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
I have a great idea for all you founder channelers.
Leave. Cancel your passports, and find your perfect country in a 21st century world since the vast majority of your fellow countrymen disagree with you.
Of course, you'll be stuck living in some 3rd world hellhole in a cabin equipped like Ted Kazinsky's (since amenities only come in advanced societies with predictable economies and judicial systems - not in anarchy).
Exactly. And it ought not matter if the public gripe is that Bush is too weak or that Bush is too strong, or that there will be war or not war enough, or that lives will be lost or that not enough lives will be lost. Anyone who becomes critical of our policies and who does not align with our President in this time of crisis needs to be closely scrutinized.
Well, you know what they say about stopped clocks, and for the fact that the devil mixes his lies with the truth.
One of the things that we are supposed to do with our faculty for reason and adaptation is to confront each new issue and challenge with solutions that work within the framework of American ideals - not lock ourselves into a death pact that confines us to reactive moves only.
In other words, hanging a terrorist after the fact brings scant comfort to his victims and does not dissuade his colleagues one iota - shutting him down in advance works one helluva lot better.
The entire administration of x42 is traitorous,
Illegals come and go with impunity,
Those that are caught or identified get their wrists slapped,
etc., etc.
I agree ... the facts of what is really happening don't seem to be threatening .... during this administration.
The next socialist however ... therein lies the problem.
The law was changed by the Patriot Act. I haven't found any of the Patriot Act incorporated into the Findlaw database. You'd think they would have included it by now!
I think the concerns you mentioned are very reasonable ones. A thirty day period for review after the first 90 days might be better, a final limit -say a generous one of even a year- would help.
I'm not sure exactly what "good cause" means as a legal term. There should certainly be a high standard of neccessity to continue withholding the notification.
The standards for withholding notification are in section 2705 of Title 18 if you wish to look at them.
Well, in this case, it's to say what is a "reasonable" search.
Our Founders, with their appreciation of the separation of powers, meant for that to be determined by our elected officials and the courts, rather than by a policeman.
I completely agree. Particularly, I share your and CJ's suspicion of ACLU-type solutions - part of what I was referring to in my post to him about mixing lies with the truth. Those types say that government shouldn't even be allowed to keep tabs on people from a distance. I recall hearing that it even got to the point, sometime in the 1970's, where the FBI was even forbidden to keep newspaper clippings on file of people they were trying to investigate (I wish I had a source for that). This type of stuff creates a frustrating polarization in the debate, whereby if you have any legitimate concerns about powers that government is claiming, you must be on the side of the anti-newspaper-clippers (which I think is what the ACLU wants).
I'm not an expert on security, but like I said earlier on the thread, if the law enforcement agencies already have authorization under the Constitution to do certain things, then there's no need for Congress to pass an act which allows them to do it. If the Constitution doesn't give them authorization to do these things, then any attempt to do so by statute would constitute a usurpation.
All that aside, my point in bringing up the Founders was that even if these things are justified in the name of security, they're also dangerous to liberty, and therefore it doesn't help matters any by calling anyone who raises those concerns a "Chicken Little".
Our Founders, with their appreciation of the separation of powers, meant for that to be determined by our elected officials and the courts, rather than by a policeman.
The courts I can see, but not Congress. The Constitution doesn't give them the power of interpretation. That's a uniquely judicial function.
That view has gone out of favor though with the court's long history of supremacy in the matter.
I suppose the present view is that the legislature can interpret but if the court disagrees the court wins.
The legislature does have a role to play in writing laws you know.
Here they are writing laws about "reasonable" searches.
That's exactly true. You won't find too many. That's called "sitting in judgment of its own cause". The legislature was to be restrained by the Constitution, not interpret its way out of those restraints.
The legislature does have a role to play in writing laws you know.
...within the limits prescribed by the Constitution. They're not allowed to write laws that in any way tinker with those limits.
Unfreakin'believable.
MAYBE the leftists will back our armed forces in unity once ground troops move in-but I doubt it. The leftists are for polls and showboating and their ideals ONLY!
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.