Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservatives And Liberals Unite In Opposition To Patriot II
SierraTimes ^ | 2003 | Michael Gaddy

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; culture; freedom; government; rights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 next last
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.
1 posted on 03/14/2003 3:26:39 PM PST by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
I don't know squat about the merits of this legislation, but this tone and style of criticism mirrors the tone and style of criticism against war in Iraq and, more generally, the sophomoric approach of the political left. In other words, it is long on hysteria, hyberbole, and playing on emotion (especially fear) and short on actual cold, hard facts about what actually is (and is not) in the proposed legislation.

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.

2 posted on 03/14/2003 3:42:15 PM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Once again, I'm glad I'm 58 instead of 28.
3 posted on 03/14/2003 3:46:29 PM PST by upchuck (Sadamn: You are on the way to destruction...you have no chance to survive, make your time..ha ha ha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kesg
Well, these are the "facts" as I see them: There are people in high places in the FBI and CIA who are so incompetent that shortly after 9/11, they could actually declare with a straight face that it "never occurred to them" that someone might fly a plane into a building. Instead of summarily firing them, we instead are giving them more power, in one form or another.

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.

4 posted on 03/14/2003 3:51:01 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kesg
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.

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.

5 posted on 03/14/2003 3:55:34 PM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
The fact that HC is now a senator, and regardless of how she got there, proves anything is possible. The terrorist could never do as much damage to this country as she would do as our President, certainly she would be worse at it than her husband and he really eft it up. Hopefully Bush and Ashcroft will consider that scenario thus ending all arguments favoring the Patriot Act and the Domestic Security Act.
6 posted on 03/14/2003 3:58:50 PM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
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.

7 posted on 03/14/2003 3:59:04 PM PST by NeoCaveman (Let's get on with it already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy; kesg; upchuck; inquest
Here is the complete draft if you wish to become informed.

EPIC logo

PATRIOT II

Introduction | Analyses | News

Top News

Introduction

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.

Analyses

News


EPIC Privacy Page | EPIC Home Page

Last Updated: February 19, 2003
Page URL: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/patriot2.html


8 posted on 03/14/2003 4:02:33 PM PST by B4Ranch (Politicians, like diapers should be changed often. Stop re-electing these 'good' people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Just one question ... has this legislation even been submitted into any house of congress ?
9 posted on 03/14/2003 4:02:36 PM PST by Centurion2000 (Take charge of your destiny, or someone else will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
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.

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.

10 posted on 03/14/2003 4:09:48 PM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Centurion2000
If not, I would imagine that it certainly is being reviewed by a committee or two to raise this much noise.
12 posted on 03/14/2003 4:16:42 PM PST by B4Ranch (Politicians, like diapers should be changed often. Stop re-electing these 'good' people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
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.

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.

13 posted on 03/14/2003 4:17:23 PM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Here is the complete draft if you wish to become informed.

Thanks for posting it.

14 posted on 03/14/2003 4:18:48 PM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
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.

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...

15 posted on 03/14/2003 4:41:05 PM PST by eshu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kesg
Liberals and Conservatives oppose this. The sheep are stuffing their faces and watching idiotic reality tv. The hysterical tone is necessary, to get the stupid sheeple to take notice of what may be coming down the pike in time to put a stop to it.

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...

16 posted on 03/14/2003 4:43:31 PM PST by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GhostofWCooper
sorry for the typo (litlle), I was stuffin my face...;^)
17 posted on 03/14/2003 4:46:52 PM PST by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kesg
OK, all of your points on Patriot II are well taken, I even agree with many of them.

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.

18 posted on 03/14/2003 4:54:21 PM PST by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GhostofWCooper
The hysterical tone is necessary, to get the stupid sheeple to take notice of what may be coming down the pike in time to put a stop to it.

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).

19 posted on 03/14/2003 5:08:00 PM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
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.

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.

20 posted on 03/14/2003 5:19:34 PM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
They all suck and can't keep anyone safe, get that though your head. They're having a blast incrementally ruining a free coutry.

Okay, I'll bite on this one, too. What specific freedoms do you think you have lost in your personal life since enactment of the first Patroit Act, and in what specific respects are you less safe today then you were on, say, September 10, 2001 as a result of the passage of that Act?

