ASHCROFT SEEKS TO EXPAND "PATRIOT" ACT

Fox News ^ | February 11, 2003 | Fox News

[mysterio]

JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The Patriot Act was passed by Congress in the weeks after the attacks of 9/11. The new law gave federal agencies sweeping new powers to stop terrorism. Now, Attorney General John Ashcroft says more is needed. Details of Patriot Act II just leaked, and already the debate is white hot, critics arguing the new law would be an unnecessary assault on our civil liberties.

[mysterio]

How did such a short sighted man ever become Attourney General? Why does Ashcroft want to declare martial law without actually declaring martial law? And what if Janet Reno had presented this legislation? I am unhappy with the views of this justice department on the Constitution.

[mysterio]

Also, my apologies if this particular article has been posted before. I did a search and saw similar articles, but not this specific one.

[FenianOfEire]

I thought Solzhenitsyn already wrote about the consequences of this type of legislation... "Gulag Archipelago"...

The first one was passed without the necessary vetting process, due to the heavy handedness of it's sponsors and beneficiaries, and the fact that all who opposed it were labled and blamed for the fresh wound of Sept. 11(who gained the most? by the way...). This is a power grab, and the citizenry has been duped by "Patriot"ism.

When the next attack hits, and for some reason they always do right before rigid anti-terrorism legislation is passed, this will pass just as easily, and with just as much consequence for the future of our republic...

terror bill pending, OKC, terror bill passed, RAND corp writing terror bill, 9-11, terror bill passed, terror bill leaked/pending... you do the math

[freeper12]

>>And what if Janet Reno had presented this legislation

Bingo...all the republicans that are giving a free pass to this administration on these infringements are going to regret it when these proposals become law, and then the next left wing administration(which no doubt will hapen eventually), suddenly declares that pro-life protestors are actually terrorists, and that your gun is a threat to national security....

[taxed2death]

How the hell can sombody spout off about the Constitution when GWB is practicing selective law enforcement by NOT protecting our borders? It kinda relegates that piece of paper to the roll of being a$$wipe. Has anyone seen a conservative President out there we can vote for next time around? This one's a phoney.

[Freebird Forever]

declares that pro-life protesters are actually terrorists

I'll do you one better. How 'bout anyone who owns a Bible? After all, according to the pervs, the Bible contains hate speech.

[Founding Father]

Welcome to George Bush's world--why drag it out--go ahead and give me my number and implant it for me. Will you control my thoughts too?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

But it only affects terrorists!

Does anyone still have the FBI list of who is a terrorist?
As I recall, most FReepers fit one category or another.

Carrying a pocket Constitution was one sign, an NRA sticker was another. Big cars, small cars, trucks, and bikes could all be terrorist's choice.

[mysterio]

Thank you, everyone. It's nice to see a thread that reminds of the old FR, where people would have screamed bloody murder if someone had tried to modify the Constitution without an Amendment the way Ashcroft has done/wants to do. Hopefully, the "my President, right or wrong" crowd will come around.

[mrsmith]

It's very disappointing to see lemmings on Free Republic who swallow these lies without any thinking or research.
Thankfully there are so few represented on this thread.

These are not suggestions from Ashcroft, these are suggestions TO Ashcroft from Justice Department staff.

"the government would have enough power to declare a person aided a terrorist organization, strip them of their American citizenship, and deport them without a trial, and without judicial review. "
What a stupid bald lie.
As stupid and crude as some of the suggestions in the staff's memo are, this is not in it.

[mysterio]

I was foolish once. I voted for Bush and supported Ashcroft's nomination. However, the results weren't all bad. I no longer support any party, and that means I don't have to make excuses for them when they go back on what they said they would do. I will be back soon with some analysis of this expansion of the "patriot" act.

[BenR2]

Ashcroft disappoints me.

[mysterio]

'Patriot 2' Raises Concerns for Civil Liberties Groups
Lawrence Morahan
Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - Legal watchdog groups that had concerns about the USA Patriot Act, a labyrinth anti-terrorism bill passed in the wake of 9/11, have even more concerns about its successor, the so-called USA Patriot 2.

"We thought Patriot 1 was bad enough; Patriot 2 seems to be even worse," said Lisa Dean, vice president of the Center for Technology Policy with the Free Congress Foundation.

Last week, the Center for Public Integrity released a draft "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," a confidential version of a bill that would grant the government sweeping new powers in intelligence gathering and surveillance.

