STOP THE CHEAP SHOTS AT THE PATRIOT ACT

New York Post ^ | 12/05/03 | PETER KING & ED KOCH

[kattracks]

December 5, 2003 -- THE brutal attacks of 9/11 brought home to the American people what should have been clear to our nation's leaders years before that fateful day: We are at war with Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their radical Islamic terrorist allies throughout the world and within our borders.

[glorgau]

Say what you want, but the current war does not threaten out national survival. It is really more like a large police action. Even if Al Queda obliterated New York from the map with some sort of WMD, there would still be a whole lot of Americans left over to reek vengeance. This is nowhere near as much of an existential threat as toe-to-toe thermonuclear war with the Ruskies.

Truncating our essential liberties removes us from our base identities as free citizens. That said, let's do our best to lower the hammer on non-citizens.

Membership has it's privileges.

[mc5cents]

The bottom line is that the criticisms by Gore and the other critics are shameful and irresponsible. Of course...

I will fill in the rest: they're democrats!!

Enough said.

[11th Earl of Mar]

I never understood the arguments used on the right against the Patriot Act, largely for the reasons mentioned.

I can udnerstand those comments from the left, who used to call the police 'pigs.'

But the article shows that all of fuss about the Patriot Act is a lot to do about nothing.

[sinkspur]

I continue to ask (as do others) "who has lost one right as a result of the Patriot Act"?

Nobody has, of course, but the Democrats use it as a convenient whipping boy, even though they ALL voted for it.

It's like the hypocritical criticism of the war in Iraq: they ALL (with the exception of Dean) voted for it.

It's all just foolishness.

[samtheman]

I wonder how many terrorists have gone undetected because of police fear of being criticized by the leftwing traitor lobby.

[sean327]

Here is the problem I see with the Patriot Act, in the hands of another administration who's to say they will use the same restraint the Bush Administration is using. The potential for abuse is there do not fool yourselves. This thing can and will grow legs if we ever, God forbid end up with Hillary as our President. " Those who give up liberty for security end up with neither."

[11th Earl of Mar]

Potential for abuse in what way?

Be specific.

[mysterio]

That's really funny. The "patriot" act is sickening. Show me again where the astericks are beside the first ten amendments that indicate it is ok to toss the amendments out to catch terrorists. But then again, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. I guess that we didn't need them in the first place by that logic, right?

This WILL result in government abuse. If Hillary is elected president, I guess the next filegate won't be illegal. She can just say that we are all "terrorists." I can't believe that anyone would want to give government any more power or size. This is NOT smaller, less intrusive government. I will not stand behind government expansion and intrusion under any partisan label.

[11th Earl of Mar]

For all your words, you still said nothing.

What specifically in the Patriot Act bothers you?

[mysterio]

Be specific.

Ok.

Section 215 states that the government need not show probable cause, have reasonable grounds, or any suspicion, for that matter, for an authorized investigation. It vastly expands the government's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States.

Another part of 215 specifies that those people being used for investigations are prohibited from disclosing that fact to anyone else. Subjects of such investigations are never notified that their privacy is being violated.

That means the government can track what a person is reading, what Web sites they visit or affiliations the subject may have.

The government already has the power to prosecute anyone. Section 215 isn't likely to result in any increased security regardless.

The Patriot Act also gives government power to monitor religious or political institutions without probable cause. The government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges and encourages bureaucracies to resist public records requests.

It allows prosecution of librarians or record keepers if they reveal that the government has subpoenaed information.

It allows the government to monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients -- thus deteriorating the client-attorney privilege. It also gives permission to deny legal representation to Americans accused of crimes.

Americans can be jailed without charges, indefinitely, without a trial.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."

http://members.boardhost.com/libtoday/msg/6929.html

[mysterio]

From Electronic Frontier Foundation:

The EFF's chief concerns with PATRIOT include:

Expanded Surveillance With Reduced Checks and Balances.

PATRIOT expands all four traditional tools of surveillance used by law enforcement -- wiretaps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas. Their counterparts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allow spying in the U.S. by foreign intelligence agencies have similarly been expanded. This means:

Be careful what you read on the Internet. The government may now monitor the online activities of innocent Americans, and perhaps even track what Web sites you read, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied upon what it has done.

Nationwide roving wiretaps. FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is being used by a suspect or target of an order, or even specifically identifying the person targeted. The government may now serve a single Title III wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even have to report where they served the order or what information they received. The EFF believes that the opportunities for abuse of these broad new powers are immense. For pen/trap orders, while ISPs or others who are not specifically named in the order do have the legal right to request certification from the Attorney General's office that the order applies to them, they have no right to request such confirmation from a court.

