4 myths about the Patriot Act

[Mr.Vicchio]

Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act “expands terrorism laws to include ‘domestic terrorism’ which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy.” They also claim that it includes a “provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as ‘domestic terrorism.’” (ACLU, February 11, 2003; ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor in “UnPATRIOTic,” National Journal, August 4, 2003)

Reality: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. “Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy” without breaking laws cannot be targeted. Peaceful political discourse and dissent is one of America’s most cherished freedoms, and is not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of “domestic terrorism” is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Therefore, peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy will obviously not come under this definition. (Patriot Act, Section 802)



Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act provision about delayed notification search warrants “would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. . . . This provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States.“ (ACLU, October 23, 2001)

Reality: The Patriot Act specifically protects Americans’ First Amendment rights, and terrorism investigators have no interest in the library habits of ordinary Americans. Historically, terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. If terrorists or spies use libraries, we should not allow them to become safe havens for their terrorist or clandestine activities. The Patriot Act ensures that business records — whether from a library or any other business — can be obtained in national security investigations with the permission of a federal judge.

Examining business records often provides the key that investigators are looking for to solve a wide range of crimes. Investigators might seek select records from hardware stores or chemical plants, for example, to find out who bought materials to make a bomb, or bank records to see who’s sending money to terrorists. Law enforcement authorities have always been able to obtain business records in criminal cases through grand jury subpoenas, and continue to do so in national security cases where appropriate. In a recent domestic terrorism case, for example, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that a suspect had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying the suspect as the bomber.

In national security cases where use of the grand jury process was not appropriate, investigators previously had limited tools at their disposal to obtain certain business records. Under the Patriot Act, the government can now ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), if needed to aid an investigation, to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas. This federal court, however, can issue these orders only after the government demonstrates the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a U.S. person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment.

Congress reviews the government’s use of business records under the Act. Every six months, the Attorney General must “fully inform” Congress on how it has been implemented. On October 17, 2002, the House Judiciary Committee issued a press release indicating it is satisfied with the Department’s use of section 215: “The Committee’s review of classified information related to FISA orders for tangible records, such as library records, has not given rise to any concern that the authority is being misused or abused.”



Myth: “Suspects convicted of no crime may be detained indefinitely in 6 month increments without meaningful judicial review.” [ACLU, Feb. 11, 2003]


Reality: Delayed notification search warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography. The Patriot Act simply codified the authority law enforcement had already had for decades. This tool is a vital aspect of our strategy of prevention – detecting and incapacitating terrorists before they are able to strike.

In some cases if criminals are tipped off too early to an investigation, they might flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses, cut off contact with associates, or take other action to evade arrest. Therefore, federal courts in narrow circumstances long have allowed law enforcement to delay for a limited time when the subject is told that a judicially-approved search warrant has been executed. This tool can be used only with a court order, in extremely narrow circumstances when immediate notification may result in death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or serious jeopardy to an investigation. The reasonable delay gives law enforcement time to identify the criminal’s associates, eliminate immediate threats to our communities, and coordinate the arrests of multiple individuals without tipping them off beforehand. In all cases, law enforcement must give notice that property has been searched or seized.

The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized “that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant.” In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was “frivolous.” Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979)


Myth: “It expands the government’s ability to search private property without notice to the owner.” [ACLU, Apr. 3, 2003]

Reality:


Forfeiture under section 806 is authorized only in narrow circumstances. The subject must be engaged in conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law; (2) involves violence or the risk of death; and (3) is committed with a terrorist intent.

Prior law did not specifically authorize the confiscation of terrorist assets. Instead, forfeiture was authorized only in narrow circumstances for the “proceeds” of murder, arson, and some terrorism offenses. But most terrorism offenses do not yield proceeds, and available forfeiture laws required detailed tracing that is difficult for accounts coming through the banks of countries used by many terrorists.

Section 806 increases our ability to strike at terrorists’ economic base by permitting the forfeiture of their property regardless of the source of the property, and regardless of whether the property has actually been used to commit a terrorism offense.

Section 806 is similar to the forfeiture previously available under RICO. In parity with the drug forfeiture laws, the section also authorizes the forfeiture of property used or intended to be used to facilitate a terrorist act, regardless of its source.

As of April 1, 2003, the Department has not yet used section 806. In most cases, it has not been necessary for the Department to seek forfeiture under this provision, because the suspects’ assets already had been frozen by the Treasury Department.

Source

[Milton Bradley]

Well, this is yet more evidence of the direction we are heading.


http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2...483/detail.html


All new legislation moves away from freedom, and away from the constitution, in an attempt to reduce the power of the citizen. The very last sentence says it all. They want this law to stand in place of the constitution, which already covers this very subject. I believe that would be your Fourth ammendent rights being usurped, correct?


