Posted on 01/21/2002 7:55:15 AM PST by white trash redneck
Civil Liberties Groups Challenge USA Patriot Act
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
January 21, 2002
(CNSNews.com) - Three months after President Bush signed into law the controversial USA Patriot Act of 2001, a labyrinth anti-terrorism bill passed in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, many of the bill's provisions are coming under intense fire from civil liberties groups.
In the latest barrage, John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, called the Act the "get out of jail free card for the government."
"It's the bureaucrat's dream in terms of what can be done under it," said Whitehead, a constitutional watchdog and author of "Forfeiting 'Enduring Freedom' for 'Homeland Security,'" an analysis of the Justice Department's anti-terrorism initiatives.
Some provisions of the Patriot Act dealt a blow to civil liberties, especially the right to privacy in online communications, legal analysts reported. The measure also expanded the availability of subpoenas and wiretaps, permitting the execution of search warrants without advance notice and allowing for deportation of aliens without due process.
Lawmakers passed the Act, an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism," immediately after Sept. 11, and before the full text of the proposal was available to lawmakers.
Moreover, lawmakers did not take sufficient time to debate or hear testimony from experts outside of law enforcement in the fields where it makes major changes, analysts said.
"This thing was put together so quickly after 9-11, when there was hysteria and congressmen were afraid to say anything against it," Whitehead said. "There wasn't any debate on this subject."
The act unnecessarily impinges upon Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure violations because it significantly changes how search warrants are executed, Whitehead said. Previously, the government needed a warrant before law enforcement officials could enter a house and search an individual's property and documents.
Now police can delay giving notice when conducting searches in any criminal case, allowing them to search homes and offices when the occupants are not there and telling them about it after the fact.
In a sweeping anti-terrorism campaign after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Justice Department rounded up more than 1,200 people - mostly of Middle Eastern descent.
Several civil rights groups and a few members of Congress have questioned the constitutionality of detentions and asked whether anti-terrorism tactics adopted by the department have been appropriate. Others have questioned how those being detained have been treated.
Constitutional Challenges Expected
After the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, Congress passed an anti-terrorism bill, much of which was thrown out by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional, said J. Bradley Jansen, deputy director of the Center for Technology Policy with the Free Congress Foundation, and an expert on the Patriot Act.
"So I suspect that there will be constitutional challenges to many parts of this," added Jansen, who heads a coalition of conservative groups that are studying provisions of the bill together with Justice Department officials. The group is conducting an analysis of the entire bill and expects to make recommendations based on their findings by mid-February.
"It was a very large, substantive bill that changed very, very quickly in a very short period of time," Jansen said. "Now that the dust has finally settled, we've all kind of taken a step back and we're ... going through methodically all of the changes that it did make and what those mean."
Military Tribunals Not Part of Patriot Act
Military tribunals designed to try suspected terrorists would require a unanimous vote on death sentences and allow for an appeals process, and would have no connection with the Patriot Act, legal analysts reported.
President Bush's order authorizing military tribunals to detain and try foreign nationals accused of committing terrorist acts against the United States unleashed a firestorm of criticism, most of it suggesting that military trials grossly violate the U.S.'s commitment to civil rights and civil liberties.
"I don't know what people think foreign terrorists require, but the kind of trial foreign terrorists will get before any military tribunal is far fairer than they would get in any court in their own country," commented Thomas L. Jipping, vice president for Legal Policy with the Free Congress Foundation.
Jipping pointed out, however, that concerns about the Patriot Act have to do with domestic liberties and U.S. citizens' privacy, while military tribunals aren't intended for U.S. citizens at all.
"Concern about the Patriot Act really has as much to do with its impact on our privacy after the war is over as it does the way it's being used right now, whereas military tribunals are only used in wartime and are irrelevant to peacetime," he said.
Whitehead said he did not oppose military tribunals in principle. "The military tribunal is probably appropriate as long as it provides adequate safeguards for appeal," he said.
I guess since you're innocent you won't mind if I come over and rifle through you sh*t secretly?
Your trust in the government is mind-bogglingly scary.
Baaaaaa.
1) We are not at war.
2) Our "society" is threatened far worse when liberty and rights are stomped upon.
Hogwash. Can I steal from you if you do not notice? Can I rape someone in a coma?
A properly built gallows accomidates even and odd numbers with equal ease.
Call your Congressman and ask for a copy of the Bill.
What the HELL did Bush think he was doing?
You're either playing devils advocate, never read any of our founding documents or are in second grade and wandered off the Disney site.
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.