Help stop Patriot II

[shanek]

The PATRIOT Act is scary enough; now, John Ashcroft, who never saw a Constitutional violation he didn't like, is working to make it even worse.

Fortunately, the ACLU has put up a web page where you can fax your representatives for free, as well as get more info on Patriot II.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11817&c=206&Type=s

[corplinx]

I want to see the details of Patriot II first. All I have seen so far are leaked versions of dubious origin.

For the record, I disagree with your characterization of Mr. Ashcroft. When anti-gun advocates have tried to raid federal gun databases he has held steadfastly. First they tried to raid the records because they wanted to see if dead terrorists had bought guns. Now chicago has tried to raid the records to try to get evidence for its frivolous lawsuit against gun makers.

Of the constitutionally dubious parts of Patriot I, the arguement against each of them stems from "what if this is abused". I think there should be a Patriot II and it should ensure proper redundant oversight for the provisions of the first bill that are giving people nervous fits.

Mr. Ashcroft is ugly, a boring speaker, and very uncompelling. However, I won't buy the meme that he is some bill of rights raider that others buy wholeheartedly without some real evidence. To be honest, I think he is the most benign attorney general we have had in a while. I think he is just the lightning rod for negative criticism that won't stick to Bush. He is no Robert Kennedy but he is a hell of a lot better than Reno.

He's far more attractive than Reno, that's for sure.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Thorin LungHammer
He's far more attractive than Reno, that's for sure.

I think you are on to something, when was the last time we had an attorney general more attractive than a dog's ass?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by corplinx
I want to see the details of Patriot II first. All I have seen so far are leaked versions of dubious origin.

Precisely.

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
For the record, I disagree with your characterization of Mr. Ashcroft.

Just look at his record in the Senate. Look at his record since he's taken the job of Attorney General. He's a close ally of Pat Robertson, and was the senator who proposed the "Charitable Choice" proposal, and is almost certainly the driving force behind Bush's "faith-based" initiative. He's a consummate Drug Warrior (largely responsible for the mandatory drug sentences which clog our prisons and force the early release of rapists, murderers, and child molestors), has a history of promoting racial profiling, on and on and on. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a bigger enemy of liberty than Ashcroft.

[NoZed Avenger]

With the helpful links of people on the forum, I managed to finally free some time and look through the original Act.

Several of the provisions that were listed as potentially troublesome I did not have a large problem with -- for example, "rolling" warrants that are issued against a person and "follow" that person from phone to phone. As long as the initial warrant is based on probable cause and granted by a proper court, this seems reasonable -- especially in response to some persons, such as suspected drug dealers, for example, changing mobile phones on a regular basis in order to thwart warrants issued for a specific phone.

Likewise, a lesser standard to obtain the numbers being called from a number -- with no disclosure of the content of the communication -- does not seem problematic.

The law that allowed searches without notification would be reasonable on espionage charges/investigations -if- the Courts oversee this with a close eye. However, my understanding (from insufficient reading so far) is that the so-called "secret" court that hears this kind of thing is criticised for being a rubber stamp for law enforcement -- if true, then obviously major problems exist.

I was and am concerned with a few provisions -- first, the key terms in a few areas are undefined, and I cannot locate any federal case law that defines them. If defined narrowly, I think that the law is defensible, though I would prefer stricter limits in several areas. If defined broadly, I think that the terms/provisions are unconstitutional and overboard.

The largest problems are with the sections against non-citizens who are suspected of espionage. The standards relating to them are especially loose and ill-defined (or undefined, as above). While, as non-citizens, they may not have a claim to the same rights (precisely) under the Constitution, the law (IMO) goes to far here. I understand the need for additional security, but the lax standards that seem to be applied are troublesome, at least on a first read-through. These sections appear the worst, but are limited to non-citizens. I am not well versed enough in Constitutional law to know whether that is a truly valid distinction in criminal investigation.

The reports I have seen of Patriot II are all too nebulous -- the news version of ICanSeeDemons. Legislation cannot be enacted without being presented in the House or Senate -- everyone will be able to see the actual bill if and when it is presented. At this point, it is idle speculation and is probably a case of rampant rumor gone amok.

NA

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by Thorin LungHammer
He's far more attractive than Reno, that's for sure.

:) Reno looked tougher though.

