Posted on 04/02/2005 5:03:32 AM PST by schaketo
The House of Representatives Committee on Judiciary will convene a series of eight hearings on the USA Patriot Act starting in about a week. The Patriot Act contains many provisions that are due to sunset at the end of 2005 if they are not reenacted.
I sincerely hope that changes are made to the Act, as it stands now it is in opposition to many of the freedoms and rights we treasure. I believe that many of the Patriot Act's provisions are in direct contradiction to the Constitution and a serious threat to American Liberty.
If you think the Act doesn't affect the average American, think again. It is nice to believe that our Congress creates legislation to help protect our lives and liberties, but more times than not they get things completely wrong.
A couple years ago I embarked the ambitious goal of creating an alternative party for people who felt abandoned by the Republican and Democratic parties. A Libertarian at the time, I felt their utopian platform and occasional radical candidates too much for the average voter to swallow.
So I launched a new party, which I named The Limited Government Party. The idea was to offer an option for people who believed that the government should remain true to the Constitution, and limit its encroachment into our lives and wallets.
The two-party system is the reason that it doesn't matter which party is in control, we will still have waste and pork oozing out of the Capitol Building. More on that in my next column.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) only "formally recognizes" a new political party after certain conditions are met. One of these conditions is the establishment of a bank account in which membership fees can be deposited. So, after receiving my Employer Identification Number (EIN) from the IRS and filling out my FEC paperwork, I headed to SunTrust Bank.
I provided SunTrust with the IRS SS-4 form and corresponding Employer Identification Number (EIN), as well as my driver's license and a signed, ready-to-be-mailed, FEC application. I was then informed that these were insufficient to open a new account. According to the branch vice president, the Patriot Act requires more proof that I am not opening a checking account with depraved intentions.
She contacted a SunTrust "Patriot Act Specialist" and was told that I would need to provide documentation that the party was "officially recognized" by the FEC. Great ? the FEC wouldn't recognize the party unless I had a bank account, and the bank wouldn't open an account for me unless the FEC provided documentation that the party was officially recognized.
It didn't matter that I had another checking account at the same bank. It didn't matter that I had a valid Virginia drivers license, or a voter registration card, or a Social Security card. It didn't matter that I had numerous credit cards, a U.S. birth certificate, or an Alexandria Employees Credit Union account that was over 30 years old. I offered to provide numerous documents to help prove that I was not a terrorist, but that was not sufficient.
However, it doesn't end there. Now I come to the part of the story that Shakespeare would call "the rub."
I asked the vice president of the SunTrust bank if she could provide me some sort of documentation that indicated the reason I was being denied an opportunity to open a new account. Ready for this? She told me that according to the Patriot Act, not only was SunTrust unable to provide such documentation, but they were PREVENTED BY LAW from providing such information, OR EVEN verbally informing me as to why it was denied.
According to the Patriot Act, any citizen who tries to open even a private checking account and is rejected by the bank - FOR ANY REASON - is denied the right to know why they were refused service.
It could be that the individual is the victim of identity fraud, and someone is destroying their credit. Or it might be that somewhere in the banking system incorrect information was entered related to the individual, or it may be that someone has a similar name to one on the government "watch list." It doesn't matter - under the Patriot Act you have NO RECOURSE!
This law deprives people essential liberties and freedoms. I once thought that the only place where people were denied services in the free market - and by government decree not told the reason - was in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. I now know better. As Americans we are no longer provided due process, we are now guilty until proven innocent.
Welcome to a Frightened New World. Thanks in no small part to the Patriot Act.
James Simpson lives in Lake Ridge. His e-mail address is JamesSimpson@aol.com
Why would any of that matter? It has nothing to do with the formation of a political party.
I got a new name, George W and his Globalist Cronies won't like it but!: "The American Vigilante Party"! I'm not being facecious. You can have a "party", with out the FEC recognition. If you have enough members, like millions, how could they deny your existance. Then apply for for the Bank Account and the FEC political recognition.
Do people with non-metalic headwear actually believe banks have a "Patriot Act specialist?"
If this article is serious and someone does like it, please quote from the act the provision connected to secretly blocking people from starting a bank account for a political party.
Saying Patriot Act 15 times is not enough to convince me that I have lost my freedom.
Yes how about some more verification!!
Line of the day!
So I launched a new party, which I named The Limited Government Party.
The Limited Government Party?
Isn't that some kind of oxymoron?
"Line of the day!"
Coops, I'm with you baby!
Do you have financial privacy? Or can any cop access all your financial records, without a warrant, and without notifying you?
Do you have medical privacy? Or will you HMO turn over your records without a warrant?
Do you have communications privacy, or does your telco and ISP provide realtime data and bugging interfaces to LEAs?
Are you free, or do you live in a comfortable cage?
During the Clintoon Administration there was a bill floated in Congress called the "Know Your Customer" bill. It was defeated, but the Patriot Acts have pretty much taken up where it left off. The politico's used 9/11 to push through this legislation, which is aimed far more at citizens than at terrorists or illegals, while the dumbed down American citizenry buys lottery tickets and is captivated by American Idol. "Hey, Ma, hold muh beer..."
