Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty

You are skilled in dodging a very simple question. Ive seen this question many times and have never seen an answer. The classic reply is : "You are a Republican and, therefore, a dolt. I wont waste my energy trying to explain something that you are obviously incapable of understanding. Goodbye." This attitude might be funny if it wasnt so common.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I am interested to know what liberties you have lost, too. It is thrown out as if it's really happened--you actually say it's being chipped away into nonexistence!!

Can you at least point to a few chips?
And, what pray tell, is a "crucifying frenzy"?

I think you're overwrought. You'll feel better if you'll stop reading that weird tripe that passes for mainstream Democrat rhetoric.

Another blind one.

Crucifying frenzy? One of the earliest crucifying frenzies came when the mob cried out, "Let him be crucified." Pontius Pilate simply washed his hands of the injustice, just like you allow your willful blindness to justify your claimed ignorance.

Educate yourself concerning the patriot act, the torture memos, the geneva convention, gay bashing, the bombings of abortion clinics. There are tons of people in this country who adamently support the eviseration of OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.

If you truly wanted to educate yourself concerning liberty and government action that chips away at liberty -- you would do so. You're just unwilling to educate yourself. You're unwilling to stand up for the freedom of ALL.

Case in point: Rush Limbaugh could care less about the right to privacy -- the right to be free from unreasonable government intrusions in people's lives -- UNTIL the government intruded into his life and seized his private medical records.

See Limbaugh to get legal boost from group he's often ripped

Like Rush Limbaugh, I don't expect you to open your eyes and care about civil rights and the eviseration of civil rights in this country until you are personally affected by an invasion into your rights. Then I expect that you'll cry foul -- by then it might be too late . . .

0 Replies

Debra, you have been asked several times now whether you personally have lost any liberties. I didn't see that you answered any of those questions.

Maybe you could "educate" those of us you consider "blind," rather than merely (and conveniently) stating that we ought to educate ourselves concerning "liberty and government action that chips away at liberty."

I consider myself fairly educated. That being said, I am still interested to hear what liberties you yourself have lost since Bush has been elected, if any.

0 Replies

Hmmm - I haven't read this thread yet - so I am unsur eif the liberties being discussed are only those of Americans.

However, I would consider the changes to US policy on the use of torture, plus the "legal" gymnastics your government has gone through in order to deny your current terrorist suspects (or whatever the hell someone has to do in Iraq to get arrested - which seems not to be a lot) any legal standing to be curtailment of the liberties of others.

Any comments on this?

I won't get into the whole invasion thing - that has been argued out ad nauseum everywhere.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra, you have been asked several times now whether you personally have lost any liberties. I didn't see that you answered any of those questions.

Maybe you could "educate" those of us you consider "blind," rather than merely (and conveniently) stating that we ought to educate ourselves concerning "liberty and government action that chips away at liberty."

I consider myself fairly educated. That being said, I am still interested to hear what liberties you yourself have lost since Bush has been elected, if any.

I personally have experienced MANY violations of my civil rights in retaliation for my efforts to gain access the courts, petition the government for redress of grievances, and to speak out against injustice on behalf of clients. I could write a book -- several inches thick on what I have personally experienced.

What YOU fail to grasp is that freedom for one is freedom for all. Even if YOU personally (to your knowledge, anyway) have not been subjected to governmental intrusion into your private life or subjected to violations of your constitutionally protected rights -- if YOUR NEIGHBOR or a stranger down the street or a citizen who lives across the country has his/her rights violated -- you should be outraged. YOU OUGHT TO EDUCATE YOURSELF. But you don't care enough to educate yourself -- you demand that I educate you.

I can post thousands of links telling countless stories about ordinary people who have had their civil rights trampled upon. I can post thousands of links to violations of civil rights related to the enforcement of the Patriot Act.

Here's an introduction to the ACLU analysis of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, also known as PATRIOT Act II:

Quote:

To: Interested Persons
From: Timothy H. Edgar, Legislative Counsel
Date: February 14, 2003
Re: Section-by-Section Analysis of Justice Department draft “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003,” also known as “Patriot Act II”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been drafting comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation for the past several months. The draft legislation, dated January 9, 2003, grants sweeping powers to the government, eliminating or weakening many of the checks and balances that remained on government surveillance, wiretapping, detention and criminal prosecution even after passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. No. 107-56, in 2001.