21 posted on 03/14/2003 5:21:48 PM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kesg
Being boisterous and loud (ie hysterical) has worked for Liddy, Savage, Boortz and others on the right hand side of the aisle. People can't get worked up about anything delivered in flat monotones. Ever been to an evangelical church service?

What I'm getting at is that not all people respond to reasoned, quiet input. They snooze through it. Sometimes a slap up-side-the-head is in order.

I'm glad they launched a test balloon before legislating this attack on the BOR. It illustrates their thinking, if nothing else.

22 posted on 03/14/2003 6:26:19 PM PST by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kesg
What specific freedoms do you think you have lost in your personal life since enactment of the first Patroit Act, and in what specific respects are you less safe today then you were on, say, September 10, 2001 as a result of the passage of that Act?

I'll be anxious to read any responses you get to this excellent question.

I've asked it at least 50 times in the last 15 months, and never get an answer.

23 posted on 03/14/2003 6:42:03 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GhostofWCooper
Being boisterous and loud (ie hysterical) has worked for Liddy, Savage, Boortz and others on the right hand side of the aisle. People can't get worked up about anything delivered in flat monotones. Ever been to an evangelical church service?

I don't deny this, but this type of motivation a quick fix at best and doesn't last very long. If, a few hours or days later, they cannot see through all the Jedi mind tricks -- the falsehoods, the fallacious reasoning, the appeals to emotion rather than facts -- that the liberals play on people, their euthoric emotional state will be quickly replaced by confusion, doubt, and (eventually) frustration. That's a major reason why I think Rush Limbaugh is so effective. He explains these tricks, and does so in an entertaining manner that keeps his audience interested.

24 posted on 03/14/2003 7:07:07 PM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
This is a rumor that started on D.U., somehow got posted on PBS, and was pulled because it was a "prank" of some sort. This is total bull. I'm actually shocked to see it posted here.
25 posted on 03/14/2003 7:09:39 PM PST by Sonny M (War has never solved anything, except Nazism, Communism, slavery and the holocaust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"What specific freedoms do you think you have lost in your personal life since enactment of the first Patroit Act, and in what specific respects are you less safe today then you were on, say, September 10, 2001 as a result of the passage of that Act?"

I'll be anxious to read any responses you get to this excellent question.

I've asked it at least 50 times in the last 15 months, and never get an answer.

That's because I suspect that the vast majority of the good people who post here are not terrorists or criminals. :) I certainly have not lost one shred of my personal freedom, and to the extent that the Patriot Act is helping us track down and capture (or kill) terrorists, I'm that much safer than I otherwise would have been.

26 posted on 03/14/2003 7:12:31 PM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
If you had paid attention to the federal authorities of late, they have frequently told us that further terrorist attacks of tremendous proportions are "inevitable," and that "there is nothing we can do to prevent them." You know they have frequently said this, so it is difficult to feel safer as a result of this law. Colleen Rowley has been writing about this to her superiors at the FBI again, as well, stating that nothing has really changed. So, that question has been answered.

As to the second, I suggest you study St. Thomas Aquinas on "Potency and Actuality." In its application to citizens of the United States, the "Patriot" Act is a potency not yet actualized. It is the potency that is objectionable. The defintion of "terrorist" is understood by Americans to mean irregular foreign enemies who bomb, hijack, assassinate, take hostages, etc. To the Patriot Act, "terrorist" has a whole new convulted meaning so that the term can be applied to U.S. Citizens who may, or may not, be guilty of this or that State law, or who may, or may not, be engaged in some activity that "APPEARS" to be "dangerous to human life." "Appears" is a term that is alien to Anglo-American legal philosophy. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the traditional measurement.

We had a 1978 Anti-Terrorism law that provided enough legal recourse to the FBI's Minneapolis Field Office to almost break 9/11 before it happened. Passing paper laws does nothing to solve problems. Pro-active, Constitutional intelligence gathering and investigative techniques CAN accomplish much. Let's go back to the laws we had, which were sufficient, and do something about bureaucrats who, in the words of Rowley, "sabotage" the efforts of those trying to defend us.
27 posted on 03/14/2003 7:14:27 PM PST by roughrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kesg
Privacy issues aside, how about the freedom from illegal search and siezure? They can break into your house and take things without informing you they were even there.

During the sniper hunt, they were hassling legal rifle owners, and doing ballistic checks on their their rifles without any probable cause.

People are being interrogated in airports for getting mouthy with security there. Being POed doesn't make you a terrorist, so what's up with that?