ISPs hand over more user information. The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all "non-content" information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. §212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses, and means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. §§210, 211.

New definitions of terrorism expand scope of surveillance. One new definition of terrorism and three expansions of previous definitions also expand the scope of surveillance. PATRIOT §802's definition of "domestic terrorism" (amending 18 USC §2331) raises concerns about legitimate protest activity being prosecuted as terrorism, especially if violence erupts, while additions to three existing definitions of terrorism (int'l terrorism per 18 USC §2331, terrorism transcending national borders per 18 USC §2332b, and federal terrorism per amended 18 USC §2332b(g)(5)(B)) expose more people to surveillance (and potential "harboring" and "material support" liability, §§803, 805).

Overbreadth with a lack of focus on terrorism. Several provisions of PATRIOT have no apparent connection to preventing terrorism. These include: Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court order. §217.

Adding samples to DNA database for those convicted of "any crime of violence." §503. This provision allows collection of DNA for terrorists, but then inexplicably also allows collection for the broad, non-terrorist category of "any crime of violence."

Wiretaps now allowed for suspected violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes anyone suspected of exceeding authorized access to a computer used in interstate commerce and thereby causing over $5000 worth of combined damage.

Dramatic increases to the scope and penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. These include: 1) raising the maximum penalty for violations to 10 years (from 5) for a first offense and 20 years (from 10) for a second offense; 2) ensuring that violators only need to intend to cause damage generally, not intend to cause damage or other specified harm over the $5,000 statutory damage threshold; 3) allowing aggregation of damages to different computers over a year to reach the $5,000 threshold; 4) enhancing punishment for violations involving any (not just $5,000) damage to a government computer involved in criminal justice or the military; 5) including damage to foreign computers involved in U.S. interstate commerce; 6) including state law offenses as priors for sentencing; 7) expanding the definition of loss to expressly include time spent on investigation, response, damage assessment and restoration.

Allows Americans to be More Easily Spied Upon by U.S. Foreign Intelligence Agencies. Just as the domestic law enforcement surveillance powers have expanded, the corollary powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act have also been greatly expanded, including:

General Expansion of FISA Authority. FISA authority to spy on Americans or foreign persons in the U.S. (and those who communicate with them) increased from situations where obtaining foreign intelligence information is "the" purpose of the surveillance to anytime that it is "a significant purpose" of the surveillance.

Increased information sharing between domestic law enforcement and intelligence. This is a partial repeal of the wall put up in the 1970s after the discovery that the FBI and CIA had been conducting investigations on over half a million Americans during the McCarthy era and afterwards, including the pervasive surveillance of Martin Luther King in the 1960s. It allows wiretap results, grand jury information and other evidence collected in a criminal case to be disclosed to the intelligence agencies when the information constitutes foreign intelligence information. FISA detour around federal domestic surveillance limitations; domestic detour around FISA limitations. Domestic surveillance limits can be skirted by the Attorney General, for instance, by obtaining a FISA wiretap against a U.S. person where "probable cause" does not exist, but when the person is suspected to be an agent of a foreign government. The information can then be shared with the FBI. The reverse is also true.

[sinkspur]

Americans can be jailed without charges, indefinitely, without a trial.

If they're in league in with terrorists fighting against the United States, as Padilla was, yes.

Reasonable people don't have a problem with this, or with other provisions of the Patriot Act.

Paranoids, conspiracy theorists, and Democrats seem to, however.

[11th Earl of Mar]

First of all, you provided a bad link.

Anyway, all you gave us was YOUR OPINION of what Section 215 means and what YOU THINK the dangers of it are.

But you never told us what 215 actually says.

This is like letting Ted Kennedy tell us what the President's State of the Union speech was all about, but never letting the audience hear the speech itself.

[mysterio]

Define for me please "in league with." Also, could you tell me your definition of "terrorist?" Then check to see if that matches the government's definition of terrorist.

[sinkspur]

Define for me please "in league with." Also, could you tell me your definition of "terrorist?" Then check to see if that matches the government's definition of terrorist.

Pakistan gave credible information to the FBI that Padilla had al-Qaeda ties. That's "in league with terrorists." al-Qaeda is "terrorist."

Everybody else seems to be able to see that.

I hope the cretin rots waiting for a trial.

[mysterio]

The link works just fine.

SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following: `SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and

`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--

`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or

`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

"Shall" means that if the government tells the judge that they followed all of the steps, he or she has to issue the warrant. This is ripe for abuse.

[sean327]

See post 11