Among its most severe problems, the bill

Diminishes personal privacy by removing checks on government power, specifically by

Making it easier for the government to initiate surveillance and wiretapping of U.S. citizens under the authority of the shadowy, top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (Sections 101, 102 and 107)

Permitting the government, under certain circumstances, to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court altogether and conduct warrantless wiretaps and searches. (Sections 103 and 104)

Sheltering federal agents engaged in illegal surveillance without a court order from criminal prosecution if they are following orders of high Executive Branch officials. (Section 106)

Creating a new category of “domestic security surveillance” that permits electronic eavesdropping of entirely domestic activity under looser standards than are provided for ordinary criminal surveillance under Title III. (Section 122)

Using an overbroad definition of terrorism that could cover some protest tactics such as those used by Operation Rescue or protesters at Vieques Island, Puerto Rico as a new predicate for criminal wiretapping and other electronic surveillance. (Sections 120 and 121)

Providing for general surveillance orders covering multiple functions of high tech devices, and by further expanding pen register and trap and trace authority for intelligence surveillance of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. (Sections 107 and 124)

Creating a new, separate crime of using encryption technology that could add five years to any sentence for crimes committed with a computer. (Section 404)

Expanding nationwide search warrants so they do not have to meet even the broad definition of terrorism in the USA PATRIOT Act. (Section 125)
Giving the government secret access to credit reports without consent and without judicial process. (Section 126)

Enhancing the government’s ability to obtain sensitive information without prior judicial approval by creating administrative subpoenas and providing new penalties for failure to comply with written demands for records. (Sections 128 and 129)

Allowing for the sampling and cataloguing of innocent Americans’ genetic information without court order and without consent. (Sections 301-306)
Permitting, without any connection to anti-terrorism efforts, sensitive personal information about U.S. citizens to be shared with local and state law enforcement. (Section 311)

Terminating court-approved limits on police spying, which were initially put in place to prevent McCarthy-style law enforcement persecution based on political or religious affiliation. (Section 312)

Permitting searches, wiretaps and surveillance of United States citizens on behalf of foreign governments – including dictatorships and human rights abusers – in the absence of Senate-approved treaties. (Sections 321-22)

Diminishes public accountability by increasing government secrecy; specifically, by

Authorizing secret arrests in immigration and other cases, such as material witness warrants, where the detained person is not criminally charged. (Section 201)

Threatening public health by severely restricting access to crucial information about environmental health risks posed by facilities that use dangerous chemicals. (Section 202)

Harming fair trial rights for American citizens and other defendants by limiting defense attorneys from challenging the use of secret evidence in criminal cases. (Section 204)

Gagging grand jury witnesses in terrorism cases to bar them from discussing their testimony with the media or the general public, thus preventing them from defending themselves against rumor-mongering and denying the public information it has a right to receive under the First Amendment. (Section 206)

Diminishes corporate accountability under the pretext of fighting terrorism; specifically, by

Granting immunity to businesses that provide information to the government in terrorism investigations, even if their actions are taken with disregard for their customers’ privacy or other rights and show reckless disregard for the truth. Such immunity could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft’s “Operation TIPS.” (Section 313)

Undermines fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under overbroad definitions of “terrorism” and “terrorist organization” or under a terrorism pretext; specifically by

Stripping even native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship if they provide support to unpopular organizations labeled as terrorist by our government, even if they support only the lawful activities of such organizations, allowing them to be indefinitely imprisoned in their own country as undocumented aliens. (Section 501)

Creating 15 new death penalties, including a new death penalty for “terrorism” under a definition which could cover acts of protest such as those used by Operation Rescue or protesters at Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, if death results. (Section 411)

Further criminalizing association – without any intent to commit specific terrorism crimes – by broadening the crime of providing material support to terrorism, even if support is not given to any organization listed as a terrorist organization by the government. (Section 402)

Permitting arrests and extraditions of Americans to any foreign country – including those whose governments do not respect the rule of law or human rights – in the absence of a Senate-approved treaty and without allowing an American judge to consider the extraditing country’s legal system or human rights record. (Section 322)

Unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism; specifically by

Undercutting trust between police departments and immigrant communities by opening sensitive visa files to local police for the enforcement of complex immigration laws. (Section 311)