[shanek]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
The largest problems are with the sections against non-citizens who are suspected of espionage. The standards relating to them are especially loose and ill-defined (or undefined, as above). While, as non-citizens, they may not have a claim to the same rights (precisely) under the Constitution,

Where does the Constitution say that? Rights are things that we have naturally, they're not granted to us by government or the Constitution. We all have them, citizen or not, and the Constitution is supposed to protect that.

The reports I have seen of Patriot II are all too nebulous

What about the detailed breakdown of it on the ACLU site?

Legislation cannot be enacted without being presented in the House or Senate -- everyone will be able to see the actual bill if and when it is presented.

The problem is, most of the really dangerous legislation isn't made into a bill itself. It's attached as a rider to a different bill. They could pass every single measure in Patriot II without ever actually making it a bill. Just attach the different measures as riders to other bills. This isn't a conspiracy theory; it happens all the time.

[zakur]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
Reno looked tougher though. Reno could kick Ashcroft's ass.

But then, we're talking about a man who runs screaming from calico cats. ;)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by zakur
Reno could kick Ashcroft's ass.



Sure, physically. But nothing makes you laugh harder than hearing John Ascroft do the "mmmmm...... burger" from the Simpsons.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by shanek

Where does the Constitution say that? Rights are things that we have naturally, they're not granted to us by government or the Constitution. We all have them, citizen or not, and the Constitution is supposed to protect that.

Re-read my qualifiers. Additionally, whether the rights exist or not, the way that those rights are enforced -- for example, through the exclusionary rule -- are not contained in the Constitution.



What about the detailed breakdown of it on the ACLU site?


Until there actually is some type of legislation proposed, guesswork based on leaked documents and rumor aren't enough for me to try a similar analysis. For me, I need the actual language and time to look over prior precedent before I can make anything close to a conclusion.

Again, I have concerns about several provisions in the bill, but I thjink that the failure to define several key terms is the most troubelsome aspect at the moment -- an expansive reading of some of the authority would be dangerous and insupportable, IMO.



The problem is, most of the really dangerous legislation isn't made into a bill itself. It's attached as a rider to a different bill. They could pass every single measure in Patriot II without ever actually making it a bill. Just attach the different measures as riders to other bills. This isn't a conspiracy theory; it happens all the time.

There are half a dozen groups that go over legislation for this type of rider, and -- while I would gladly support the end to all these types of riders (especially in the spending area, where the real abuses occur), the law cannot be passed in secret.

The original Patriot Act was certainly not passed in secret, for example.

NA

[shanek]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Re-read my qualifiers.

Okay; and I still stand by my statement. Nowhere does the Constitution require citizenship as a condition of having rights. Some particular rights, like the right to vote, have that coded into the language. But otherwise, the only time the Constitution even mentions US citizens is either when it's defining what a US citizen is or mentioning it as a qualification for Federal office. The word "citizen" appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights.

I think it was John Adams who said that all you had to do to have rights was to be a person and be here.

Until there actually is some type of legislation proposed, guesswork based on leaked documents and rumor aren't enough for me to try a similar analysis. For me, I need the actual language and time to look over prior precedent before I can make anything close to a conclusion.

No one's asking you to make a conclusion about a particular piece of legislation before it passes. But if you make it known how you feel about these issues now, you can help avoid or at least shape such legislation so that we don't have any further rights trampled on.

The original Patriot Act was certainly not passed in secret, for example.

I never said anything about it passing in secret.

[crackmonkey]

For God's sake, this is pure fiction. Why get hysterical over something that hasn't even been proposed?
This is the liberal equivalent of the "Clinton murdered Vince Foster" myth...

[American]

Some things haven't changed, and the government wouldn't want them to. This country is strong precisely because if you bust in my door, it's considered a violent act and I have a right to whack you hard for it, possibly killing you. I don't think that right is in any danger. The secret organizations that control our government would never take away that right.

You need to relax.

[shanek]

Originally posted by American
This country is strong precisely because if you bust in my door, it's considered a violent act and I have a right to whack you hard for it, possibly killing you. I don't think that right is in any danger.

Are you sure? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14830)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
For God's sake, this is pure fiction. Why get hysterical over something that hasn't even been proposed?
This is the liberal equivalent of the "Clinton murdered Vince Foster" myth...

Yes, everyone knows that ordering a murder and carrying it out are two different things.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by shanek


I never said anything about it passing in secret.

You said that "most of the really dangerous legislation isn't made into a bill itself. It's attached as a rider to a different bill."

