Once again, I'm glad I'm 58 instead of 28.
Posted on 03/14/2003 3:26:39 PM PST by B4Ranch
It would be a sure bet that the Ashcroft led U.S. Department of Justice would like to see both ends of the political spectrum come together in support of their "anti-terrorism" programs, but it would appear just the opposite is happening. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Bill of Rights Defense Council, are expressing concerns about the effect that the USA Patriot Act and a possible follow-up law, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, could have on civil liberties.
ABC news reports more than 60 towns, cities and counties around the country have passed resolutions criticizing the act, some going so far as to instruct municipal employees — including police — not to assist federal agents in investigations that they believe violate the Constitution.
Joining groups like the ACLU, right-leaning groups such as the American Conservative Union, the Eagle Forum and Gun Owners of America say they are concerned that American citizens could also be victimized by what they say are unconstitutional law enforcement powers allowed by the "Patriot" and this potential enhancement act.
The heart of the issue, according to conservatives, liberals and constitutional scholars, is the effect that USA Patriot has already had on issues of probable cause and due process, and that both of those concepts would be further eroded if the so-called Patriot II were adopted as it appears in the draft form. ABC also reported that according to what is in the draft, if adopted it would allow the Justice Department to wiretap a person for 15 days without a warrant; federal agents could secretly arrest people and provide no information to their family, the media or their attorney until charges are brought, no matter how long that took; and it would allow the government to strip Americans of their citizenship for even unknowingly helping a group that is connected to an organization deemed to be terrorist.
It would also make it a crime for people subpoenaed in connection with an investigation being carried out under the Patriot Act to alert Congress to any possible abuses committed by federal agents.
There is also no "sunset provision," which constitutional scholars say removes the element of congressional oversight and means lawmakers would have no way of compelling the Justice Department to prove that the powers provided in the act have not been abused.
"There's no question the government has to have the tools to protect us from terror attacks and to prosecute those who want to harm us," ACU Executive Director Stephen Thayer said, "But having said that, the American Conservative Union wants to be sure that Congress takes into account the civil liberties of the citizens and through their deliberations reaches the proper balance between law enforcement and protecting citizens' rights," he added.
Christopher Pyle, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer who served on the Church Committee, a Senate select committee that studied government intelligence gathering, put it a bit more forcefully.
"I don't think the Fourth Amendment exists anymore," said Pyle, a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College, referring to the amendment that prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and requires probable cause for a search or arrest. "I think it's been buried by the Patriot Act and some of the court rulings that have been handed down. We need a requiem mass for the Fourth Amendment, because it's gone."
Among the concerns Thayer said he has about the draft version of Patriot II are the broad expansion of surveillance and information-gathering powers, the granting of immunity to businesses and their personnel who provide information to anti-terrorism investigators even if the information is fraudulent, and the power to strip native-born Americans of their citizenship. Michael Hammond, a consultant with Gun Owners of America, which has more than 200,000 members, echoed those concerns, and said that the vague definition given to the term "terrorist" is extremely troubling.
"We have some serious concerns and part of our concerns spring from the fact that some of our members are part of the so-called militia movement," Hammond said. "We're looking into whether some of these groups or even the NRA [National Rifle Association] could be designated terrorists by this or a future administration."
It would certainly appear those of us who support the U.S. Constitution are in for a real storm. Those of you who are Bush supporters and believe these unconstitutional actions by the government are justified to fight terrorism, just imagine -if you will - these same powers in the hands of Hillary Clinton.
Copyright 2003 The Sierra Times
We are all familiar, and more than a bit tired and annoyed, at how liberals habitually take conservative proposals, twist them around, take them out of context, and then use it to smear their opponents (e.g. anyone who opposes affirmative action is a racist, anyone who opposes abortion hates women, anyone who opposes the UN, or favors national defense, is a warmonger, ad nauseum). A birdie, and years of experience reading dozens of scare articles just like this one, tells me that the exact same thing is happening here.
Don't try to scare me or call me names, just do a Sgt. Friday "give me the facts, ma'am." I'll make up my own mind on what these facts actually mean, thank you.
Once again, I'm glad I'm 58 instead of 28.
P.S. The burden of providing the relevant facts should always be on those who want to increase the power of government - not on those of us who want it to be kept in its place.
As far as I know there is nothing under consideration in Congress called the Patriot Act II. Either it was leaked out of the DOJ as a trial balloon (in which case it is getting blasted as an idea that won't fly) or it was leaked to cause all of this hand wringing.
Those ideas, IF ever proposed would not make it out of the House, or even out of the House Judiciary committee.