Targeting undocumented workers with extended jail terms for common immigration offenses. (Section 502)

Providing for summary deportations without evidence of crime, criminal intent or terrorism, even of lawful permanent residents, whom the Attorney General says are a threat to national security. (Section 503)

Completely abolishing fair hearings for lawful permanent residents convicted of even minor criminal offenses through a retroactive “expedited removal” procedure, and preventing any court from questioning the government’s unlawful actions by explicitly exempting these cases from habeas corpus review. Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus -- a protection guaranteed by the Constitution -- since the Civil War. (Section 504)

Allowing the Attorney General to deport an immigrant to any country in the world, even if there is no effective government in such a country. (Section 506)

Given the bipartisan controversy that has arisen in the past from DOJ’s attempts to weaken basic checks and balances that protect personal privacy and liberty, the DOJ’s reluctance to share the draft legislation is perhaps understandable. The DOJ’s highly one-sided section-by-section analysis reveals the Administration’s strategy is to minimize far-reaching changes in basic powers, as it did in seeking passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, by characterizing them as minor tinkering with statutory language designed to bring government surveillance authorities, detention and deportation powers, and criminal penalties “up to date.”

This ACLU section-by-section analysis of the text of the legislation, however, reveals that the DOJ’s modest descriptions of the powers it is seeking, and the actual scope of the authorities it seeks, are miles apart. The USA PATRIOT Act undercut many of the traditional checks and balances on government power. The new draft legislation threatens to fundamentally alter the constitutional protections that allow us as Americans to be both safe and free. If adopted, the bill would diminish personal privacy by removing important checks on government surveillance authority, reduce the accountability of government to the public by increasing government secrecy, further undermine fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under an already overbroad definition of “terrorism,” and seriously erode the right of all persons to due process of law.

Our detailed section-by-section analysis follows.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206

Quote:

Statement on H.R. 2417
Statement by the President

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 2417, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004." The Act authorizes funding for United States intelligence activities, including activities in the war against terrorists of global reach.

Section 506A(c) of the National Security Act of 1947, as enacted by section 312(b) of the Act, purports to require the President to request that the Congress enact laws appropriating funding for a major intelligence system procurement in an amount set as a cost estimate by an entity subordinate to the President or to explain why the President instead requests amounts below those levels. Moreover, beginning with the submittal to the Congress of the President's budget for FY 2006, section 312(d)(2) of H.R. 2417 purports to condition the obligation or expenditure of funds for development or procurement of a major intelligence system on the President's compliance with the requirements of section 506A. The executive branch shall construe these provisions in a manner consistent with the Constitution's commitment to the President of exclusive authority to submit for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President judges necessary and expedient and to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair the deliberative processes of the Executive or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

Section 341(b) purports to require the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence, acting through particular offices subordinate to them respectively, to establish certain policies and procedures relating to espionage prosecutions. The executive branch shall implement this provision in a manner consistent with the authority committed exclusively to the President by the Constitution to faithfully execute the laws and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Similarly, sections 1102(a) and 1102(c) of the National Security Act, as enacted by section 341(a) of the Act, purport to mandate that the Director of Central Intelligence use or act through the Office of National Counterintelligence Executive to establish and implement an inspection process for all agencies and departments of the U.S. Government that handle classified information. The executive branch shall implement this provision in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.

The executive branch shall construe and implement section 376 of the Act, relating to making available classified information to courts, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security and consistent with the statutory authority of the Attorney General for the conduct of litigation for the United States.

Many provisions of the Act, including section 106 and subtitle D of title III of the Act, seek to require the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress on various subjects. The executive branch shall construe the provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall implement section 319 of the Act in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Section 502 purports to place restrictions on use of the U.S. Armed Forces and other personnel in certain operations. The executive branch shall construe the restrictions -in section 502 as advisory in nature, so that the provisions are consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch.

Section 106 enacts by reference certain requirements set forth in the joint explanatory statement of the House-Senate committee of conference or in a classified annex. The executive branch continues to discourage this practice of enacting secret laws and encourages instead appropriate non-binding uses of classified schedules of authorizations, classified annexes to committee reports, and joint statements of managers that accompany the final legislation.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 13, 2003.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031213-3.html

Quote:

Bush signs bill extending FBI powers

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has signed legislation making it easier for FBI agents investigating terrorism to demand financial records from casinos, car dealerships, and other businesses.

