Patriot Act II: Pro-safety, or anti-freedom?

WorldNetDaily ^ | December 5, 2004 | Ron Strom

[TERMINATTOR]

HOMELAND INSECURITY

Patriot Act II – is it a prudent step to stem terrorist activity in the U.S. and protect the homeland, or a Draconian measure designed to strip the last vestiges of freedom from the American landscape?

Such is the question increasingly on the minds of Internet users, many of whom come down squarely on the side of legal experts who warn of the legislation's danger. Though an actual bill to further expand federal law-enforcement powers has not been introduced, activists for months have communicated online about what they see as potential Nazi-like developments.

The first USA Patriot Act – or the Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act – was passed in 2001 in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. It gave federal authorities new power to wiretap phones, confiscate property of suspected terrorists, spy on residents and conduct searches. Its importance to the war on terror was stressed to members of Congress at that time – most of whom were not allowed to read the bill before it was passed, noted Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a Patriot Act opponent.

Though Patriot Act II has not been officially introduced in Congress, a Department of Justice draft version of the bill, named the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, was obtained in January 2003 by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative organization. The draft [a .pdf document] is marked "Confidential, not for distribution." The document includes an analysis of the expanded powers and a draft of the bill itself.

Also in January 2003, the PBS program "Now with Bill Moyers" obtained a Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs "control sheet," which suggested a draft of the bill was sent to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Vice President Richard Cheney.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, however, Barbara Comstock, director of public affairs for the Justice Department, denied that the early draft had been sent to Hastert and Cheney.

Dr. David Cole, a Georgetown University Law professor, analyzed the draft and stated the proposal 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."

The Bush administration has shunned attempts by critics to link the original Patriot Act to his request for expanded law-enforcement powers.

When asked if there was a connection between the two, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "I don't know if I'd view it that way."

Opponents of new powers – who dubbed the draft bill "Patriot Act II" – say the administration is simply trying to deflect criticism from civil libertarians by distancing any new proposals from the original 2001 law. Though members of the administration do not use the term "Patriot Act II" publicly, the president himself was forced to respond to a questioner using that name in the town-hall format debate this fall with Democrat John Kerry.

The American Civil Liberties Union has analyzed the draft of the bill and lists several new government powers it would establish. Those include:

• The removal of the requirement to disclose the identity of anyone who is charged in a terror-related investigation until that person is charged, regardless of how long it may take;

• Creating a new category of "domestic security surveillance" that permits electronic eavesdropping of entirely domestic activity under looser standards than are provided for ordinary criminal surveillance;

• Repealing the current court limits on local police spying on religious and political activity;

• The ability to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant;

• Expansion of the definition of terrorism whereby individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship, and their organization could be subject to wiretapping and asset seizure;

• Sheltering federal agents engaged in illegal surveillance without a court order from criminal prosecution if they are following orders of high Executive Branch officials;

• Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the behest of foreign nations, whether or not treaties allow it; and

• Lawful immigrants would be stripped of the right to a fair deportation hearing and federal courts would not be allowed to review immigration rulings.

The ACLU also points out the proposal would lessen the ability of the media to cover government activity by shutting down access to information about terrorism suspects who have not been charged, information about grand jury proceedings involving terror investigations, and public information about health and safety hazards of chemical and other plants.

Critics stress that Section 102 of the draft bill, which expands who it is the government can subject to surveillance, could also squelch press freedoms. Current law says a U.S. citizen gathering information for a foreign entity can be wiretapped, for example, only if there is a suspicion of a violation of the law. The new measure would remove the need for suspicion, thereby applying to citizens the current standard used with non-citizens.

"This amendment would permit electronic surveillance of a local activist who was preparing a report on human rights for London-based Amnesty International, a 'foreign political organization,' even if the activist was not engaged in any violation of law," stated the ACLU.

While a provision in the original Patriot Act gave the Justice Department the power to look at public library records, criticism of the provision caused Attorney General John Ashcroft to back away from actually using the new privilege. The ACLU analysis touches on an expansion of the power, saying, "Patriot Act II would give the government new powers to issue 'administrative subpoenas' and to enforce what it calls 'national security letters' to obtain confidential library, Internet and bookstore records – without going to court at all."