I guess it just depends on who you are going to believe. If you wish to believe the very government ramming this stuff up your butt, be my guest.


I suspect other of us here are a little wiser than that.

[Milton Bradley]

My entire opnion on this subject was voiced by Benjamin Franklin before I was even born when he said" a man that would trade a measure of liberty for a measure of security, deserves neither".



Of course he had also been in a major battle with people who thought that the government should act as the conscience of the people. I , like Ben happen to subscibe to the virtues of individual liberty, and individual responsibility. My favorite analogy about this topic is as follows.



Why should the majority have to give up freedoms to idiot proof the world, when the responsibility of raising a non-idiot lies with the parents. When you decide to bring a child into the world, it is your responsibility to make sure they are not a threat to society, not the other way around. Unfortunately, many people feel the other way, and thus political correctness was born.



These are also the people who would tell you that the akchohol/drug addict is not responsible for their situation, the substance abused is. This I believe is akin to thinking the the gun commits the crime, not the man. Preposterous!



There will never be any gaurantee of personal safety. We were however gauanteed personal liberty. Many people gave their lives to protect the freedoms we were given, to give them up would be unthinkable.



Freedom or bust!

[Osborn F Enready]

Allegations of Pat Act Abuses...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/...ain564189.shtml

http://freetotravel.org/cid.html

http://www.gamersnook.com/blog/archives/000455.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1125-07.htm

http://www.russoforpresident.com/issues.php?id=24

http://www.lisnews.com/article.pl?sid=03/11/29/2237251

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...EDGL626TD81.DTL

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/]

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Te...ot_analysis.php

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFre...?ID=12126&c=207

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/national/10PROT.html (need to register Free with NY Times to read that one)


Let me know if you would like more, there are MANY MORE TO LIST IF YOU LIKE!

The bad thing is, just like most movies, the sequel "Patriot Act II" promises to be more of everything we didn't like about the first one.

[Suburbanite]

Defending the Patriot Act has to be the most UNconservative thing to do. These guys used to be all about people's rights. In the south they worry about the "Government" getting into their homes, which is why they have Guns, but Bush makes it easier for that to happen and they all passively smile.

[PatrickHenry]

Vicchio, your source for defending this piece of statist legislation to grab your rights away is the state itself! You don't appreciate individual freedom, do you? In the confrontation between the rights of the individual and the power of the state, you come in on the state's side. This is no different from the approach of the Nazi/fascists and the commies, whom you profess to hate(socialism). I can't figure how you think. You are a mystery, boy.

[Suburbanite]

it is called "party-line thinking" I believe

Originally posted by Milton Bradley, My entire opnion on this subject was voiced by Benjamin Franklin before I was even born when he said" a man that would trade a measure of liberty for a measure of security, deserves neither". Of course he had also been in a major battle with people who thought that the government should act as the conscience of the people. I , like Ben happen to subscibe to the virtues of individual liberty, and individual responsibility. My favorite analogy about this topic is as follows. Why should the majority have to give up freedoms to idiot proof the world, when the responsibility of raising a non-idiot lies with the parents. When you decide to bring a child into the world, it is your responsibility to make sure they are not a threat to society, not the other way around. Unfortunately, many people feel the other way, and thus political correctness was born. These are also the people who would tell you that the akchohol/drug addict is not responsible for their situation, the substance abused is. This I believe is akin to thinking the the gun commits the crime, not the man. Preposterous! There will never be any gaurantee of personal safety. We were however gauanteed personal liberty. Many people gave their lives to protect the freedoms we were given, to give them up would be unthinkable. Freedom or bust!

Milton, who then protects the people from the children whos parents did not teach them from right and wrong? I am totally against political correctness, the problem is just as clear to me as watching feminism ride the victim status train into the 21st century on the coat tails of the truly oppressed in past history, IE:Native Americans and Blacks. You will always find some sick cause to cling onto a sound ideology like mold on day old bread. PC rhetoric is with us and it sticks like glue. Recognizing that there is a problem in todays society of inaccountability is a good thing, just don't forget that SOMEONE has to make an effort to reign in the flock, because the flock will kill itself off otherwise. These are the measures we have to take, the price paid for being a democracy, having open borders and welcoming in the people who supposedly WANT to live in a democracy, to leave their homeland where their lives where oppressive, full of sorrow and no hope.