"Saying Patriot Act 15 times is not enough to convince me that I have lost my freedom."
Only because you're clueless.
Maybe you and Eisenberg should start the Clueless Party.
Have you asked your local Airport authorities to show you the LAW that requires photograpic identification?
I didn't think so because their answer will be that you are not permitted to read the LAW, per the Patriot Act. And no you are not going to get on a commercial aircraft without photo ID.
I grew up during WWII, when our freedoms were limited for the entire duration of the war, and few were so d*mn dense they couldn't comprehend the purpose, wisdom and practically of doing so.
Those arguing against the need of the Patriot act, display the mentality of teens arguing against their parents curfew.
And before some dingaling accuses me of looking upon the government as our mom and dad, I do not. Sanity and maturity make us aware of the reality that when the enemy has our little paradise under seige-business as usual is not an option- except in the minds of the idiots among us.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040909-111010-4336r.htm
Suit targets travel-ID mandate
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
John Gilmore doesn't want to be identified.
Whether it's at the airport check-in counter, railway station or bus depot, Mr. Gilmore will not show identification, and he wants the federal government to produce the "secret law" that requires travelers to do so or be barred from commercial travel.
Mr. Gilmore says travelling without identification is what distinguishes a free country from totalitarianism, pointing out that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were sticklers for travel documents.
The Justice Department says it will identify the law in a court case brought against it and the Homeland Security Department by Mr. Gilmore, but only if the secret reasons for its top-secret status remain under a court seal.
"The government would also file and serve a redacted, unsealed version of the brief as well. That procedure will adequately safeguard any sensitive security information [SSI] while permitting this court's independent review of the merits of plaintiffs' claim," said the request filed by the Justice Department on Sept. 3.
A spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration said he could not comment on the ongoing litigation, but said "knowing who gets on an airplane is an important layer in our aviation security."
Mr. Gilmore's attorneys called Justice's request an "extreme cry for secrecy" that is "disturbing and illustrates the dangers of secret law," and, in a brief filed Tuesday in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, said Justice does not cite legal authority for such handling of the law.
The case was originally filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco but dismissed. In that case, the government did not produce any law or regulation requiring the identification of passengers.
"Our judicial system is based on the deeply felt principle that each side must have the opportunity to be fully and fairly heard," the motion said.
"If [TSA Administrator David Stone] is not willing to make public this law, then he should not be permitted to secretly use it as evidence of its constitutionality," the motion said.
Mr. Gilmore, an entrepreneur in the computer industry based in San Francisco, says his no-ID stance has made it difficult for him to do his job.
"I've flown internationally, and I'm willing to show my passport to leave the country, but I'm not willing to show a passport to travel in my country," said Mr. Gilmore, who also works for companies in Minneapolis and upstate New York.
He has on occasion been able to talk his way onto an aircraft without showing identification.
"The hardest question to answer is 'show me the law, the regulation, and the rule that requires this,' and none of them could, and never have," Mr. Gilmore said.
The government maintains that there is a law prohibiting the disclosure of SSI, and administration officials have the power to prohibit the disclosure of any information that would "harm transportation security."
One administration official said the rules vary from airline to airline, and that if someone forgot to bring identification they may just get additional screening and be allowed to board.
Mr. Gilmore said he doubts a law exists.
"If we want to keep our country free, maybe we should have a debate about that, rather than have it deposed in secret," he said.
What you and the rest of the Clueless Party don't understand is that while there are numerous provisions of the PA make sense, there was a bunch of stuff in there that was nothing but an opportunistic powergrab by weasel cop-types (cleverly obscured by BS-snowstorm throwaway provisions like the "library book provisions") that had been on the police-state wishlist for ages.
I'm not going to ask for any pardons for being obnoxious on this subject, I'm getting weary of people who don't know WTF they're talking about condescending to people who do. Do your homework before you shoot your mouth off and don't ask me to do it for you, I don't get paid to teach around here.
Without photo-id, the whole concept of non-refundable tickets falls apart, and the airlines can't charge people way more for business and last minute travel. Even if an airline doesn't sell any non-refundable tickets, they still are going to insist on knowing who they are flying for several reasons. For one, if they are sued for something a passenger did and don't know who they are flying, the plaintiff attorney will use this to get the airline. Of course if you ask the airline employee why they require proof of who they are flying, they will not cite such business reasons. Sheesh.
Sheesh! Ask toi see the PA law requiring photo ID. Tell me when they show it to you.
Look, if you want to find out more about me, go to one of those web sites where you pay to match up a SSN with a name. Then use it to get my credit report. Then call around saying you are me to get my medical info (although the only remotely interesting parts of it can be found by seaching the FR archives). Then use google to find out more about my political views. All this stuff is available publicly. My bosses, who are liberal, can get it too. So?
I think I would have liked it in the 19th century where everyone's vote was public and the word privacy had to do with somebody seeing you naked. Now, if you have been in prison, nobody needs to know that after you have paid your debt. But aside from that, I think a man should be willing to own up to his views and to the way he lives his life. And I don't think many founders of this country would disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.