STOP THE CHEAP SHOTS AT THE PATRIOT ACT

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

[LandofLincoln]

My question was a lead toward the possiblity of losing any of my constitutional rights. The US Constitution is one awesome document. If I have that, I have all I need ... take it away, and I could end up with NOTHING. Our founding fathers definitely wanted us not to become, what we are in danger of becoming. And that started when our representatives quit representing us.

[mysterio]

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by

intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

See the bold part? "Activities that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Ok, with me so far?

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends."

He is saying that if you scare civilian populations with the loss of liberty that they are experiencing because of this "patriot" act, then you can technically be defined as engaging in "terrorist activities." I think it's fairly obvious that the definition here is vague enough to cover anyone they want it to cover.

[Squantos]

The threat does not come from John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act it comes from the next band of Clintonistas that get to use it not for national security but to further their own socialist agenda. Not enough safeguards to prevent it's misuse IMHO.

Ya'll Stay Safe !

[proust]

bump

[Jeff Head]

Bears repeating...often.

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthen itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." --James Madison,"A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785: Works 1:163

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's good to see that Conservative Icons Ed Koch and Peter King have joined with the Conservative Patriot Act authors, Andrew Young and Gary Hart to demonstrate that the 9/11 attacks made the government far more competent than it was on 9/10.

[Travis McGee]

Yep. Imagine President Hellary and AG Schumer redefining "domestic terrorists."

[Squantos]

That's exactly what I mean when "I" attack the Patriot Act as it stands today. It's fine in the hands of adult patriots but it is a deadly weapon in the hands of the likes of such seditious trash as the Clintonistas and their evil RINORAT trolls.<P:Stay Safe !

[Zeppo]

Thanks for listing the specific section that you believe to be so vague as to be frightening, or so vague as to be encompassed by the language in the Ashcroft quote. Your concern is misplaced.

The wording of paragraph 5, which defines 'domestic terrorism', requires all elements, A, B, and C, to be present. So, before you even get to the highlighted phrases B(i) or B(ii), an act must first pass the strictures of element A in order to fit within the definition of 'domestic terrorism', namely that the act must be "dangerous to human life" and also "a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State".

Clearly, speech critical of the Patriot Act can not be interpreted as "dangerous to human life", nor is mere speech, critical or not, a "violation of the criminal laws ...". Even if you were to focus solely on section B (which would be a mistake, because section B does not and can not stand alone as a definition of 'domestic terrorism'), it is hard to see how speech criticizing the Patriot Act could ever be interpreted as being intended "to intimidate or coerce" anybody or anything. Where's the intimidation? Where's the coercion? And, who is being intimidated or coerced by the exercise of political speech which is protected by the Constitution?

Now, contrast speech critical of the Patriot Act with speech that is, for example, a threat to explode a bomb, kill one or more persons, fly an airplane into a building, etc. for the purpose of changing government policy, or to intimidate or coerce people in order to accomplish some goal. Such speech would clearly involve acts dangerous to human life which are also against the law, and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce etc. The latter would fit this definition of 'domestic terrorism'. So, it's not vague or frightening at all, and Ashcroft's statement can not, reasonably or even unreasonably (unless you consciously ignore or distort the plain meaning of the Act), be seen as saying that critics of administration policy or the Patriot Act are terrorists who can then be subject to the provisions of the act.

[mysterio]

I'm sure "giving ammunition" to enemies by criticizing the "patriot" act does endanger lives in Ashcroft's opinion. He says that we are aiding America's enemies because we don't want the shortsighted to disassemble the Bill of Rights. It's however he interprets it. I think he's made that very clear.

[CMAC51]

>> `(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. <<

>> "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. <<

The legislature cannot order a judge to deny someone their constitutional rights. The application is subject to judicial review and therefore judicial protection of constitutional rights. "Abuse" would require either deception by the applicant or nonperformance by the judge, the same as is true for any criminal investigation.

[CMAC51]

>> Basically, as long as the government tells the judge it followed the rules, the judge can't reject the warrant. That's what the "shall" means. <<

The legislature cannot order a judge to violate a persons constitutional rights, ... seperation of powers. Judicial review remains intact.

[clamboat]

Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), is a government shill, and I hope his grand-children enjoy living in the hell-hole of Armeica he is making.

Let's start with just the most blatant falshoods - out and out lies - in this piece.

* Sec. 215 - the much-feared "assault against librarians" - has not been used even once. Nonetheless, we strongly believe this is a weapon that must remain in the prosecutor's arsenal. There could well be cases, for instance, when it would be critical to learn whether a suspected terrorist is reading books on explosives or the structural design of office buildings, landmark sites, bridges or tunnels. It should also be noted that library records were instrumental in tracking down such murderers as the Zodiac killer and the Unabomber.

So which is it, senator? Were library records instrumental in tracking down the Zodiac killer and the Unabomber, or was it simply impossible to obtain such records before sec 215 became law? Why not be honest, Senator, and explain that the only thing section 215 does is allow such intrusive searches without a warrant? That's right, the main point of Sec. 215 is to make it easy to obtain records on inviduals based on the suspicions of any federal agent, without review or appeal by any other part of the judiciary.

[CMAC51]

>> It is a war that threatens our national survival.

No, it isn't. Not even close. <<

Sorry, you edit the assertion to diminish the content. It is a war that threatens our nation. In other words we have a definate self interest in its outcome.

>> If the justification for the law is that it hasn't yet been abused, doesn't that mean there's something big time wrong with that law? Or is it just me? <<

It's just you. The law has not been used yet because the combination of events that would indicate it necessary to use it have not occured. Should those events occur, the law is ready to comply. Should those events never occur, the law was not called upon. Should those events not occur, yet the law is implimented, then the law was abused.

>> Think: if you WERE a fanatical Al Queda terrorist, intent on destroying America, would you be browsing your local library, looking for a real good way to blow up a real good US landmark? Or do you think you'd have already done such essential research? <<

And if you were suspected of terrorist intent and had already done such essential research, the fact of it may be contained in library or internet records. That would make the law very helpful in verifying the terrorist intent.

You love circular logic. Unfortunately when you rely on it, it works in both directions.

[mysterio]

No, it is not intact. They have worked their way around it. The judge still has a figurehead status, because he or she can ask, "Hey, did you guys follow the rules?" Police resond, "Yes, of course." Then the judge HAS to issue the warrant. The judge's review has been moved from "does the case have merit?" to the "did the government say it followed the rules?" question. So the government still makes the call, and the judge can't stop it in the same way that he or she used to be able to stop it. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment is out the window. I can't support that.

[CMAC51]

>>> ...So the government still makes the call, and the judge can't stop it in the same way that he or she used to be able to stop it. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment is out the window. I can't support that. <<<

I talked to a Federal Judge about this and he strongly disagrees with you. The legislature cannot order a judge to violate the constitution. The judge can, and should, require enough information that the 4th Amendment rights are not being violated.

[mysterio]

It's right there, plain as day in the "patriot" act. It doesn't matter if he agrees or not. The government can interpret and bend it any way they choose, just like they do with the "living" Constitution.