In September, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero sided with the ACLU by ruling Section 505 of the Patriot Act was a violation of free-speech rights and unreasonable search-and-seizure protections. That section gave the FBI power to search customer records from communication firms such as Internet service providers.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero told the Washington Times the ruling was "especially important" in light of efforts to further increase law-enforcement via Patriot Act II.

"This decision should put a halt to those efforts," he told the paper.

Opponents of the Patriot Act II within Congress also are fighting against the proposal. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, along with Paul and others, has introduced H.R. 3171, the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act. The bill uses Franklins famous quote "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" in arguing against both the Patriot Act and the proposed expansion.

The bill claims Patriot Act II would "severely dilute and undermine many basic constitutional rights as well as disturb our unique system of checks and balances by:

• "diminishing personal privacy by removing important checks on government surveillance authority;

• "reducing the accountability of government to the public by increasing government secrecy;

• "expanding the definition of 'terrorism' in a manner that threatens the constitutionally protected rights of Americans; and

• "seriously eroding the right of all persons to due process of law."

The bill says the new powers pose threats "to all Americans and particularly to the civil rights and liberties of the residents of our nation who are Arab, Muslim, or of South Asian descent."

Kucinich's legislation would repeal entire sections of the Patriot Act and other homeland security laws passed since 9-11.

Writing in the Village Voice, columnist Nat Hentoff hammers the Bush administration for wanting to make Patriot Act provisions permanent before a December 2005 "sunset clause" takes effect. Hentoff is hoping an alliance "between civil-liberties Democrats and conservative-Republican libertarians" in the Senate will help end Patriot Act provisions and derail Patriot Act II.

Ashcroft has lobbied for additional powers in recent months, including during a warning about possible terror attacks last Independence Day.

He said the changes made by the Patriot Act in the years since 9-11 gave government agencies the ability to share information, but that investigators still need additional powers.

With the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to replace Ashcroft as attorney general, the president's tactics in pursuing expanded law-enforcement powers could change. Repeated calls to the Justice Department for comment on the issue were not returned.
-----
Related story:

Ashcroft: Tougher Patriot Act needed

[TERMINATTOR]

"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security." Benjamin Franklin

[MNJohnnie]

they see as potential Nazi-like developments


Anyone who says this clearly is completely ignorant of both the History of the Nazi regime and the realities of the Partiot Act 2. It is really funny how those who scream loudest in American politics repeatedly demonstrate both their complete ignorance and their hyper partisan political bigotry.

[mysterio]

It is amazing that the Surpreme court lets any of this stand. Our justices need to study the Constitution more carefully.

[antiRepublicrat]

The removal of the requirement to disclose the identity of anyone who is charged in a terror-related investigation until that person is charged, regardless of how long it may take;

I thought they only "disappeared" people in dictatorships and communist countries.

Creating a new category of "domestic security surveillance" that permits electronic eavesdropping of entirely domestic activity under looser standards than are provided for ordinary criminal surveillance;

Big Brother's watching you...

Repealing the current court limits on local police spying on religious and political activity;

And I'm sure they'll only spy on mosques, right?

The ability to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant;

Now where did I put that 4th Amendment?

Expansion of the definition of terrorism whereby individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship, and their organization could be subject to wiretapping and asset seizure;

Dissent is not allowed.

Sheltering federal agents engaged in illegal surveillance without a court order from criminal prosecution if they are following orders of high Executive Branch officials;

"I was only following orders" didn't work in Nuremberg, but apparently it'll work here.

Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the behest of foreign nations, whether or not treaties allow it; and

Don't do anything that's illegal in other countries. That Nazi paraphernalia could have the Germans or the French after you, with our government's help.

Lawful immigrants would be stripped of the right to a fair deportation hearing and federal courts would not be allowed to review immigration rulings.

Immigrants have no rights. Kicking out lawful immigrants was one of Hitler's first steps.