Fact is, we forget, the queen of England, she doesn't want to move to the US, does she? No, only her poor, downtrodden and criminally oriented do. This goes for all who come into the US. We accept everybody, when the crap hits the fan we all have to endure the measures taken to ensure this remains a safe haven for all who live here. We have no idea what it is like to have war faught on our soil the way the middle east does, and hopefully we never will. This cannot be a benifit we enjoy without a little sacrifice, I'll take the sacrifice that Ben Franklin calls me a fool for than tolerate what the people of Iraq have had to endure under Saddams regime. The world is not the same place it was when Franklin was around.

[Mia]

Funny, the same people who are for the Patriot Act are the ones against the way Syria runs it's government. Guess what? The Patriot Act is getting us closer to their way.

The civil liberties they lack all directly relate to security and keeping Assad's thumb on terrorists and other threats to national security.

"You have nothing to worry about as long as you are a law-abiding citizen....."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............................

Originally posted by roxdog, Mr. V, What a sad piece of propaganda. Of course, if we had angels running our "security" and intel organizations, The "Patriot" Act would be great. But we don't. History proves it. You're apologizing for tyranny.

V, the whole reason the government didn't have these powers all along is we the people don't want them to, and they are prohibited by the constitution. And with good reason. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No matter how "good" the people you put in these positions, the likelihood of abuse is staggering.

I was in favor of the Patriot Act at first. What do I have to worry about? I don't break the law. I'm not a terrorist nor do I consort with them. If they want to read me e-mail in their quest to hunt down threats to my safety, I guess I'll live.

But then I remembered what I wrote above. They had all they needed to prevent 9/11. There wasn't a lack of ability to communicate between agencies, and that wasn't the problem. Individual people chose to ignore information that was gathered.

So no matter how much we increase their ability to garner information, it won't do any good if they don't know what to do with it.

The focus should be on the agencies doing a better job with the information collected through appropriate ways instead of stipping everyone of more rights for no reason.

[dotcoma]

Mr. V,

What a sad piece of propaganda. Of course, if we had angels running our "security" and intel organizations, The "Patriot" Act would be great. But we don't. History proves it. You're apologizing for tyranny.

[Mr.Vicchio]

No.. I am trying to bring something more then "OMG MY CIVIL RIGHTS ARE BEING STOLEN! ITS THE NWO! ITS.. ITS..."

I give you specifics, you guys against it give me what if fears.

YES the PA could be abused. I would not argue that.

But it has oversight, sunset provisions, and congressional oversight.

Its that or do nothing and watch more Americans DIE to terroist.

You have to have some trust in ones govenrment. If you don't try to change the people in power through voting. But fear mongering and "what ifs" do little to sway my opinion.

[dotcoma]

You have to have some trust in ones government

Oh really? Why? History would say you are dead wrong. So would the founding fathers. So would the prison labor in China. So would the 50 million that died in Stalin's gulags. And considering that the US has played the part of the battery that has fueled these crimes against humanity, it's not completely unfounded to believe that the chicken is coming home to roost.

Its that or do nothing and watch more Americans DIE to terrorist

Oh, I see. It's shred the constitution or die, huh? Do you know what Ben Franklin would say to that? You don't deserve freedom OR security. You have melted into their hands quite nicely, I must say.

I give you specifics

You gave us a propaganda placement article that soft peddles the destruction of our Republic at the hands of an illegitimate government that you are pledging allegiance to.

[Mia]

V, you neglected to respond to the direct refutation of the need for this to get terrorists. Additionally, you ignored the cases of abuse that have already taken place.

[Osborn F Enready]

Mr Vicchio, you just said "But it has oversight, sunset provisions, and congressional oversight."

So, would you believe CONGRESS if THEY told you there was a conspiracy?? Would you like to hear the words FROM THEIR MOUTH?

Allow me to give you the chance....circa 1973!!!
http://www.freedomsite.net/93-549.htm

Do you feel any better NOW?!?

PEOPLE, the GOVERNMENT IS TELLING YOU, HOW THEY ARE SCREWING YOU, yet when people point this out, SOME STILL cannot grasp that these are FACTS, PROVABLE, AND IRREFUTABLE!

[Milton Bradley]

Milton, who then protects the people from the children whos parents did not teach them from right and wrong?[/quote]


I would assume that the courts would protect those people, but that would be a huge assumption on my part.


Perhaps you could buy a gun, and protect yourself.


The government was never authorized to act in the manner thaat they are, so history will have to be our guide. Remember when America was great? It could return to greatness if we could return to constitutional government, and not until.


This is not currently the "Republic" that I swore MY allllegience too. When constitutional government ceased, so did my allegience to it.

[Osborn F Enready]

Great post Milty!