Posted on 03/07/2003 10:14:33 PM PST by Commie Basher
===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: March 6, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone 202) 333-0008
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================
Sequel to USA Patriot Act is every tyrant's dream, Libertarians say.
WASHINGTON, DC -- Here's great news for everyone who supported the USA Patriot Act, Libertarians say: The Justice Department has secretly drafted follow-up legislation that would allow the government to make secret arrests, create a vast new DNA database of "suspected terrorists" and even strip Americans of their citizenship and deport them.
"If you liked the Patriot Act, you're going to love the sequel," said George Getz, Libertarian Party communications director. "Patriot II offers awesome government power, rapidly disappearing freedom, and an action-packed war on the Constitution. You'll be sitting on the edge of your seat as your liberties are stripped away."
The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (DSEA) – dubbed "Patriot II" because of its similarities to the USA Patriot Act – was secretly written by the Justice Department in January and has not yet been introduced in Congress. A draft of the legislation was leaked recently to the Center for Public Integrity and posted on its website.
"The original Patriot Act got rave reviews from authoritarians everywhere," Getz noted. "Rogue FBI agents conducting 'sneak-and-peak searches,' an e-mail spy scheme named Carnivore, secret deportations – this legislation was every petty tyrant's dream.
"It opened to a packed House – and Senate – in October 2001 and got a nearly unanimous 'thumbs up.' Clearly there's a market out there for less freedom, and Washington is rushing to cash in with a sequel."
The plot for Patriot II: A group of unscrupulous politicians in a large, Western democracy capitalize on a terrorist attack in order to vastly expand their powers. They embark on an effort to convince their subjects that by surrendering their freedom they will be protected from terrorists and other criminals.
Working along with a "Department of Justice," they subvert the Constitution by secretly crafting legislation that allows the government to:
* Make secret arrests, overturning a federal court decision requiring the government to identify persons detained in the 9/11 investigation.
* Issue secret subpoenas, and jail people who reveal to anyone except their attorney that they are the subject of a secret investigation.
* Strip citizens of their citizenship for associating with a group designated by the attorney general as a "terrorist organization," even if the individual's conduct is legal.
* Allow the attorney general to deport any foreigner, even a permanent legal resident, whose presence he deems "inconsistent with national security."
* Create a database of DNA collected from "suspected terrorists" and from non-citizens suspected of ordinary crimes.
* Conduct a wiretap for 15 days without a judge's approval, and monitor an individual's Internet and chat room visits for 48 hours without a court order.
* Overturn local court decrees that restrict police from illegal spying.
* Weaken the Freedom of Information Act to prevent journalists from learning who is being held in police custody.
Though Patriot II is expected to be a hit with politicians and much of the public, not everyone will be buying a ticket, Getz predicted.
"Libertarians and other freedom-loving Americans have panned Patriot II for obvious reasons," he said. "It's burdened by the same clichéd cast of characters as the original – a devious attorney general, an opportunistic president, and pandering politicians who hoodwink people into surrendering their freedom.
"Will anyone fall for this story line a second time?"
They came up with a new one this weekend; now the police supposedly shouldn't be able to frisk arrestees without a warrant.
Just when you think they couldn't be any further removed from reality, they come up with something loonier.
So federal courts shouldn't be able to interfere with state laws prohibiting abortion? Why the sudden change of heart?
Ok, maybe you could have been more clear about who that statement applied to. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that a pilot of a 747 with 20 years experience starting with B-52's who thinks he should be armed might take offense at that statement.
Per the comment on Maginot, constructing and then relying on a single, fixed fortification defense is dumb. On the other hand, layering defenses is smart and that's what a hardened cockpit door is - that's why they're finally getting around to doing it. Too bad it took 3000 lives for the dimwits in Congress, the FAA, and the greedy [expletives deleted] in the airline industry to finally get around to doing it. Hardening cockpit doors isn't rocket science or mind reading and the suggestion that it be done was posed 20+ years ago and quietly died because industry didn't want to foot the bill and the @#$%ups in Congress and the FAA didn't make sure it was done anyway - even if at tax payer expense. This is nothing more than a classic example of requiring X numbers of deaths before somebody decides to redirect funds from the mayor's idiot brother-in-law's salary to putting up a traffic light at a dangerous intersection. That's not what they get paid for and if that's the game they want to play, then their useless butts ought to be on the unemployment line at least, and the concept of criminal negligence for failure to perform due diligence comes to mind if the people responsible for overseeing airline security and safety weren't at least raising this issue at every opportune moment. The excuse that we never thought hijackers would enter the cockpit for whatever reason and that it never occurred to anybody that it would be a good idea to at least attempt to impede them from doing that wore out on hijacking #2.
The reason nobody raised the issue of cameras to watch the passenger compartment while they were wiring up all of those shopping cart spam screens on the backs of passenger seats is that it would have raised the question of "what for, to check out the babes in first class?" The answer to the "what for" question would have led to the question of what are the pilots going to do if they see 4 gorillas coming towards the cockpit door. Hmmmm, do we want to let the gorillas breeze right on in or do we want to at least attempt to keep them out or at least slow down their entry? And how are we going to keep them out when any 95 pound weakling can kick them in with one kick? Hmmmmm hardening those doors is pretty expensive, let's forget this whole idea, we have next quarter's financials to worry about....These aren't new questions, they were dismissed years ago for obvious reasons.
The fact that airliners were used as guided missiles is really not the point - the only difference between a routine hijacking and turning the plane into a guided missile being a matter of degree - 300 lives vs. X number of lives. The point is that hijackings are not new, virtually every hijacking to date ends with the hijackers in the cockpit, and any low-tech approach of layered defenses that would at least minimally slow down entry to the cockpit gives the pilots more alternatives. Arming the pilots and hardening the cockpit doors while certainly not a panacea, represent a simple layering of defenses toward that end - I can't see the objection to that unless someone holds a very low opinion of the pilots. The fact that it hasn't been done sooner is simply a matter of avarice/incompetence over public safety for which the people responsible should be held accountable lest this crap continue to happen.
2. State laws must conform
The usual self-contradiction.
BTW, where does Constitution state that the killings of the unborn are "individual liberties"?
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Samuel Adams
You forgot the sarcasm tag. Unless you were being serious. Were you? If so, BWAHAHA!
And of course like a good little Republican, you believed him.
Roger that.
Where does it "demand" that the states treat the killings of unborn babies as "individual liberties"?
Quote, don't beg.
You forgot to add "no matter how many innocent American citzens are inconvenienced or 'dissappeared'"
Not any more, if this ungodly act is passed
How many "dissappeared" on 9/11? Or isn't that covered by your talking points?
No, I was being quite series..
If you disagree, please tell me then: Which President since Reagan was more Conservative than Dubya?
Was it:
1) George Bush the elder?
OR
2) William Jefferson Clinton?
That's the single most impressive thing I think you ever posted.
And I like the idea, works for me.
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.