[Rick_Michael]

'Expansion of the definition of terrorism whereby individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship, and their organization could be subject to wiretapping and asset seizure;'

*What exactly does that mean? What kind of disobedience would kick one out of the country?

[bushisdamanin04]

When ever I see a complaint about the Patriot Act, or “blaming” John Ashcroft for it, or whatever else the non-thinking party spews forth, I think it is worthwhile to recall which Democrats and other liberals voted YEA for the Act in 2001:

Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Breaux (D-LA) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Daschle (D-SD) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Edwards (D-NC) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Mikulski (D-MD) Miller (D-GA) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Torricelli (D-NJ) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

[muggs]

bump to find later.

[TERMINATTOR]

OK, hang them too. After a speedy trial, of course.

[KoRn]

The courts need to gut this thing if it comes to pass. Laws like this is why we need courts, AND real conservatives who will look out for our liberty against an over reaching government.

[infidel29]

bump (for later)

[joesnuffy]

Are the borders closed or are they open?...are OTM getting in or not?
Has the border patrol been hindered or helped by HS
Are our commercial and cargo pilots armed or is Minetta still obstructing?
Are Middle Eastern males between the ages of 18-45 being correctly profiled or blue haired Florida grannies?

[samtheman]

I agree with Dennis Miller on this stuff. I believe I have a fundamental human right to stay connected to my butt.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Anyone who says this clearly is completely ignorant of both the History of the Nazi regime and the realities of the Partiot Act 2."

Uh, the Nazi regime was built "one step at a time" from what was originally a pretty liberal democracy. BOTH Patriot acts are incredibly dangerous, in that there is no time limit on these expansions of power. Put a five-year sunset clause on ALL of these "additions" to our jurisprudence and I would feel a LOT better about them.

[Publius6961]

Benjamin Franklin never experienced muslim terrorism up close and personal.

[mbennett203]

"The American Civil Liberties Union has analyzed the draft of the bill"

I have a hard time believing anything these clowns say.

As for spying on mosques or commies, quite frankly, that's the two spots I'd want them to stick their noses in.

However, Franklin's admonition rings as true today as when he said it. I'm a little nervous about another expansion of government power (I'd rather do it only when necessary, and admittedly, stopping some religious fanatic from blowing up my fellow Americans is 100% NECESSARY.). Maybe if they went ahead and read the bill before passing it this time...

[risk]

It is amazing that the Surpreme court lets any of this stand. Our justices need to study the Constitution more carefully.

Because we've appointed four generations (or more) of elitist liberals to our courts, there are many who want to rein in their power. Instead we need to appoint better judges. So where are the statesmen among our recent appointees? That's a different question, but we continue to fall short of the standards our founding fathers set, including the list of people so-called conservatives have appointed.

The problem I have with the Patriot Act II is that it makes permanent what PA1 required at a time of war. Compounded with the fact that our leaders are unwilling to conduct the war at a pace anything like WWII, it could indeed last for generations. What would the founding fathers say? Imagine Thomas Jefferson's reaction to the PA2 raft?

And there are even darker worries. How would a Hillary Clinton or a John Kerry be prevented from misusing a Patriot Act? Will those of us with vocal opposition to legislation we find unconstitutional, such as gun control, come under scrutiny when the political pendulum swings back to the left?

We should do what we can within and in obedience to the constitution first in order to defend ourselves. That would include protecting our borders and dealing with illegal immigration. That would include getting serious about finishing the war instead of letting it crawl on indefinitely. That would include defending our defense technology from states like China. That would include dismantling terrorist groups in America, and those that sympathize with them like CAIR, AIM, and ELF. That would include deporting admitted enemies of our constitution.

[A. Pole]

To put this question in perspective - every year several hundred thousands of people in USA die from cancer. Many of them die painful, slow death (with the restricted access to the painkillers because of war on drugs).

I think it is better to die in a terrorist attack than from cancer. And the chance for the second is uncomparably greater. I would rather spend money on medical research than on restricting freedoms in the name of "security".

[Destro]

I don't trust any security law named the "Patriot Act". Who named this act thusly anyway? What was the reason? Usually I know who authors of laws are - who authored this one?

[jan in Colorado]

Ping