Should you be scared of the Patriot Act?

Slate ^ | September 8, 2003 | Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turner

[MissAmericanPie]

I am not for terrorist being able to hide behind our constitutional protections in order to attack. Having said that the congress, the senate, and the American people were lied to. WHY THE LIE?

Neither the congress or senate were presented with a full copy of the bill before being pressured to vote for it, why?

Why has the congress and senate become notorious for passing bills and treaties that they claim not to have taken the time to even read? And why are Americans not up in arms about this fact?

The worse parts of the Patriot Act do not sunshine in four years as advertised, the Patriot Act does not exclude American citizens. It's already being used in non terrorist cases. Given that we will be led blindly into the FTAA treaty, and international laws will over ride our Constitution, any attack on our civil liberties should be taken seriously.

All the Justice Dept and the authors of the Patriot Act had to do was exclude American citizens. There was a reason they didn't, and they acted in bad faith, so the bill should be scrapped and another passed in it's place.

[ableChair]

These propagandists are slick. That article if full of LIES. The Patriot Act does NOT read like the article suggests. It is clearly limited to, and focused upon, either foreign powers (and their agents) or U.S. citizens who are effectively and by definition treasonous. For example; A judge very much CAN deny a request to access public records as the act clearly states:
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.
The examples go on, but that article is dung. The only part that is accurate is the reference to how few people have actually read the act. I think the strong liberal opposition to the Act has more to do with their immigration friendly views more than anything else. It is certainly true that under the Patriot Act NON U.S. citizens will NOT be afforded all rights under the Constitution. But who cares?

[ableChair]

I was condensing the wording for clarity. The Act clearly specifies what U.S. citizens can be investigated in 'extra-constitutional' ways; to wit, only citizens operating in concert with foreign powers or their agents to undermine the U.S. government are subject to this Act. I could care less about the Constitutional rights of people like that. They might as well go to Afghanistan, pick up an AK and join the fight against the infidels. Yes, I concede some danger in a law like that, especially if the definition of "terrorism" is expanded (Patriot 2 - to which I'm opposed). There, "terrorism" gets expanded yet more to mean any act of aggression, clearly a ludicrous definition. I think that's a valid point.

[Sandy]

A judge very much CAN deny a request to access public records as the act clearly states: "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."

Oh good grief. What you're overlooking is the fact that there aren't any requirements.

[chachacha]

I know that and I suppose this was done by the same RINO Republicans such as those supporting Ah-Nold. I refer to them as the KNEE PAD type. Democrats are Evil!

[dread78645]

Ashcroft ... call the changes in law "modest and incremental."

Seems I've heard this phrase before.
-- Didn't much care for it then, either.

[Milligan]

I decided to look up Patriot Act 2 that was aborted in the draft stage. It's all legal mumble jumble but I sat down for fortyfive minutes and read the first 12 pages.

They write about foreign powers = international terrorism who want to bring harm to our shores. If you are a US citizen and if you decide to do something criminal - you are protected under the constitution. If your a foriegner and not a US citizen, your not protected under the constitution. So US citizens, if your worried about your e-mail and your right to privacy call the ACLU. Your a US citizen.

Terrorist organizations have used our legal system to their advantage by using our existing legal loop holes.
Legal loop holes are useful if your highly moblie with advance communications and knowing US laws. Our law enforcment agencies are technologically disadvantaged; they are trying to tackle international terrorism with telegraph wires, rotary phones and first generation computers!


Section 126 - Equal Access to Consumer Credit Report.

Did you know this?
Private business entities have a easier time getting into our credit rating because they have loophole; legitimate business needs. Federal agencies have a harder time getting into a foreign power=terrorist credit reports, they have to get a court order subponas for each place they intend to go: credit report agencies, suspect's creditors and the suspect's bank account. They wanted to create one subpona to do all three just like those private business entities who don't need one.

Section 128 - Federal government law enforcement agencies were able to get subponas for U.S. mail fraud but presently they are not allow to to get subponas for international terrorist activities happening our shores. I quess we can catch the terrorist when they do another 9/11.

Section 127 - Autopsy Authority. If a US citizen was murdered by a terrorist overseas, US authorities are not allowed to touch or pick up the body. They can't perform an an autopsy to see how the US citizen died and figure out who did it. Blast fragments could help to identify terrorist groups. Time and delays are on the terrorist side.

A federal judge can only issue out a search warrant for his district only. International terrorist used this loophole to freely move around our country to plot more terrorism. PA2 would allow a federal judge to issue a search warrant that would be good nation-wide.

After reading the first twelve pages, it sounds like commonsense to me. I think there is an active campaign to confuse the public and make them feel they are losing their civil liberites. Confusion helps the terrorist to continue what they want to do. To distory our way of life.

[jmc813]

Sorry, I'm afraid you'll have to link us to anything backing up your Ashcroft claim.

Ellery - I seem to recall you quoting Ashcroft speaking out against legislation similar to parts of the PATRIOT Act in his Senate days. Or am I thinking of another FReeper?

[ellery]

I think you're thinking of another FReeper -- but I too remember someone quoting that.

[mrsmith]

"there aren't any requirements. "
Yeah, there are.