I was merely pointing out that the Patirot Act was not passed this way. Which really dangerous legislation were you thinking of?

NA

[shanek]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
You said that "most of the really dangerous legislation isn't made into a bill itself. It's attached as a rider to a different bill."

And what about that says anything about it happening in secret?

I was merely pointing out that the Patirot Act was not passed this way.

I didn't say it was, but do you deny that Congress almost always attaches riders to bills to get their own measures passed with little to no debate?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by shanek


I didn't say it was, but do you deny that Congress almost always attaches riders to bills to get their own measures passed with little to no debate?

I am getting the impression that you are taking every post of mine as some sort of attack on your position, whereas I came into it thinking that we were going to have a conversation.

We seem to be talking past each other - and it is probably my fault for being imprecise.

You seemed to indicate or imply that Patriot II might be "snuck" through Congress as riders on other bills.

You then said "most" of the "realky dangerous" legislation went through Congress this way.

My comments involved (1) Patriot I did not pass this way. That was not -- despite your denial -- an allegation that you said that it had passed that way, just a note in passing. If the original Patriot Act went through as legislation, I was wondering why you felt that Patriot II -- to the extent that it ever exists in future -- would be sent through Congress that way.

I did not ask that question directly, but was not looking for point-counterpoint, I was just interested in your reasons.

Since "most really dangerous legislation" goes through on riders, as you have stated above, I was also curious what legislation you were thinking of.

I know a ton of spending measures get tacked on that way - a dirty and distasteful practice IMO (an opinion that part of my snipped opinions hint at, above) - but I am wondering what you mean by really dangerous in this context (I had assumed measures impacting on civil liberties directly) and what laws you referred to.

I was not looking for an argument, nor have performed enough research on the "Patriot II" to speak to the alleged and/orleaked measures, I was curious.

I should probably not have posted anything, but several posters here helped me out with links when I was curious about the original legislation, and I thought that this was an appropriate place to mention the first Act, as the old thread has dropped back quite a ways.


I didn't say it was, but do you deny that Congress almost always attaches riders to bills to get their own measures passed with little to no debate?

This is a considerably different statement than the more provocative "most of the really dangerous legislation . . . [is] attached as a rider to a different bill."

NA

[shanek]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
I am getting the impression that you are taking every post of mine as some sort of attack on your position, whereas I came into it thinking that we were going to have a conversation.

I merely asked a question...

You seemed to indicate or imply that Patriot II might be "snuck" through Congress as riders on other bills.

I pointed out that this was a possibility. And with such riders, they're often added at the last minute with little debate. If that's the route they end up taking, we need to make our position to our representatives known now.

On the other hand, if Patriot II never happens, it's no harm, no foul. At the very least our representatives will know we're against any such measure in the future.

My comments involved (1) Patriot I did not pass this way. That was not -- despite your denial -- an allegation that you said that it had passed that way, just a note in passing. If the original Patriot Act went through as legislation, I was wondering why you felt that Patriot II -- to the extent that it ever exists in future -- would be sent through Congress that way.

I didn't say that it would, merely that it could. Two different things.

Since "most really dangerous legislation" goes through on riders, as you have stated above, I was also curious what legislation you were thinking of.

Just look at any given bill. There's at least one rider that doesn't have anything to do with the bill there.

My favorite example is the 1998 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R. 1469), passed to appropriate funds to the relief of victims of the Red River flood, which (far from a complete list):

Gave money to the DoD for operations in Bosnia,
Provided for the collection of statistics from cheese manufacturers,
Gave $3,000,000 to the Attorney General for use in countering threats of terrorism at the Olympic games in Utah,
Protection for marine mammals trapped in fishing gear,
Repairing or replacing concession utilities at Yosemete National Park,
Settling a dispute with an Indian reservation,
Permit the importation of polar bear parts from Canada,
More unconstitutional and dangerous counterterrorism and drug law enforcement procedures, including more thorough searches at airports,
Money to construct a courthouse in Montgomery, AL, a parking garage in Ashland, Kentucky, and other boondoggles,
Amendments to the Truth in Lending Act forcing banks and other creditors to disclose financial activities to the government,
$2 million for the establishment of a Law Enforcement Commission which requires states to share criminal records with the Federal government,
Prohibiting studies on the medicinal use of marijuana

So, rider after rider after rider, more than a few of which are dangerous and scary. Add to that, the fact that the bill did not appropriate a single penny to help victims of the Red River flood!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by shanek
The PATRIOT Act is scary enough; now, John Ashcroft, who never saw a Constitutional violation he didn't like, is working to make it even worse.

