We don't logically need this act to fight terrorisim, and will it be abolished when the above map is cleaned up? Probably not. Secure all of our borders and make the fat cat agencies we have now- DO THEIR JOBS!
Posted on 03/14/2003 3:26:39 PM PST by B4Ranch
It would be a sure bet that the Ashcroft led U.S. Department of Justice would like to see both ends of the political spectrum come together in support of their "anti-terrorism" programs, but it would appear just the opposite is happening. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Bill of Rights Defense Council, are expressing concerns about the effect that the USA Patriot Act and a possible follow-up law, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, could have on civil liberties.
ABC news reports more than 60 towns, cities and counties around the country have passed resolutions criticizing the act, some going so far as to instruct municipal employees — including police — not to assist federal agents in investigations that they believe violate the Constitution.
Joining groups like the ACLU, right-leaning groups such as the American Conservative Union, the Eagle Forum and Gun Owners of America say they are concerned that American citizens could also be victimized by what they say are unconstitutional law enforcement powers allowed by the "Patriot" and this potential enhancement act.
The heart of the issue, according to conservatives, liberals and constitutional scholars, is the effect that USA Patriot has already had on issues of probable cause and due process, and that both of those concepts would be further eroded if the so-called Patriot II were adopted as it appears in the draft form. ABC also reported that according to what is in the draft, if adopted it would allow the Justice Department to wiretap a person for 15 days without a warrant; federal agents could secretly arrest people and provide no information to their family, the media or their attorney until charges are brought, no matter how long that took; and it would allow the government to strip Americans of their citizenship for even unknowingly helping a group that is connected to an organization deemed to be terrorist.
It would also make it a crime for people subpoenaed in connection with an investigation being carried out under the Patriot Act to alert Congress to any possible abuses committed by federal agents.
There is also no "sunset provision," which constitutional scholars say removes the element of congressional oversight and means lawmakers would have no way of compelling the Justice Department to prove that the powers provided in the act have not been abused.
"There's no question the government has to have the tools to protect us from terror attacks and to prosecute those who want to harm us," ACU Executive Director Stephen Thayer said, "But having said that, the American Conservative Union wants to be sure that Congress takes into account the civil liberties of the citizens and through their deliberations reaches the proper balance between law enforcement and protecting citizens' rights," he added.
Christopher Pyle, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer who served on the Church Committee, a Senate select committee that studied government intelligence gathering, put it a bit more forcefully.
"I don't think the Fourth Amendment exists anymore," said Pyle, a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College, referring to the amendment that prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and requires probable cause for a search or arrest. "I think it's been buried by the Patriot Act and some of the court rulings that have been handed down. We need a requiem mass for the Fourth Amendment, because it's gone."
Among the concerns Thayer said he has about the draft version of Patriot II are the broad expansion of surveillance and information-gathering powers, the granting of immunity to businesses and their personnel who provide information to anti-terrorism investigators even if the information is fraudulent, and the power to strip native-born Americans of their citizenship. Michael Hammond, a consultant with Gun Owners of America, which has more than 200,000 members, echoed those concerns, and said that the vague definition given to the term "terrorist" is extremely troubling.
"We have some serious concerns and part of our concerns spring from the fact that some of our members are part of the so-called militia movement," Hammond said. "We're looking into whether some of these groups or even the NRA [National Rifle Association] could be designated terrorists by this or a future administration."
It would certainly appear those of us who support the U.S. Constitution are in for a real storm. Those of you who are Bush supporters and believe these unconstitutional actions by the government are justified to fight terrorism, just imagine -if you will - these same powers in the hands of Hillary Clinton.
Copyright 2003 The Sierra Times
Nope. Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, can't joke about guns in an airport.
Anybody who doesn't realize these two things is an old coot, or stupid.
We don't logically need this act to fight terrorisim, and will it be abolished when the above map is cleaned up? Probably not. Secure all of our borders and make the fat cat agencies we have now- DO THEIR JOBS!