215... "`(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); "

Executive Order 12333
"... 2.5 Attorney General Approval. The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. "

The court clearly holds that FISA requires probable cause: In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001
"FISA requires probable cause to believe the target is an agent of a foreign power"
(This opinion should be read by anyone who wishes to understand FISA- obviously this author hasn't bothered to.)

Now, I'm all for rewriting the law without the reference to the E.O., but right now the law states that probable cause is required by the judge.

[mrsmith]

The article's discussion of 218 is just garbage. Just garbage.

No mention that probable cause to believe the subject is an agent of a foreign power is required. The author strains to avoid that fact.

Again, see the FISA appeals court ruling I linked above.

[mrsmith]

The discussion of 213 is pretty fair.

"The Patriot Act expands the use of these warrants if "immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result." "

This is a glaring loophole. Congress needs to be more specific.

The article is certainly an improvement over what's been written about the Patriot Act.
But there's still a ways to go.

[inquest]

probable cause to believe the subject is an agent of a foreign power is required.

I've always understood "probable cause" to mean specifically, probable cause to believe that the subject has done (or, I suppose, is about to do) something illegal. Is there any kind of official word on what that phrase actually means?

[Milligan]

"Neither the congress or senate were presented with a full copy of the bill before being pressured to vote for it..."

I'm curious, I would like to know who came up with this claim. I looked up the US congress website and looked at the passed bills. They looked like they worked for 45 days on this Act.
Senate passed HR 3162, the USA Patriot Act on 10/25/01 incorporated with two early anti-terrorism bill HR2975 passed in the house 10/12/01 and S1510 which passed in the senate 10/11/01. Fiengold made three changes in S1510 which were approved by the senate on that same day. Provisions of HR 3004, the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act introduced 10/3/01 were incorporaated as Title III in HR3162.

Are you saying we have Congressmen and Senators who don't read anything that comes on their desk? I know they have staff and other's to assist them but it's hard to believe that our law makers wouldn't proof things before it was voted on... especially dealing with our national security.

[mrsmith]

"Probable cause" is a level of certainty- one of our legal types will probably provide a good definition of it.

When it comes to FISA, the "probable cause" is required for the belief that the target is an agent of a foreign power instead of for the belief that a crime is being committed.

From the "sealed case" link above (which has a lot on this):
"Title III allows a court to enter an ex parte order authorizing electronic surveillance if it determines on the basis of the facts submitted in the government’s application that “there is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit” a specified predicate offense. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(a). FISA by contrast requires a showing of probable cause that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. 50 U.S.C. § 1805(a)(3). We have noted, however, that where a U.S. person is involved, an “agent of a foreign power” is defined in terms of criminal activity.21 Admittedly, the definition of one category of U.S.- person agents of foreign powers–that is, persons engaged in espionage and clandestine intelligence activities for a foreign power–does not necessarily require a showing of an imminent violation of criminal law."

Madison's remark at the Constitutional Convention:
"leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks"
shows the constitutional "reasonableness" of this standard when dealing with foreign powers IMHO.

[MissAmericanPie]

They had parts of the act, but not all of it. There was alot of complaining that the bill in it's entirity had not been presented. Don't you remember the recent passing of the package of 34 U.N. treaties regarding our resources that the Senate passed with a voice vote and claimed not to have read? Hannity on Fox News quoted the U.N.'s statement as follows: "Due to their urban sprawl and SUV's the citizens of the United States have forfited their right to control their resources, someone had to take charge."

Both houses passed NAFTA and GATT without a full study of either. I saw a reporter ask one congressman if he had read the treaty and did he realize that GATT contains language that over rules the Constitution, the congressman looked like a deer caught in the headlights and stammered that "No, he had no idea that passage was included and therefore would not vote for it". Who knows if he kept his word as these things are passed with a voice vote. I think more attention needs to be placed on this practice of theirs. Seems to me they all want to be holding the "plausible deniability" card in their vest pocket.

[mrsmith]

During the debate the opponents of the Act said they had two copies of it.

It just isn't true that they didn't have any copies of it ( and they must have a thousand copying machines in the House).

It hurts the argument that they didn't give it enough consideration by saying so.

They argued about the thing for 5 weeks, it's reasonable to argue that wasn't enough consideration- or to argue that the few hours available to read the final version wasn't enough- but they did have copies of the Senate's version before they voted on it.

[Sandy]

"there aren't any requirements." Yeah, there are.

Not really though. Once the executive branch makes the proper application, the court must take it at its word as far as I can tell. The AG says there's probable cause, then that's the end of it as far as the court's concerned. The link you gave is good reading, but I think it deals with different FISA sections, not 1861/215.

[Sandy]

The article's discussion of 218 is just garbage. Just garbage. No mention that probable cause to believe the subject is an agent of a foreign power is required. The author strains to avoid that fact.

But they do say, "the target had to be 'linked to foreign espionage.' In theory, American citizens were safe unless they were suspected 'agents of a foreign power.'" That's close.

The article is certainly an improvement over what's been written about the Patriot Act.

I agree. I like the way they explain the law in a before/after format. And I think they're really trying to be objective about the thing. Parts 3 and 4 aren't out yet; I'll post them when they are.