Posted on 03/14/2003 3:26:39 PM PST by B4Ranch
We can argue about the time period, but otherwise I agree. And again, in most cases it probably wouldn't be reasonable to have any delay at all.
I see a danger to US citizens in the above section, since a US citizen can get turned into a non-citizen, or alien, based on their membership in a terrorist organization. And of course the government would decide who belongs in terrorist organizations and what groups get designated terrorist.
As long as they say (to themselves) Citizen X belongs to a terrorist organization, they don't have to release any information about his detention prior to trial. He can just disappear.
So what powers do the government have over it's citizens that it did not prior to the passage of the "Patriot Act?"
Among the worst seven provisions of the bill are the following.
1. The FBI can secretly enter someone's home or office, search the premises, and leave without notifying the owner. In theory, this would be supervised by a court. However, the notification of the secret search "may be delayed" indefinitely (Section 213). This is, of course, a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "fishing expeditions" and guarantees the right of the people to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." All the federal government must do to suspend your Fourth Amendment rights is accuse you of terrorism.
2. Any U.S. attorney or state attorney general can order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system. As reported before, this system records all e-mail correspondence and the addresses of Web pages visited by a specific target. Previously, there were legal restrictions on Carnivore and other Internet surveillance techniques (Section 216). Even more troubling, Fox News has reported that the FBI plans to go beyond the authorization of the new bill and change the very architecture of the Internet. The FBI wants to route all net traffic through central servers for monitoring. While this will require the voluntary compliance of the major ISPs, most experts agree that they will quickly cave into these demands for fear of appearing uncooperative or unpatriotic.
3. An accused terrorist who is a foreign citizen(seems #2 would expand this provision to include American citizens.) can be held for an unspecified series of "periods of up to six months" with the attorney general's approval. He doesn't have to be charged and he may be denied access to an attorney (Section 412). In effect, this provision suspends any due process provisions of the Constitution, especially the Fifth Amendment which states that "no person … [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." While the provision of this bill only applies to foreigners, it sets a dangerous precedent and could easily be used in the future against U.S. citizens accused of domestic terrorism.
4. Foreigners who enter the U.S. on a visa will be subjected to biometric technology, such as fingerprint readers or iris scanners. This will become part of an "integrated entry and exit data system" (Section 414. My fear is that eventually all Americans will be forced to submit to this technology. This bill will put the infrastructure in place. In will then be a simple step to require all citizens to participate in this system. Failure to do so may result in the inability to travel or even to buy and sell merchandise or property.
5. Without a court order, the FBI can require telephone companies and Internet service providers to turn over customer records. All they have to do is claim that the "records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism." Worse, the company contacted may not "disclose to any person" that the FBI is doing an investigation (Section 505). The bill of rights was written to protect citizens from exactly this kind of abuse. This provision of the new law completely throws out the presumption of innocence doctrine that is central to our system of justice. Now anyone can be treated as a criminal if they are merely accused of a crime.
6. Without a court order, credit reporting agencies must disclose to the FBI any information that agents request in connection with a terrorist investigation. The agencies may not disclose to the subject that the FBI is snooping in their file (Section 505). Again, there is no presumption of innocence and the suspect is denied his due process rights. This gives government agents the authority to spy on anyone's financial activities. All they have to do is make the accusation of terrorism and the door swings wide open.
7. The current definition of terrorism is expanded to include biochemical attacks and computer hacking. Some current computer crimes — such as hacking a U.S. government system or breaking into and damaging any Internet-connected computer — are also covered (Section 808). While these are no doubt crimes and should be prosecuted, by classifying them as "terrorist activities," suspects are subject to having their rights radically curtailed, as I have outlined above. If convicted, they are subjected to extremely stiff penalties. Prison terms range between five and 20 years (Section 814).
This country was great at one time because it's people stood up for principal. Our principals were written into the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. Principles do count. If we destroy the principles by which we live through cowardice, expediency, fear, or any other reason, we will destroy the basis of our existence. But long before that happens, what we know as freedom...will no longer exist.
B4Ranch , and the rest of the above ,
KNOW what they're talking about !
Better Listen !!
Dolphy and Sonny M ......don't have a Clue.........
kesg , does'nt Want to hear the Truth
TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday , is starting to see it.....
and of Course , sinkspur , and ATOMIC_PUNK ,
......are just WRONG , as usual !
......THUNDER........