I think the war footing is dangerous for Liberty.

28 posted on 03/14/2003 7:18:45 PM PST by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Not to mention these are the same people who were behind the atrocities of Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Have the good American citizens forgotten that more power given to those who have abused it can only lead to DISASTER??!!??

29 posted on 03/14/2003 7:19:21 PM PST by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
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.

============================================

I will respectfully disagree with the criticism of Patriot II on the basis that Hillary Clinton might possess the power. God forbid that she should get back to the White House, but whether Patriot II is law would not matter to her. She would issue Presidential Decision Directives that would be the law. Who would stop her? Would 2/3 of the Senate vote to convict in an impeachment trial? No, they wouldn't. Her evil husband set the standard. No president will ever be convicted by the Senate unless one party has 67 members. So, Patriot II would not matter. The law would be what she said it was.

30 posted on 03/14/2003 7:20:34 PM PST by doug from upland (Like Osama, you on the left can kiss my royal Irish *ss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roughrider
If you had paid attention to the federal authorities of late, they have frequently told us that further terrorist attacks of tremendous proportions are "inevitable," and that "there is nothing we can do to prevent them." You know they have frequently said this, so it is difficult to feel safer as a result of this law.

The law doesn't make me feel safer, but knowing that scumbag terrorists can be thrown in a dark cell where they can't rant and rave to their associates is very comforting.

Colleen Rowley has been writing about this to her superiors at the FBI again, as well, stating that nothing has really changed. So, that question has been answered.

Sorry, but "Person of the Year" Colleen Rowley is a grandstander who thinks she gets 30 minutes of fame. Her letter got all of the attention it deserved, which was not very much.

The "potency" of PAI has been to get lots of rats off the street, dangerous men who had designs on this country. That's a very good thing.

I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument, but it's all you've got, so I'm not surprised you'd use it.

31 posted on 03/14/2003 7:28:30 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
And there is the entire thrust of the Administration after 9/11, which was to gather more information on AMERICAN CITIZENS, as opposed to the terrorist groups that Louis Freeh told the Senate Judiciary Committee were not a threat to the United States, but were only "fund raising." That was in 1998. Now the groups he mentioned, such as Hezzbollah and Hamas are reportedly threatening us.

Government at first stated that they had "no information" that would lead them to believe 9/11 was about to happen, but when reports came out that there was reason to anticipate such an attack, the cry was about "information OVERLOAD." Well, they seem to want MORE information overload through database growing:'Honest, We're the Good Guys' By Michelle Delio
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,58041,00.html

02:00 AM Mar. 14, 2003 PT

WASHINGTON -- American businesses feel a little like a rope that's being used in a tug of war between privacy and patriotism.

Their customers want the personal information that businesses collect to be kept private, but the government wants access to some of that data for use in various homeland security plans.

So what's a company to do? That's the question being asked this week at the Privacy & American Business' ninth annual national conference in Washington.

Organizers said that the focus of this year's conference, "managing the privacy revolution," reflects businesses' deep concern over how to enhance homeland security while not surrendering customer privacy. Besides business people, plenty of government officials, privacy advocates and corporate privacy workers are on hand.

"As privacy advocates and civil liberties groups gear up to challenge new government initiatives to access consumer information in business files, companies are seeking guidance on how to support legitimate government needs, but also protect legitimate privacy interests," said Dr. Alan Westin, P&AB's president.

Admiral James Loy, the Department of Transportation's undersecretary of security, addressed attendees on Thursday on the sort of data the government wants access to, and what the government wants to do with it.

Loy took pains to assure his audience that privacy is one of the guiding principles behind government measures like the controversial CAPPS II system.

CAPPS II, now being tested by Delta Airlines, runs background checks on all airline passengers when they book a ticket, including checking credit reports, banking and criminal records.

"It is a limited system carefully designed to safeguard the privacy rights of Americans," Loy said. "Few air passengers will be subjected to any more scrutiny than they are right now."

Loy also sought to clarify some questions about CAPPS II, saying that those with credit problems, overdrawn bank accounts or parking tickets would not suffer under the new system.

But many of the privacy advocates attending the conference weren't mollified.

Many were cheered by the news that the Wyden amendment to S. 165 (the Air Cargo Security Act) had been approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation on Thursday.

The amendment, proposed by Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, requires the Department of Homeland Security to answer key questions about CAPPS II.