The Justice Department's draft of a second round of law enforcement and domestic security measures would allow intelligence surveillance even when the government could not produce any evidence of a crime, legal analysts said.

John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said the massive USA Patriot Act, an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, "was one of the greatest invasions of civil liberties I've ever seen as an attorney."

However, "this latest volley from [Attorney General] John Ashcroft is very, very dangerous to civil liberties," Whitehead said. "It shows that Ashcroft doesn't care about the Bill of Rights."

Whitehead said his main concern was that the act proposes to strip U.S. citizens of their citizenship if they belong to or even support a designated foreign terrorist organization.

The new proposal allows for American citizens to be expatriated if they are convicted of giving material support to a group that's designated a terrorist organization.

"The definition for 'terrorist organization' is so large that it could include the National Rifle Association, Amnesty International and Greenpeace," Whitehead said.

In addition, suspects who don't cooperate with police in giving DNA samples, for example, can be charged with a misdemeanor.

The bill would create a new exemption to the Freedom of Information Act, which already allows the suppression of documents that might compromise national security, analysts said. It would leave the government less accountable and more prone to abuse, they said.

Under the proposal, the bill also would prohibit the release of names of people being detained on suspicion of terrorism. Releasing the names of terrorist suspects could alert other terrorists, the Justice Department contends.

Leading Democrats also condemned the proposed legislation. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said any sequel to the USA Patriot Act "should be open and accountable."

"It should not be shrouded in secrecy, steeped in unilateralism or tinged with partisanship," Leahy said in a statement.

"For months,...Justice Department officials have denied to members of the Judiciary Committee that they were drafting another anti-terrorism package. There still has not been any hint from them about their draft bill," he said.

"The contents of this proposal should be carefully reviewed, and the public must be allowed to freely engage in any debate about the merits of any new government powers the administration may seek," he said.

The Justice Department told the Center for Public Integrity, which leaked the document, that the bill contained no final proposals.

Dean said coalition groups concerned about civil liberties infringements in the draft bill will meet Friday to discuss an opposition strategy.

[Mulder]

Washington warned about organizing the political system into parties. For several years, I thought he was wrong since I belived the two-party system to work.

I know longer believe that to be the case. Both parties, at least at the top, believe in an expansionist government that does not recognize individual Rights. Just look at the parties over the last 50 years. The only time there was any real difference was in the early-to-mid 80s and in 1994.

I think that Washington's warning is being played out before our eyes. Legislative proposals are no longer judged on their merit, but who proposes them. If a demoncrat proposes A,B, and C, it's "bad". If a Republican proposes A,B, and C, it's "good".

That either means that people are stupid, or that a lot of them really do want a totalitarian police state, just so long as "their guy" is running it.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

Lies? Really? Why isn't Ashcroft denouncing this as a lie, then? Nobody in the administration proposes these things to Ashcroft if they think he is not going to support it. Quite the contrary; if they want to keep their jobs, they will cater to his desires, and not the other way around. If Ashcroft is a puppet, it is not to his underlings, it is to his superiors. But this current madness is entirely in keeping with Ashcroft's very, very, very bad track record.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

GIBSON: Right. But why do you find this so personally threatening? They're not going to come after you or me.

Ha ha! Translation: "I'm alright Jack; they'll come for you and me last, because we're beautiful people; besides, who cares if a few rednecks, towelheads, or left- and right-wing "extremists" lose their civil rights, get imprisoned for decades without being charged or tried, get tortured or deported, etc? Our job is to knuckle under, not to stand up for anything."

[THUNDER ROAD]

But this current madness is entirely in keeping with
Ashcroft's very, very, very bad track record.

Everything that has come down from the Justice Department
since Ashcroft took office has seemed to be
very, very, very, out of Character for this man.

Every time you see him delivering a statement on TV
he speaks as if someone was standing behind him,
keeping an eye on him, just out of Camera range,

He acts like someone , that when upon arriving in Washington.....
he was paid a Visit , from the Folks that Really Run Things up there......
and was told .........This is the Agenda......And the Way it's gonna be....
so forget whatever YOU might have had planned , and just Follow Orders !
.......a very, very, very, Troubled Looking Man .

.....THUNDER......

[Dan from Michigan]

I never thought we'd get Janet Reno pt II as AG here.

To say I'm disapointed in Ashcroft is an understatement.