for an often indeterminate amount of time.

Here's another:

"The new law greatly expands the legal use of so-called "black-bag" searches. Law-enforcement authorities using this secretive procedure are not required to notify the subject of an investigation until after the search has taken place, if authorities can claim that such a notification might hamper the investigation by allowing the suspect to tip off associates. In the past, suspects were usually notified when law enforcement conducted a search, although occasional exceptions were allowed for searches of electronic data. The new bill, however, has the effect of expanding to any criminal case the authority to conduct secret searches."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/01-14-2002/vo18no01_unamerican.htm

Here's where hyperbole comes into play. You make these assertions which, on their face, are ridiculous. If "law enforcement can go on a fishing expedition into anyone's life, without the probable cause and court oversight" then why bother having warrants at all anywhere? Obviously, if these are provisions of Patriot, they have to be spelled out very specifically, which would alter your characterization of them.

You're making my point. You say "obviously" without having read Patriot -- you're engaging in this exchange with merely an assumption that Patriot is A-OK. If you're truly interested, you may want to actually go and read the text, specifically the definition of "terrorist." You'll find that it's extremely vague. For example, Rush Limbaugh could be prosecuted under the definition of terrorism in the Patriot Act.

Furthermore, once you remove the requirement for court OK of a warrant and the requirement for probable cause, the need for a warrant does becomes much less meaningful.

[ellery]

I repeat: I never said they said they wouldn't use them! For the third time, I said that DOJ justified the Patriot Act by saying it merely expands to terrorism tools they already *had* to fight money laundering, racketeering, and other crimes. My point is: if that's true, and they already had these tools for other crimes, then why are they now using Patriot for these crimes??? They claimed they already had other tools.

My point is that their use of Patriot for other crimes means that they lied when they said they already had tools to fight said other crimes. Otherwise, why wouldn't they use the existing tools?

[ellery]

Forgot the link to my first citation -- here it is:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/jul03_aclu-patriots.shtml

[AmishDude]

A "black bag" search warrant requires a judge's OK, does it not?

In the past, suspects were usually notified when law enforcement conducted a search, although occasional exceptions were allowed for searches of electronic data.

Uh huh, "occasional exceptions" but the Patriot act changes things utterly and totally from the way they had ever been done before. Well, except for the occasional exceptions, but we'll just ignore that.

I am more interested in the source for your information.

They are an arm of .

Would that be ?

Why golly, yes. I'd forgotten all about

It's good to know you are getting your information from

You can't waste that education that you got at the

which isn't actually a university, but they do have an organization called the

which hosts the .

[ellery]

Big surprise -- attack the source. I found it on google, along with the Baltimore Chronicle article. I assume you think *that* source is too liberal, and also shouldn't be believed. I'm not going to do a ten hour research project for you. You've already indicated that you've made up your mind without actually reading Patriot, so enjoy your bliss.

[Dan from Michigan]

This is unacceptable.

If Bill Klinton was proposing this crap(and he did in 2000), this site would be howling in anger.

[AmishDude]

Oh, even better! The

I particularly love the ads for

MASSAGES

for Stress Reduction & Relaxation
PROFESSIONAL
EXPERIENCED

in my Mount Vernon home five minutes from Harborplace in Baltimore
Mon-Fri 11:30 am-7:30 pm weekends by chance

Call Keith 410-332-1418

Which is above a "Puplic Service Infomercial".

That's, of course a [sic]. Or more properly, [sick]. A classy organization, that one.

But you have to love their parent organization:

Baltimore News Network, Inc. (BNN), a nonprofit corporation, was established by a group of concerned citizens who believe that the mainstream media offer a narrow perspective of the news. Too frequently these news sources ignore or trivialize progressive or alternative viewpoints.

Isn't it all too, too fascinating?

[ellery]

What's truly fascinating is how lightly you take your freedoms. There are some FReepers who support the Patriot Act who have actually studied it -- but you have admitted that you are not one of them. Maybe you should read some history about how exceptional America is, and how strongly our founding fathers believed that only eternal citizen vigilance would preserve our Republic.*

*Oops, according to the Arizona FBI, I may be a terrorism suspect for speaking in favor of our Constitution.

[AmishDude]

Consider the source. "Progressives" tend to "lie" about "facts" in order to advance their "agenda". And they are "proud" of having done so.

[AmishDude]

What's truly fascinating is how lightly you take your freedoms.

Yeah, well Chicken Little was amazed at how lightly I took the safety of my head.

[Wolfie]

If Bill Klinton was proposing this crap(and he did in 2000), this site would be howling in anger.

That was back when restoring the Constitution was more imporant than electing Republicans.

[ellery]

There's really no point in you and I discussing this further -- despite various evidence I've provided, you have concluded I'm an alarmist chicken (little). Based on your indication that you've not read the Patriot Act, I've concluded you're a willfully blind ostrich. Going round and round about this with you is for the birds. :)

If you ever become interested in actually reading up on this, below are a couple more sources that you may find more to your liking.

Testimony of Bob Barr

http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/acuinthenews/barrtestimony111803.asp

Patriot Act another RICO?

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0202/0202patriot.txt