I am gratified to hear that they might need a warrant of some sort. My understanding is, they always get whatever warrant they ask for, anyway. The judges give them great leeway.
You know, my problem with all this is, it's never going to be sunsetted. It never ends. A war on an idea, like terrorism, cannot possibly be won. Ever. So the incremental march to totalitarianism will have plenty of time to accomplish its goals. 9-11 sure did damage America, in her heart. It was much more than 3000 dead and a few buildings. Samboa pig-laden knew some of us would flip out and initiate a police state.
Couldn't they have just said, "searching your wallet is necessary, we are under orders to look for sharp objects. We know there is no rifle in it.."??
Not if the government uses plants to test these people.
If a screener loses his job for letting a "sarcastic comment" about a gun pass, word gets around.
And, in reality, the old man could have zipped his lip to begin with.
Someone should put up a giant billboard. It could list all the EVIL words. Better still, just gag all old folks, retarded kids, kids, PMSing women, and disgruntled, delayed passengers.
I wonder if 'BAAaah' is ok?
It is a little sad, don't you think?
TO ALL: I gotta go for now, thanks for the interesting thread...
I've asked it at least 50 times in the last 15 months, and never get an answer."
What specific freedoms do you think you have lost in your personal life since enactment of the first Patroit Act, and in what specific respects are you less safe today then you were on, say, September 10, 2001 as a result of the passage of that Act?
I wish you had asked me because my concerns do not lie with what freedoms I have lost but with the POWERS GIVEN TO GOVERNMENT! This is what I find frightening.
If there had been an exclusion in the Patriot Act or in # II for American citizens I wouldn't find it so objectionable. Presuming you are an American citizen, married with four married children and this power was IN ERROR executed "; federal agents could secretly arrest people and provide no information to their family, the media or their attorney until charges are brought, no matter how long that took; and it would allow the government to strip Americans of their citizenship for even unknowingly helping a group that is connected to an organization deemed to be terrorist" against YOU.
Do you realize the concern that your wife, your four children, husbands and wives and grandchildren would go through? In effect you would be kidnapped by the government without a notice being given to the people who know you best, the very people who most likely would be able to provide you with an alibi or the foundation for an alibi.
In my mind these powers never should be authorized against an American citizen without a full and complete investigation, then a convincing appeal to at least eight judges who not afraid that they could be the next victim!
Granting these kinds of authority to our government totally abolishes the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and every other Bill that restrains the government! If you agree that government should be allowed to have this authority, then you should have lived in Germany or Russia before they reduced the government authority. Of course today, you could still live in China if you wish to live in fear of your government. I firmly believe that our government needs as many restraints against it as possible when it comes to dealing with it's own citizens.
DLfromthedesert is able to see this concern also. Why, so few of us are not wanting to live under a potential dictatorship I don't understand.
The Constitution doesn't prohibit reasonable searches and seizures, and I have seen nothing in the Patriot Act or its implementation that leads me to conclude that any of its procedures are unreasonable.
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
I'm starting to get the impression that you guys are the equivalent of the kid in the Bruce Willis movie who sees dead people that the rest of us don't see.
I too have a problem if they are not informed within some period of time (days or weeks, not months). But I can see some situations -- admittedly not many -- in which it is reasonable in light of all of the facts and circumstances of a particular case to delay a few days before informing the target of the search.
Consider the following example. Suppose we believe that person X is a member of a terrorist cell. If we search his laptop for evidence under a traditional search warrant, he will immediately alert the other cell members and they will disappear before we can discover who they are and arrest them. Under these facts, I think it would be reasonable to get a warrant to search his laptop without letting him know for some short period of time -- which we would use to arrest the other cell members using the information we retrieved from the laptop. The short delay hasn't prejudiced him in any way, but it enabled us to make the arrest that we otherwise would not have made.
I just can't see terrifying family members when it's not necessary. If the person is not a native American and the cops suspect the entire family is involved then I might be able to see more time, but not for native American citizens.
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.