PATRIOT II
Introduction | Analyses | News Top News
- "PATRIOT II" Draft Obtained. The Center for Public Integrity has obtained draft legislation titled the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003." The legislation would expand surveillance powers and access to private data while limiting access to information held by the government. For more information, see the EPIC USA PATRIOT Act Page. (Feb. 7, 2003)
In February 2003, the Center for Public Integrity obtained an apparent draft of "PATRIOT II" legislation. The draft, dated January 9, 2003, contained an analysis and the proposed text of the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003."
The draft touches on a number of areas of law, including wiretapping, law enforcement access to business records, freedom of information, search and seizure, encryption policy, and immigration law.
When the language was leaked, the DOJ immediately issued a press release minimizing the importance of the draft. However, the draft indicates that DOJ intends to continue to increase executive police power while either limiting or eliminating congressional or judicial oversight.
- PATRIOT II Draft (12 MB PDF), Privacy.org.
- PATRIOT II Draft (OCR HTML Version), Dailyrotten.com.
- Section-by-Section Analysis of Justice Department draft “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003,” also known as "PATRIOT Act II," ACLU, February 14, 2003.
- Talking Points I: Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 ("Patriot II"), Friends Committee on National Legislation, February 13, 2003.
- Patriot Act II Also Limits the Public’s Right-to-Know, OMBWatch, February 10, 2003.
- ACLU Says New Ashcroft Bill Erodes Checks and Balances on Presidential Power; PATRIOT II Legislation Would Needlessly Infringe on Basic Constitutional Liberties, ACLU, February 12, 2003.
- Patriot Act: The Sequel, Washington Post, February 12, 2003.
- FBI chief seeks new powers; rebuffs critics, Government Executive, February 11, 2003.
- Comments Of Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Democratic Member, Senate Judiciary Committee,
On The Justice Department’s Secrecy In Drafting A Sequel To The USA PATRIOT Act, Senator Leahy, February 10, 2003.- Perspectives: Ashcroft's worrisome spy plans, CNET, February 10, 2003.
- DOJ Statement on Release of PATRIOT II Draft, DOJ, February 7, 2003.
- Justice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Anti-Terrorism Act, Center for Public Integrity, February 7, 2003.
EPIC Privacy Page | EPIC Home Page Last Updated: February 19, 2003
Page URL: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/patriot2.html
I don't care about burdens of proof, I just want to know what the actual facts are, i.e. whether the legislation is even close to being as horrible as the author suggests it is. I know the difference between propaganda, on the one hand, and reasoned argument on the other hand.
I think you're right, come to think of it. And I'm not necessarily defending something that I just admitted I don't know squat about. :) My objection was to the tone and style of the article, nothing more. It is the style of "argument" that the lefties almost always use, a style which (1) doesn't work as a method of persuasion (except for the weak-minded people who follow them) and (2) invariably rubs me the wrong way.
Thanks for posting it.
I find it very ironic that someone can post this unconstitutional "Domestic Security Enhancement ACt" stuff right here on the net, to the self-proclaimed home of patriotic "defenders of the constitution," and at most these "patriots" react with indignation and disbelief. They stick their fingers in their ears and hum aloud!
I hope the US govt. does pass the DSEA and that some future administration uses to round up all of the gun nuts, pro-lifers, etc, and imprison them without charges or counsel!
Then when Rush Limbaugh tries to spin this as a "good thing," I can laugh and watch them try to sputter and explain why dismantling the constitution really did seem like such a great idea back in 2003, because, of course, the great deity Bush could do no wrong...
The so-called Patriot act was rammed (un-read) through congress with hysterical rhetoric. Maybe a litlle hysteria in the name of Freedom is justified.
And it isn't just the libbos who are worried...
That said, Patriot I is a big fat POS, and our current politicians from all sides of the aisle voted it in without even reading the damn thing.
Now we have the obsessed freak Ashfcroft and fat-faced pro-death Ridge loving every minute of it. Meanwhile we let these scummy Islamists walk in and out of our country at will, and leave our borders wide open.
Yet we must look up the anus of every American citizen. After all, there may be a terrorist in there somewhere.
You wanna win the war on terror? Seal the borders and get rid of every male Arab non-citizen between the ages of 17 and 45. WOT over.
That would be too easy though, no power grabs and ego trips in that.
They all suck and can't keep anyone safe, get that though your head. They're having a blast incrementally ruining a free coutry.
The hysteria is what turns me off to the issue. That's what the left always does: substitute raw emotion (especially fear) for facts and good arguments based on facts. It simply doesn't work, except perhaps with children and people who think and act like children (such as the above-mentioned political left).
This proposal is a complete non-starter. It is impossible to "seal" a border consisting of thousands and thousands of miles of combined miles of land and coastline. This country is simply way too big. You might as well try stopping Niagra Falls with a sieve.
I would much rather take all the troops and personnel that such a job would require (which would be nowhere close to enough) and send them abroad to hunt down and exterminate the terrorists themselves. In this case, the best defense is a strong offense.
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.