The changes were included in a bill authorizing 2004 intelligence programs. Most of the details of the bill are secret, including the total cost of the programs, which are estimated to be about $40 billion. That would be slightly more than Bush had requested.

Bush signed the bill Saturday, the White House announced.

The bill expands the number of businesses from which the FBI and other US authorities conducting intelligence work can demand financial records without seeking court approval.

Under current law, "national security letters" can be issued to traditional financial institutions, such as banks and credit unions, to require them to turn over information. The bill expands the definition of financial institution to include other businesses that deal with large amounts of cash.

Supporters of the change say it will help authorities identify money laundering and other activities that fund terrorism. But some lawmakers and civil liberties advocates say the change does not provide enough safeguards to ensure that authorities will not violate the privacy of innocent people.

In other provisions, the bill:

Requires the CIA director to prepare a report as soon as possible on what intelligence agencies have learned from their experiences in Iraq.

Creates a Treasury Department office to work with intelligence agencies on fighting terrorist financing.

Creates pilot programs to share raw data between agencies.

Authorizes agencies to continue research on computerized terrorism surveillance suspended by the Pentagon.

Civil rights -- cherished liberty -- is being chipped away. The above is just the tip of the iceberg.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Does everything end up in Nazi Germany with you Frank?

No. Why do you ask? And what would ever cause you to suppose that is the case?

Quote:

At the time of their actions, Hitler was no longer an elected official, but a dictator that ruled by force.

What does that have to do with it.

Quote:

There is little to no comparison between what you are saying here and what this discussion is (was) about.

What the hell are you talking about, McG?

You wrote:

Quote:

How does creating dissention and trying to undermine the authority of the very country you are a trying to help equate to patriotism? When you betray the people and government of a country, you can hardly be expected to be referred to as a "patriot".

My comments went directly to that.

If you have a problem with that...direct it toward yourself.

Quote:

But to answer your query, yes. They should be written into the history books as patriots.

Well...then you now know the answer to your questions...and apparently the answer is different from where you were heading.

0 Replies

The USA PATRIOT Act: What's So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights?

by Nancy Chang, Senior Litigation Attorney
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012
November 2001

Contents

I. THE USA PATRIOT ACT CONFERS VAST AND UNCHECKED POWERS TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

II. SUSPENSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES

A. Silencing Political Dissent

B. Tolling the Death-Knell on Privacy

Enhanced Surveillance Powers

Sneak and Peek Searches

Access to Records in International Investigations

Tracking Internet Usage

Allowing Law Enforcement Agencies to Evade the Fourth Amendment's Probable Cause Requirement

Sharing of Sensitive Criminal and Foreign Intelligence Information

C. Stripping Immigrants of Constitutional Protections

Expanding The Class of Immigrants Subject to Removal

Detention at the Attorney General's Decree

The Political Implications of the USA PATRIOT Act for Immigrants

III. WILL THE JUDICIARY REIN IN THE EXECUTIVE AND UPHOLD THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

0 Replies

Cato
Cato Institute Read Articles. All branches of government chip away at individual rights.

Here's an article that addresses concerns about individual rights protected by the Fifth Amendment and the application of the Hiibel case. After Hiibel, how do you know for sure if you have the "right to remain silent" when questioned by a law enforcement officer?

June 25, 2004

Cooperate, Or Else!
by Timothy Lynch

Timothy Lynch is director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice. He prepared an amicus brief for the Supreme Court supporting Mr. Hiibel.

This week the Supreme Court ruled that a person can lose his liberty for declining to respond to a police officer's questions. Nevada rancher Dudley Hiibel was jailed for refusing to identify himself to a patrolman. On first blush, this legal precedent may seem to be a rather petty matter, but it is a travesty.

To fully grasp the implications of the Hiibel v. Sixth District Court ruling, one must take a step back and see how this precedent fits into the broader legal picture. The main problem is that the Supreme Court has created a legal minefield for people who wish to invoke their constitutional rights against government agents.