"The (Transportation Security Administration) has yet to explain how the system will work, what databases it will access, what proof TSA has that the program will be effective, or who will be in charge of performing the assessments used to determine passengers' threat potentials," said Jerry Berman of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Also under heavy discussion are the demands of the Patriot Act, passed shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11.

Some provisions of the act require banks, credit unions and other financial services providers to verify the identities of those opening accounts, and report any suspicious activity to government officials in order to thwart international money laundering and financial support of terrorists.

"My job has become a juggling act that gets more complex every day," said a privacy officer for a Manhattan bank who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's a challenge to determine what a 'legally' suspicious activity is and what isn't. The government guidelines are a little vague."

Conference attendees were presented with a thick book, P&AB’s Guide to Homeland Security Information Requirements, intended to help them walk that fine line between pleasing both the government and their customers.

The guide examines the new anti-terror laws and how they are being administered, summarizes the concerns of civil liberties and consumer advocates about the scope of these demands on business, and the privacy safeguards that businesses should put in place.

Software to help businesses comply with privacy laws and government demands is also on display at the conference.

Suncoast Software is demonstrating the newest version of its Web Quality Central software, which monitors networks to ensure privacy policies are being complied with, and that legal obligations are also being met.

"Privacy compliance is now such a large issue for many business and government organizations," said Paul Saunders, president of Suncoast. "Many law firms who specialize in class-action suits see policy non-compliance as a lucrative growth area."

Now, just how nimble can an operation be when it wants to know everthing, including, according to some articles, THE DNA COMPOSITION, of a farmer named Gump in Iowa, when the threat is supposedly coming from Muslim terrorists operating overseas? How is all of this data gathering on Americans, and the management of an elephantine database, going to help this government do its job any more efficiently? We have FBI checks on what people read in libraries, but how is that supposed to stop Al Qaeda?

The Patriot Act, and the other moves toward total surveillance of the entire population (Total Information Awareness--They are still working on it) constitute an unwarranted intrusion on the victims of 9/11: The law-abiding and loyal citizens of the United States. We are not the enemy. Whoever funded and helped Al Qaeda is, and I already informed you about who that was: The Chief of Pakistani Intelligence.

32 posted on 03/14/2003 7:30:18 PM PST by roughrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You'll find out when the next Democrat is elected. That might be sooner than you think, too.
33 posted on 03/14/2003 7:32:19 PM PST by roughrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GhostofWCooper
People are being interrogated in airports for getting mouthy with security there. Being POed doesn't make you a terrorist, so what's up with that?

On the contrary, seeing a smart ass get his comeuppance because he resents having to go through what the rest of us schlubs have to go through is extremely satisfying to us schlubs.

I think the war footing is dangerous for Liberty.

Not fighting a war on terrorism is dangerous for human life.

34 posted on 03/14/2003 7:36:13 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: roughrider
Go get em, dude! Nice post! :^P
35 posted on 03/14/2003 7:36:53 PM PST by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: roughrider
You'll find out when the next Democrat is elected.

And, some day, we'll be dead.

I don't do "chicken little" either.

36 posted on 03/14/2003 7:39:24 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
An 89 year old Texan, who had passed through security twice in one day, was aggravated at the third pass through. While the security man was searching through his billfold (again) he muttered, " You think there's a rifle in there?"

He was promptly arrested and interrogated by the airport officials. I don't recall if he was formally charged or released, but I suspect he was in trouble or it wouldn't have made the news. I think that is a bad thing, that's all. They could make allowances for stress and old age.

37 posted on 03/14/2003 7:40:54 PM PST by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GhostofWCooper
They could make allowances for stress and old age.

And, at the age of 89, this old coot learned a valuable lesson.

Don't joke about guns in an airport.

38 posted on 03/14/2003 7:44:26 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Hahaha! You are cold.. :^)

TO ALL: There you have it. The First Amendment is dead as a hammer.

39 posted on 03/14/2003 7:47:14 PM PST by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GhostofWCooper
Privacy issues aside, how about the freedom from illegal search and siezure? They can break into your house and take things without informing you they were even there.

I'm highly skeptical that this is the case, but my question was whether it has ever actually happened to you or anyone else you know? It hasn't happened to me or anyone else I know.