So seeing someone harassed for their willingness to stand up to the beginnings of tyranny is not only acceptable but enjoyable to you? Are you a Tory? Thank God the Founders, who stood up to the beginnings of tyranny and against the wishes of many citizens of the British Empire living on this side of the ocean, didn't stop standing up when they ran into cases like you.
Not fighting a war on terrorism is dangerous for human life.
So exactly what would you give up to be safe then? The very fact that you argue there is an amount of freedom to be given up presents the possibility that you would give it all up just to be safe. Apparently safety is more important to you than freedom. So tell us, what would you give up? The first five Amendments? The first ten?
Here is a good examle of the damage done by this technique:
"1. The FBI can secretly enter someone's home or office, search the premises, and leave without notifying the owner."
Everyone (even people who only watch television!) is aware that secret searches have been used by our police and knows this is no power granted by the Patriot Act. So this 'bold' statement only sets up doubt in any person's mind as to the competency of it's author.
" In theory, this would be supervised by a court. However, the notification of the secret search "may be delayed" indefinitely (Section 213)."
Amazing! This reads as if the court would not be notified of the search!
Yet the court must approve the search (by the usual standards, with additional standards for the secrecy) in the first place before there can be a search.
Any reasonable person is now not only angry at the attempt to manipulate his thinking, but certain of the writers's willingness to be dishonest to do so.
As easily happens, advocacy has crossed the line to dishonesty.
"Now This is, of course, a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "fishing expeditions" and guarantees the right of the people to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."
None of this statement has been supported by the information given.
" All the federal government must do to suspend your Fourth Amendment rights is accuse you of terrorism."
"Terrorism" has nothing to do with this law- the law applies to any searches.
Reasonable people would be interested in an honest debate about the neccessity and the dangers of secret searches. It is something we should all be concerned about.
Dicussing this slanted statement has only wasted my time- I've gained no new understanding, but, most frustratingly, I daresay the poster of it has only anger at me and will just cling more tightly to it in response- so he's gained nothing either!
The Patriot Act:
SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.
Well, what is the procedure for doing so? Can the government do so on a whim, or is some element of due process involved (i.e. notice, a fair hearing, appropriate checks and balances between the executive and judicial branches)?
Inside the U.S. Senate ....
... Jar Jar Stoolie proposes granting emergency powers ...
... to Chancellor Bush, thereby dooming the Republic ...
... and paving the way for Darth Clinton ...
...to send in the stormtroopers ...
... and hassle the freaks.
Seriously, if I had a nickel every time I read an article like this one about the Patriot Act over the last year or more, I would be a millionaire. What I am not seeing, however, is any actual evidence that any of these potential abuses have actually materialized in the real world that we actually live in, as opposed to fears in the minds of the usual suspects on the left, such as the ACLU and the Libertarians.
Also, if I was John Ashcroft or a sponser of the Act, I suspect that I would strongly disagree with just about every one of these points. For example, in response to your first point, I might argue that previous judicial supervision was excessive and that the act would strike a more reasonable balance between the legitimate needs of law enforcement and the legitimate rights of American citizens. In response to the second point, I might respond that any such expansion is not unreasonable under all the relevant facts and circumstances -- remember, the Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches and seizers. And so on, point by point, right down to the end of your post.
The bottom line for me is that the pre-9/11 procedures were clearly inadequate to do what the government is supposed to do: secure our rights and our freedom from those who would deprive us of both (and of our lives). The Patriot Act was an attempt to address some of the inadequacies, and as far as I can tell it has done a very good job in this regard. There may (or may not) be abuses around the edges, but then the solution is to deal with the abuses as they come and not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Incidentally, the provision you describe below is not part of what is actually 18 usc 3103a, but seems to be only a proposal. According to findlaw, Section 3103a in its current form is as follows: "In addition to the grounds for issuing a warrant in section 3103 of this title, a warrant may be issued to search for and seize any property that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States."
As for the proposal itself, I would like to see some firm time limit put on withholding notice of the warrant, or perhaps a higher standard of proof for withholding notice than "good cause shown" once notice has been withheld for more than some fixed number of days. I'm uncomfortable with an open-ended delay period, although I'm open to how long the length should be before the target must be notified.
mrsmith: Everyone (even people who only watch television!) is aware that secret searches have been used by our police and knows this is no power granted by the Patriot Act.
The problem I have with both of these sentiments is that if the things that the PATRIOT Act "allows" (I use the term tentatively) are already allowed by the Constitution, then why do we need a PATRIOT Act? Since Congress doesn't have the power to enlarge the powers of the federal government by statute, it makes me more than a tad suspicious to see this kind of legislation.
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.
