Posted on 12/18/2001 6:39:27 AM PST by Gaborn415
Others say, Law is our Fate;
Others say, Law is our State;
Others say, others say
Law is no more,
Law has gone away.
W.H. Auden
There were some members of Congress who fearedas the Bush-Ashcroft anti-terrorism bill was rushed throughthat the Constitution was in the line of fire. But as the lead editorial in the October 26 Washington Post ("A Panicky Bill") noted:
"Members with reservations feared objecting lest there be a further terrorist attack and they be blamed for having failed to give the government the means to prevent it." Then, when a "sunset" clause was agreed torequiring Congress to review its handiwork in four yearsuneasy members figured they could repair any holes in the Bill of Rights at that time. But if the terroristsincluding the "sleepers" hidden among usare not obliterated in four years, well, the citizenry will want to give up even more of its freedoms. And Congress will not dare stand in the way.
However, the worst assault on our liberties in the USA PATRIOT Act is not subject to the sunset clause. It is now a permanent part of our laws.
The new act includes "Sneak and Peek Warrants," as they are cosmetically calledknown in J. Edgar Hoover's days as warrantless "black bag jobs." It legalizes, with warrants, burglars with FBI (news - web sites) badges. Now the new FBI director, Robert Mueller, can enhance that tradition. As described by the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), this provision "would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. This means that the government could enter a house, apartment, or office with a search warrant when the occupant was away, search through her property and take photographs, and in some cases, seize physical property and electronic communications, and not tell her until later. This provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States."
What is particularly ominous about these secret searches is underlined by Boston University law professor Tracey Maclin, a leading expert on the Fourth Amendment. In the November 5 National Law Journal, Maclin warned that these break-ins are "not tied [only] to cases in which national security or threats from foreign agents appear to be the focus of investigations. It can apply to any intrusion." (Emphasis added.) That is, any criminal investigation. Rule 41 (d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure specifically requires that the officer conducting the search shall "leave a copy and receipt at the place from which the property was taken."
With timely notice of a black bag job, you can challenge it in court before any action is taken against you. Did the official burglars take only what the warrant allowed them to take? And if you know what they did take, you will be able to justify your non-criminal possession of what is now in their hands.
Previously, there has been limited authority to delay notice of a secret searchif, the ACLU notes, "an individual's physical safety will be endangered, someone will flee prosecution, evidence will be tampered with, potential witnesses will be intimidated, or an investigation will be jeopardized or a trial unduly delayed."
But now, the ACLU continues, Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act would take this limited authority "and expand it so that it will be available in any kind of search (physical or electronic) and in any kind of criminal case. . . . Law enforcement agents will seek to delay notification whenever it is to their advantage to do so. Over time, the delayed notice 'exception' would become the rule and would deal another serious blow to the privacy protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment."
As soon as the anti-terrorism bill was signed by the president, Attorney General Ashcroft informed all the United States attorneys and the FBI to push the provisions of this new law to the limit. That includes break-ins. Section 213 of the new law does say that notice of a secret search is to be given within "a reasonable period." Ashcroft's Justice Department (news - web sites) interprets that to mean within 90 days. But the government can ask a judge to extend that period for "good cause." As Rachel King, legislative counsel for the ACLU in Washington, tells me, extensions can be granted indefinitely.
Remember that these black bag jobswhere no one leaves a receipt for what has been takenapply to any criminal investigation, not only to terrorism probes. Professor Maclin makes the necessary point:
"It's all a question of how we view the Fourth Amendment. The amendment's essential purpose is to control the discretion of government officials to intrude in our lives. How many judges, particularly where criminal contraband is discovered, are going to say the government's request is unreasonable? They're not going to do it."
And if the government claims that the criminal investigation is also based on a suspicion of terrorist activity, what judge will refuse as many delays of notice as the FBI, or any other agency, ardently desires? Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once told me his belief that the key precipitating cause of the American Revolution was the "general writ of assistance" that allowed the British to search and seize whatever they wanted in the colonists' homes and businesses.
The Committee of Correspondence spread the word of these infuriating abuses of privacy throughout the colonies, as in this report from Boston:
"Our houses and even our bed chambers are exposed to be ransacked, our boxes, chests, and trunks broke open, ravaged, and plundered. . . . Flagrant instances of the wanton exercise of this power have frequently happened. . . . By this we are cut off from that domestic security which renders the lives of the most unhappy in some measure agreeable."
In 1761, James Otis challenged a new writ of assistance in the Massachusetts Superior Court: "A man's house is his castle. . . . This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege."
It was declared legal, and the Declaration of Independence was a result. And that's why we have a Fourth Amendment, to prevent such abuses from happening ever again. Or rather, we HAD a Fourth Amendment.
Either they are too inept to write Constitutional Law, or they know they can't achieve the required support nation wide to pass the amendment.
We would not have an amendment process if they Constitution wasn't binding as written.
I'm waiting for the safety loving boot-lickers who have their lips sewed to Ashcroft's ass to show up blathering about how "we're at war" (even though is has nothing to do with terrorsism) stating such blatant idiocy as "if you're not doing anything you have nothing to worry about".
Sadly, the sneak-and-peek aspect that the author points out is just one of the many troubling parts of the "Patriot Act" (I can't write that without putting it in quotes).
Considering their position on encryption software, "What's next" will be requiring that they be provided with the means to disable any security or intrusion detection you have in your home. If being able to "sneak and peek" without your knowing about it is essential to them doing their job, then anything you do that would result in your knowing about it would be obstruction of justice. I'm still wondering if they'll kill your dog if he won't let them in the house.
Surprisingly, this was so henious a piece of legislation, so blatantly unconstitutional that it couldn't even overcome the drug exception to the constitution. But they've used America's fear of terrorism, created by their lack of will in protecting us, to railroad this through.
If you aren't doing anything wrong then what are you worried about, right? Remember your government loves you.
If these aforementioned provisions are implemented, then there will be many more scenarios as described in another post, above. Victims of the WODs have so far been insufficient to sway public opinion (even when they have included 78-yr. old ministers, and 12-yr. old boys), but the "Patriot Act" will open the flood-gates to thousands more. Many people will die. Most anyone in the country will know someone personally affected...and they will know that, by and large, these people did not deserve to be murdered by their own gov't. Then public opinion will tilt in the right direction - that of freedom - and the tide of tyranny shall be abated (personally, I believe by then it will be too late to be accomplished peaceably, but, I guess stranger things have happened).
To echo sentiments expressed earlier - I have not even begun to fight. In the meantime, there is FreeRepublic, and the efforts of each one of us to teach as many as will listen, to persuade as many as possible, to insist as often as necessary. At this point in time, there is no greater endeavor.
Brave ones, rarer still.
You don't have to wonder, it's common practice right now. As a matter of fact many SWAT units have "Dog Teams" that kill any dogs that won't "let them in the house".
I remember an interview with one of the ATFaggots involved in Waco that stated when he heard gun fire break out, he thought it was the "dog team" and didn't realize that the Davidians were shooting back.
They'll shoot anything that stands between them and their contraband, that's a proven fact of life.
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.