Two years ago, in the case of United States v. Drayton, the Supreme Court heard a controversy involving the search of a bus passenger. Policemen boarded the bus and asked passengers for their permission to search their belongings. When drugs were found in a bag, Christopher Drayton was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted. Drayton's lawyers tried to persuade the courts that the search was illegal because he was "coerced" into complying with the request to search his bag. The Supreme Court rejected that argument because it determined that Drayton had voluntarily complied with a request, not a police command. Here is how Justice Anthony Kennedy explained the ruling:

Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen. Even when law enforcement officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may pose questions, ask for identification and request consent to search luggage...

In other words, the police are free to approach us and ask us questions, but Americans retain the right to say "No." Indeed, if citizens do not affirmatively assert their right to say "No," the courts will deem those rights to have been "waived." The lesson was that citizens must take responsibility for their own rights. That sounds sensible enough.

But now consider what has happened to Dudley Hiibel. Hiibel was standing outside of his truck smoking a cigarette when a cop approached him. Minutes before, policeman Lee Dove had received word of a 911 call from someone who had reported seeing a fight between a man and a woman inside a truck. Dove did what any good cop would do in the situation—he started asking questions. Addressing Hiibel, Dove asked, "You got any identification on you?" Hiibel offered no violent resistance and did not attempt to flee, but he did politely refuse to answer any questions. For that—and that alone—Hiibel was arrested and prosecuted for "obstructing an officer."

Hiibel's attorneys appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that such an arrest could not stand. In a shocking ruling that was authored by none other than Justice Kennedy, the Court affirmed Hiibel's conviction. Because it is obviously useful for the police to know the identity of suspects, the Court concluded that it is equally obvious that jailing people who decline to answer questions is a constitutionally permissible policy. But what happened to our right to say "No"?

Constitutional and criminal law experts are now coming forward to defend the Hiibel ruling, arguing that the decision is "narrow" and does not grant the police the power to approach any pedestrian and to demand identification. That is only true in a very technical, legal sense. The awful truth is that the police have now acquired the de-facto power to demand identification from just about anyone. With the Hiibel precedent on the books, here is the legal situation for anyone who might consider rebuffing a cop's demand for identification.

1. A person can still refuse to give his name if he is confident that the particular jurisdiction has no law requiring individuals to identify themselves to the police during "Terry stops." (A Terry stop is a situation where a police officer has "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has occurred. The officer can briefly detain or stop a person to investigate.) In addition to the state code, one must be confident about county and city ordinances. Since ignorance of the law is no excuse, an error on your part means you could be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for up to one year.

2. Cops do not approach pedestrians with announcements like, "This is a Terry stop!" Thus, in a sudden confrontation, one can gamble that the officer is not conducting a Terry stop and is instead simply seeking your voluntary cooperation. Of course, if you are wrong, you can be arrested and jailed for up to one year.

3. A person can decline to give his name if the cop is attempting to make an illegal Terry stop. To prevail here, however, one must submit to an arrest, acquire a criminal record, hire an attorney, and then persuade a judge that the stop was illegal. If you lose, you could be jailed for up to a year.

4. Even in situations where the Terry stop is perfectly valid, you can still withhold your name on Fourth Amendment grounds. To prevail here, however, you must submit to an arrest, acquire a criminal record, hire an attorney, and then persuade a judge that the police officer's demand for your name was not "reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop." If you lose, you could go to jail for up to one year.

5.One can also decline to give one's name on Fifth Amendment grounds. To prevail here, however, one must submit to an arrest, acquire a criminal record, hire an attorney, and then persuade a court that divulging the name would have given the police a "link in the chain of evidence" needed to convict you of another offense. If you lose, once again, you face up to one year in jail.

Given the risk and uncertainty, nearly everyone will be deterred from traversing this legal minefield in order to rebuff an illegal police demand for identification. And the demands will hardly end with people's names. Many jurisdictions already have laws that require people to explain their conduct to the police (e.g. What are you doing? Where are you going?). That will be the next battleground in this area of the law.

When Hiibel's case was argued in front of the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia said that he could not "imagine why any responsible citizen would object to giving the name." There are at least two responses to that. First, conservatives often chide liberal judges for injecting their personal predilections into their rulings. Justice Scalia's statement invites conservatives to succumb to that temptation here. If an American citizen has a right to withhold her consent from the search of a purse or to decline a prosecutor's invitation to discuss one's business affairs, the legal inquiry must end there. Just as judges do not apply a "responsibility" test to determine whether, say, an article laced with profanity is protected by the First Amendment, judges ought not to delve into the moral and ethical implications of lawful noncooperation.

Second, just for the sake of argument, I can imagine many situations in which a responsible citizen might not want to cooperate with a police officer. There are a wide variety of instances where a police officer might be acting inappropriately and where the responsible course of action would be to shut down the encounter by ignoring the agent. To take but one example, suppose a narcotics agent were to take a romantic interest in a lady who disembarks from a train and who fits a broadly defined "drug courier" profile. Suppose it was painfully obvious that this cop was using his badge as a pretext to discover this lady's plans for the upcoming weekend. Who could fault this citizen for opting for silence in the face of such boorish and unprofessional behavior? The probability of such events is beside the point. Citizens ought to be able to turn to a simple defense when confronted by abusive police behavior (instead of acquiescing and "winning" in court at some later date). Unfortunately, the Court has now hopelessly complicated the simple right to remain silent.

The key point is that in a free society, the criminal laws are supposed to be clear so that citizens will know what conduct is prohibited. With the Hiibel ruling, the Supreme Court has created a situation where ordinary Americans cannot be sure if they are invoking their constitutionally-guaranteed rights or whether they are committing a crime. If that is not a travesty for American justice, what is?

This article originally appeared on Reason.com on June 25, 2004.

0 Replies

LOSS OF LIBERTY
Letting Guard Down Would Allow Bush to Take Away Rights and Liberties for Good

by Timothy Lynch

September 15, 2003

Timothy Lynch is director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice in Washington, D.C.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/lynch-030915.html

America is a great country because it is a free country. And America is a free country because our Constitution limits the powers of presidents, senators, prosecutors and police officers. If government officials had carte blanche power to wiretap our phones, search our homes and arrest our friends, our country would not be free.

Too many Americans take their freedom for granted and do not appreciate the historical achievement of the American Revolution and Constitution. The Founders shocked the kings and queens of the Old World with the "radical" idea that each individual had rights that the rulers had to respect. It is vitally important that we not lose sight of that achievement as we struggle to defend ourselves against Osama bin Laden and other foreign terrorists.

Unfortunately, many top government officials are so busy fighting our foreign foes that they have lost sight of what they are supposed to be defending. If President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft are to be judged by their actions, and not their words, it has become apparent that they view constitutional rights to be something of a nuisance. Consider some examples.

The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect us against unreasonable searches and seizures. And the Fifth Amendment says no person can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Section 215 of the Patriot Act skirts those constitutional guarantees by empowering the government to demand papers, records, personal belongings from people. Unlike a subpoena or search warrant, these "Patriot orders" do not give citizens any opportunity to contest the government's demand either before or after the fact. In fact, it is a crime to tell anyone about these orders. So if a citizen contacts his congressman to complain, he can be imprisoned.

President Bush has also declared that he can arrest any person who he thinks is a terrorist and lock them up and throw away the key. To deflect criticism, the White House says every president in every war holds enemy prisoners, so there is nothing to worry about.

In truth, the president's sweeping claim goes far beyond the idea of taking prisoners on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq. President Bush's lawyers have made it clear that it does not matter if the person is a citizen or not. And it does not matter if the person is overseas or living in Small Town, U.S.A. With the stroke of a pen, an American can lose his liberty, his right to retain a lawyer, and his right to a day in court to tell a judge his side of the story. The say-so of the president is not what the Founders meant by "due process of law."

Some Americans say that if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about, but they are misinformed. First, in recent years, DNA tests have proved that many prisoners were mistakenly arrested and convicted of crimes. Many of those prisoners thought they had nothing to worry about because they were innocent -- and yet they served years and years behind bars with hardened criminals before the government's error (or misconduct) came to light.

Second, how can a person persuade a judge of his innocence if the government will not allow him to see the evidence that is supposed to establish his guilt? Before 9-11, the federal government used secret evidence against noncitizens in deportation hearings. Since 9-11, there have been cases of prosecutors who are using secret evidence to arrest Americans.

Some legal scholars have noted that American courts have expanded the rights of people who are accused of crimes during the last 200 years. In some respects, that is true, but history also shows us that rights are often lost during a crisis -- and that is what is happening now. The Founders of America warned us that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Once we let our guard down, our rights and liberties could very well slip away for good.

This article originally appeared in The Detroit News on September 15, 2003.

0 Replies

Assaults on LIBERTY
Assaults on Liberty
by Robert A. Levy

November 24, 2002

Robert A. Levy is a senior fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/levy-021124.html

When a former Iran-contra defendant gets appointed to run a little-known Defense Department operation called "Total Information Awareness," then posts a sign on his office stating that "Knowledge Is Power," civil libertarians, not surprisingly, are exercised. Adm. John Poindexter may be suited for the job, but is the job suited for a free society that has, until recently, fastidiously safeguarded the privacy of its citizens?

Reportedly, the new system - funded through the Homeland Security Act - will use high-tech "data mining" to gather information from multiple databases, link individuals and groups, and share information efficiently. Never mind that Pentagon computer scientists believe that terrorists could easily avoid detection, leaving bureaucrats with about 200 million dossiers on totally innocent Americans - instant access to e-mail, Web surfing and phone records, credit card and banking transactions, prescription drug purchases, travel data and court records.

If Total Information Awareness were the first and only budding threat to civil liberties, opponents might be less apprehensive. But against a backdrop of multiple laws, executive orders and proposals - all potentially troublesome to hard-core Bill of Rights devotees - our constitutional watchdogs are justifiably uneasy. Here are a few of their grievances:

The USA Patriot Act: Ordinarily, advance judicial authorization of executive actions, followed by judicial review to assure that officials haven't misbehaved, shields us from excessive concentrations of power in a single branch of government. Under the Patriot Act, however, the executive branch has overwhelming if not exclusive power. Judicial checks and balances are conspicuously absent.

Expansion of the FISA court's authority: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act created a court that approves electronic surveillance of citizens and resident aliens allegedly serving a foreign power. Previously, the FISA court could act if foreign intelligence was the primary purpose of an investigation. Now, foreign intelligence need only be "a significant purpose." That is not a trivial change. It means easier government access to personal and business records, and relaxed authorization of Internet surveillance and wiretaps - even in criminal cases.

Domestic detention of noncitizens: Soon after 9/11, about 1,200 noncitizens were detained in secret without evidence linking a single one of them to al-Qaida. The recurring questions were pretty basic. How many remained in custody? Who were they? What were the charges against them? What was the status of their cases? Where and under what circumstances were they being held? The Justice Department adamantly refused to provide any answers.

Secret INS trials: Hundreds of deportation hearings have been held in secret by the Immigration and Naturalization Service - without a jury, and without access by the defendant to legal counsel. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit accused the INS of operating "in virtual secrecy in all matters dealing, even remotely, with national security." The court warned, "Democracies die behind closed doors."

Detention of U.S. citizens: The administration has unilaterally declared that two U.S. citizens are "enemy combatants," whisked them away, detained them indefinitely in a military brig, denied them legal counsel, filed no charges whatever and prevented them from seeking meaningful judicial review.

Monitoring attorney-client communications: Attorney General John Ashcroft, armed only with "reasonable suspicion" that a communication would "facilitate acts of terrorism," invented Justice Department authority to monitor talks between detainees and their lawyers, without a court order, despite constitutional guarantees of an unimpeded right to counsel.

Military tribunals: The Bush executive order on military tribunals fell short in three respects. First, tribunals should be convened only outside the United States. Here, our criminal courts are a perfectly acceptable venue. Second, tribunals must be limited to prosecuting unlawful combatants, not merely someone tangentially related to international terrorism. Third, tribunals should be congressionally authorized, not decreed by the executive branch.

Terrorism Information and Prevention System: TIPS was the administration brainchild that would have transformed us into a nation of busybodies and snoops. About 11 million informants - especially mail carriers, utility employees and others with unique access to private homes - were to help the Justice Department build yet another database containing names of persons not charged with any wrongdoing.

Of course, advocates of expanded executive power remind civil libertarians that President Bush is an honorable man who understands that the Constitution is made of more than tissue paper.

That argument is simply not persuasive - even to those who fervently share its underlying premise.

The policies that are put in place by this administration are precedent-setting.

Bush supporters need to reflect on the same powers in the hands of his predecessor or his successors.