My understanding is that it isn't the case that they can just search and never tell you. My understanding is that they have to get a very special warrant, and even then they can keep the fact of the search hidden from you only for a few days. In fact, I think the government had this power even before the Patriot Act, and the law merely extended the delay period (which was only a few days) for a few more additional days. I could be wrong about this, but that's my recollection -- if anyone knows better, please correct me.

If so, such a procedure might be unreasonable for you and me (in which case the special warrant shouldn't be issued in the first place), but eminently reasonable for suspected terrorists and their equivalents.

40 posted on 03/14/2003 7:49:28 PM PST by kesg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GhostofWCooper
The First Amendment is dead as a hammer.

Nope. Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, can't joke about guns in an airport.

Anybody who doesn't realize these two things is an old coot, or stupid.

41 posted on 03/14/2003 7:50:43 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: kesg
Did the passage of this act get all of these enemies out? Did it enable the monitoring of them to catch them, or just watch them, because it is too inpolitically incorrect to go arrest and deport? I say kick em all the hell out.

We don't logically need this act to fight terrorisim, and will it be abolished when the above map is cleaned up? Probably not. Secure all of our borders and make the fat cat agencies we have now- DO THEIR JOBS!

42 posted on 03/14/2003 8:00:50 PM PST by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kesg
I think it's 90 days. And just because they haven't done it to me, doesn't make it right. Hell, I might just be waaaaay down on the list, just bein an armchair kibbitzer (sp?) and all.

I am gratified to hear that they might need a warrant of some sort. My understanding is, they always get whatever warrant they ask for, anyway. The judges give them great leeway.

You know, my problem with all this is, it's never going to be sunsetted. It never ends. A war on an idea, like terrorism, cannot possibly be won. Ever. So the incremental march to totalitarianism will have plenty of time to accomplish its goals. 9-11 sure did damage America, in her heart. It was much more than 3000 dead and a few buildings. Samboa pig-laden knew some of us would flip out and initiate a police state.

43 posted on 03/14/2003 8:01:31 PM PST by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I think "joke" isn't quite accurate. The old fart was making a sarcastic complaint. When you complain at a police officer, without using offensive language, they will usually take a moment and explain why they did whatever it was...

Couldn't they have just said, "searching your wallet is necessary, we are under orders to look for sharp objects. We know there is no rifle in it.."??

44 posted on 03/14/2003 8:05:07 PM PST by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GhostofWCooper
Couldn't they have just said, "searching your wallet is necessary, we are under orders to look for sharp objects. We know there is no rifle in it.."??

Not if the government uses plants to test these people.

If a screener loses his job for letting a "sarcastic comment" about a gun pass, word gets around.

And, in reality, the old man could have zipped his lip to begin with.

45 posted on 03/14/2003 8:10:39 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M; dubyaismypresident; kesg
I didn't realize that it was a "prank." I did see Ashcroft in front of some Senate committee last week deny that it existed as Leahy persisted in asking him questions about it. Ashcroft finally said he wasn't going to answer questions or clarify or defend a policy that doesn't exist and that could never exist unless enacted by Congress.
46 posted on 03/14/2003 8:24:58 PM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Yeah, he was very foolish. He was raised in a free country where he could speak his mind, as long as he avoided threatening anyone. Now, he can't. He was probably warned by his family, but couldn't resist.

Someone should put up a giant billboard. It could list all the EVIL words. Better still, just gag all old folks, retarded kids, kids, PMSing women, and disgruntled, delayed passengers.
I wonder if 'BAAaah' is ok?

It is a little sad, don't you think?
TO ALL: I gotta go for now, thanks for the interesting thread...

47 posted on 03/14/2003 8:25:03 PM PST by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
Officially it ain't called Patriot II & yes it was leaked. By someone inside the DOJ which gives you some idea as just how bad this bit of legislation well & truly is.
48 posted on 03/14/2003 8:41:25 PM PST by Nebr FAL owner (.308 "reach out and thump someone " & .50 cal Browning "reach out & CRUSH someone")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Patriot Act the only thing passed. There is no Patriot Act II.
49 posted on 03/14/2003 8:42:10 PM PST by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly; FITZ; Bill Davis FR; DeathStalker; mhking; 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub; Elkiejg; barker; ...
Thats nice a draft of something that dont exist. Hmmm now where did i put that tin foil?
50 posted on 03/14/2003 8:57:06 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (\____<*((((((><______/==========0 Fish Fry Friday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson