Wednesday, September 9, 2009

The "Patriot" Act

USA PATRIOT Act (HR 3162)
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001
Passed: 10/26/2003
Full text, Wikipedia

Sunset/Reauthorizations. Many provisions of the Patriot Act were set to expire in 2005, however most of them were reauthorized by USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 and USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006. Wikipedia

Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (sometimes called Patriot II). This bill would have dwarfed the significant powers of the first patriot act and actually passed the House in congress before it was rejected by the Senate. Wikipedia, EFF.org, Infowars.com

No one read the bill before they voted for it. Congressman Jim McDermott alleging that no Senator read the bill[190] and John Conyers, Jr. as saying "We don't really read most of the bills. Do you know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?" Congressman Conyers then answers his own rhetorical question, asserting that if they did it would "slow down the legislative process" Wikipedia. John Ashcroft told the house and Senate Judiciary committee that the Patriot Act was so important that they didn't have time to read the statute before they could vote on it. The House was given 15 minutes on the Intranet to read the 315 page act which has multiple references to the U.S. Criminal Code. There was no debate before the vote. Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napalitano

Judge Andrew Napolitano: The Patriot Act is the most abominable, unConstitutional, hateful (from the point of view of freedom) since the Alien and Sedition acts of 1798. Speech, Bio

Constitution suspended for 16 year old Ashton Lundeby under Patriot Act. He is being held in secret with no access to a lawyer. YouTube, Local News

Section 215: Warrantless wiretapping, spying and confiscation of property of U.S. citizens. Citizens do not have to be notified and are prohibited from revealing that they are or ever have been under investigation without becoming a "criminal" even to a judge in a Federal court. All lawsuits against the Justice Department are anonymous lawsuits because they cannot reveal that they have been investigated. The books you buy or borrow, the web sites you visit, your phone calls, medical records and everything else which can be associated with anyone is subject to search and seizure. ACLU, ACLU: Unpatriotic Acts, Judge Andrew Napalitano

200 passengers have been convicted of felonies under the Patriot Act for raised voices, profanity, spanking their children or kissing. Equating these people to Al Qaeda terrorists. LA Times.

AT&T Room 641A Fulsome Street, San Francisco. AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein reveals NSA has a secret room in which they direct tap into all phone, email, and internet traffic using splitters to capture a duplicate of every fiber optic signal going through that facility. The traffic at this facility is not limited to AT&T customers but virtually every internet and telecommunications company and virtually all web traffic and email in the US and some international. YouTube.

ACLU Dissection of Section 215

Before the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could only obtain records. Now the FBI has the authority to obtain “any tangible thing.” (215.a.1)

People who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents can be investigated solely because of their First Amendment activity – e.g., because they wrote a letter to the editor criticizing government policy, or because they participated in a particular political rally. U.S. citizens and permanent residents can be investigated in part on the basis of their First Amendment activity. (215.a.1)

Applications for Section 215 orders are ordinarily heard by judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (215.b.1.A)

Judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have little authority to scrutinize or reject FBI surveillance applications. If the FBI specifies that – in its own opinion – Section 215’s requirements are met, the judge must grant the surveillance order. (215.b.2, 215.c.1)

The FBI need not show “probable cause” or any reason at all to believe that the target of the surveillance order is engaged in criminal or terrorist activity. All the FBI needs to do is “specify” that the records are “sought for” an authorized investigation. The surveillance target may be completely innocent. (215.b.2)

Those who are ordered to turn over their records (or “tangible things”) are prohibited from mentioning to anyone else that the FBI made the demand. (215.d)

Section 215 also violates the First Amendment by preventing those served with Section 215 orders from ever telling anyone that the FBI demanded information, even if the information is not tied to a particular suspect and poses no risk to national security. (Unpatriotic Acts)

Government Deception

FBI spokespeople have repeatedly asserted, for example, that Section 215 cannot be used to obtain information about United States citizens. Here’s just one of many examples: “This is limited only to foreign intelligence,” said Mark Corallo, a spokesman with the Department of Justice. “U.S. citizens cannot be investigated under this act.” (Florida Today, Sept. 23, 2002) In fact, Section 215 explicitly states that United States citizens and permanent residents can be targeted under the provision – on condition that they not be targeted solely because of activity that is protected by the First Amendment. (Unpatriotic Acts)

The Justice Department spokesman, Mark Corallo, says the assertions about the Act are completely wrong because, for the FBI to check on a citizen’s reading habits, it must get a search warrant. And to get a warrant, it must convince a judge “there is probable cause that the person you are seeking the information for is a terrorist or a foreign spy.” (Bangor [ME] Daily News, April 9, 2003) In fact, Section 215 does not require the FBI to show probable cause. All the FBI has to do in order to invoke the provision is specify that the records are “sought for” an ongoing investigation. (Unpatriotic Acts)

[Field offices] may continue to request business records…through FBIHQ in the established manner. However, such requests may now seek production of any relevant information, and need only contain information establishing such relevance. (Oct. 26, 2001 memo to “All Divisions” from the FBI’s Office of General Counsel (and approved by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III) includes a section on “Changes in FISA Business Records Authority.”)

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo called [librarians’ opposition to the PATRIOT Act] “absurd.” The legislation “doesn’t apply to the average American,” he said. “It’s only for people who are spying or members of a terrorist organization.” (Journal News [NY], April 13, 2003)

Before demanding records from a library or bookstore under the PATRIOT Act, he [Corallo] said, “one has to convince a judge that the person for whom you’re seeking a warrant is a spy or a member of a terrorist organization.” (San Francisco Chronicle, March 10, 2003)

Perfect examples of Orwellian doublespeak.

Pontification

One of the effects of this kind of immoral violation is that the less courageous citizens will be afraid to speak their minds. Public discourse will continue to become an inane babble of government approved speech. Those who have the courage to continue to speak up against government usurpations can be easily labeled as extremist and enemy combatants.

We commonly hear that terrorists attacked us because they hate freedom. If that's true then why are we giving up our freedom? If that's true then they'll soon no longer have a reason to attack us.

Most Americans trust that their leaders have good intentions at heart. This flies if the face of several thousand years of history and the very reason the Constitution was formed. Somehow Americans have been persuaded to believe their country's government is good and noble and if there are blunders they are not intentional. Somehow they have forgotten or never learned the lessons in history which universally shows that men in power almost always abuse that power. If it doesn't affect us personally, if we're still able to go to parties, to church, to work, to restaurants we believe that we are free. The true patriots who founded America understood that it was immoral to be apathetic to government intrusions of their Natural rights. They who were worthy of the music "land of the free and the home of the brave" stood for much less from their own government.

"'Give me your freedom and I'll keep you safe' has never worked." Judge Andrew Napalitano

“The concentrating of these [legislative, executive, and judicial] in the same hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government.” (Thomas Jefferson, quoted by James Madison Federalist Papers, No. 48. February 1, 1788.) Legislative power continues to accumulate in the executive branch who can make signing statements saying they do not feel bound by the law they are signing and through executive orders which are followed as law. Judicial power is granted to the executive through the use of self-written "warrants", denying access to legal counsel and denying them the power to appeal.

History abundantly documents the tendency of Government – however benevolent and benign its motives – to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become the more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. (United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 1972)