Here's the guiding principle: In the post-9/11 environment, no rational person believes that civil liberties are inviolable. After all, government's primary obligation is to secure the lives of American citizens. But when government begins to chip away at our liberties, we must insist that it jump through a couple of hoops. First, government must offer compelling evidence that its new and intrusive programs will make us safer. Second, government must convince us that there is no less invasive means of attaining the same ends. In too many instances, those dual burdens have not been met.

If administration critics have a single overriding concern about policies adopted in the wake of 9/11, it is this: The president and the attorney general have concentrated too much unchecked authority in the hands of the executive branch - compromising the doctrine of separation of powers, which has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for more than two centuries.

Those persons who would unhesitatingly trade off civil liberties in return for national security proclaim that concentrated power is necessary for Americans to remain free.

Yet there's an obvious corollary that's too often missed: Unless Americans remain free, they will never be secure.

This article originally appeared in The Orange County Register on November 24, 2002.

0 Replies

The evisceration of the Bill of Rights

http://www.federalobserver.com/content_images/supporters_watch_signing.jpg

http://www.federalobserver.com/content_images/bush_working_revisions.jpg

Bill Of Rights Pared Down To A Manageable Six [Satire -- but so close to the truth after the passage of the patriot acts, it's frightening.]

0 Replies

What 4 rights did you have in 1999 that you do not have today, debra?

I know the Patriot Act makes it tougher on criminals to escape justice, but what about you?

Just curious.

0 Replies

One right lost for one person is a right I have also lost.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

One right lost for one person is a right I have also lost.

True, if a criminal loses the right to avoid detection, arrest, and prosecution, you too have lost that right. Is that not a good thing?

0 Replies

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mie/ctu/FAQ_Patriot.htm

"Q: Does the USA PATRIOT Act eliminate judicial oversight of federal law enforcement activities?
A: No. In criminal cases and foreign intelligence cases, federal agents still must obtain a wiretap order from a court based on a detailed affidavit setting forth probable cause before they can install a wiretap. Agents still must obtain a search warrant from a court based on a showing of probable cause before they can search a residence. Agents still must obtain court orders before installing a pen register or trap and trace device on a telephone to obtain outgoing and incoming telephone numbers. Courts retain the power to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Where government surveillance intrudes on expectations of privacy, the USA PATRIOT Act preserves judicial oversight as part of our system of checks and balances.

Q: Does the USA PATRIOT Act erode the probable cause standard?
A: No. As was true before the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted, the probable cause standard in a criminal case is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person is using the facilities sought to be monitored or searched in connection with the crime; in a foreign intelligence case, probable cause that the target is an agent of a foreign power and that the facilities sought to be monitored or searched are being used by an agent of a foreign power. In both types of investigations, probable cause must be established to obtain a wiretap order or search warrant. As was true even before the USA PATRIOT Act, lesser intrusions, such as requests for records from third parties, require a lower standard. "

Only the suspected criminals with probable cause and judicial oversight are at risk.

Leave it to the liberals to have a problem with that.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

One right lost for one person is a right I have also lost.

Edgar...these poor fools will never understand the concept that rights have to be protected for all...or they are lost to all.

Theyre like Rush Limbaugh. Until their excesses catch up to them...they don't really give a damn.

Our nation will survive these pathetic, pretend patriots. The pendulum had to swing far in their favor before it could begin its trip back toward sanity.

0 Replies

Larry
by deflecting the meaning I stated to mean somethingelse you have answered nothing.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Larry
by deflecting the meaning I stated to mean somethingelse you have answered nothing.

I agreed with you, edgar.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
One right lost for one person is a right I have also lost.

Edgar...these poor fools will never understand the concept that rights have to be protected for all...or they are lost to all.

Theyre like Rush Limbaugh. Until their excesses catch up to them...they don't really give a damn.
Our nation will survive these pathetic, pretend patriots. The pendulum had to swing far in their favor before it could begin its trip back toward sanity.

and therein lies the problem....when these goddam bastards who prosecute these wars and policies finally face the music and their excesses catch up with them...the rest of us will have to pay the price right along with them......the wheat and the chaff will be burned together in the same fire......no offense meant with the biblical reference Frank :wink:

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

....the wheat and the chaff will be burned together in the same fire......no offense meant with the biblical reference Frank :wink:

No problem, Bear!

I wonder when we are gonna redirect our efforts of looking for intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy...to looking for intelligent life on planet Earth?

0 Replies

Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know