Fortunately, the ACLU has put up a web page where you can fax your representatives for free, as well as get more info on Patriot II.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11817&c=206&Type=s

Thanks for the link Shanek:
The new Ashcroft proposal threatens to fundamentally alter the Constitutional protections that allow us to be both safe and free," said Timothy H. Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "If it becomes law, it will encourage police spying on political and religious activities, allow the government to wiretap without going to court and dramatically expand the death penalty under an overbroad definition of terrorism."

Sounds like a plan....I'm on the phone with my Congressman Tom Davis's office....I have voiced my unflagging support of this bill ;) :D Ashcroft may be a religious nut....but there are worse things running around in our world right now. They're called terrorists. (and leftists)

-zilla

Originally posted by rikzilla


Thanks for the link Shanek:


Sounds like a plan....I'm on the phone with my Congressman Tom Davis's office....I have voiced my unflagging support of this bill ;) :D Ashcroft may be a religious nut....but there are worse things running around in our world right now. They're called terrorists. (and leftists)

-zilla

Rik, I'm curious. Do you adopt such stances purely to be outrageous, to p*ss off liberal members of the forum, or because you actually do believe these things?

If you actually do believe them, why do you object to being labeled a right-winger?

[shanek]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Sounds like a plan....I'm on the phone with my Congressman Tom Davis's office....I have voiced my unflagging support of this bill ;) :D Ashcroft may be a religious nut....but there are worse things running around in our world right now. They're called terrorists. (and leftists)

What do we gain if we protect ourselves from terrorists but lose our sovereign rights in the process?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


Rik, I'm curious. Do you adopt such stances purely to be outrageous, to p*ss off liberal members of the forum, or because you actually do believe these things?

If you actually do believe them, why do you object to being labeled a right-winger?

Because I'm pissed off that I was ever stupid enough to believe in Bill Clinton. Voted for him...not once but twice. I'm sorry that it took until now, doing research about Iraq that I found out that the USA under Clinton knew that Ramzi Yusef (WTC bomber from 1993) was an Iraqi intelligence agent and did nothing about it. Khalid Sheik Muhammed is Ramzi Yusef's uncle by the way. So keep telling me that Iraq has no known ties to al Qaida when an Iraqi Mukhabarrat agent/terrorist is the nephew of the number 3 man in al Qaida.

1995 When the world saw the Iraqi smoking gun after the defection of Hussein Kamal....Clinton admin did nothing. Oh, later he bombed an asprin factory! Clinton even provided the central idea to al Qaida. From Somalia...hurt them...drag them thru the street and they will run.

Then...on 9/11 as I watched while the Pentagon burned and people lept from the flaming WTC every well cultivated, liberal bone in my body broke.

Thankfully they have not grown back. Many Liberals are nothing more than well meaning idiots, they serve no purpose in a time of war. They are useful only in times of peace when social progress towards more freedom can happen. In wartime they are downright dangerous. Be conservative in times of peril....entertain the notions of liberals when danger is far from our shores.

-zilla

Originally posted by rikzilla


Be conservative in times of peril....entertain the notions of liberals when danger is far from our shores.

-zilla

OK, but then at least be honest about it. Next to JK, you are easily the farthest person to the right on this board. That's fine, but then don't be touchy when people point out just how really FAR to the right your opinions are. You can't have it both ways.

[subgenius]

There was no demonstrated need for "Patriot" I, much less II.
This alone tells you there's a different agenda.

If certain agencies had merely not been asleep at the wheel....and now that they're awake we don't need this garbage.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "--no dummy

(Nor will they get it)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Because I'm pissed off that I was ever stupid enough to believe in Bill Clinton. Voted for him...not once but twice. I'm sorry that it took until now, doing research about Iraq that I found out that the USA under Clinton knew that Ramzi Yusef (WTC bomber from 1993) was an Iraqi intelligence agent and did nothing about it. Khalid Sheik Muhammed is Ramzi Yusef's uncle by the way. So keep telling me that Iraq has no known ties to al Qaida when an Iraqi Mukhabarrat agent/terrorist is the nephew of the number 3 man in al Qaida.

1995 When the world saw the Iraqi smoking gun after the defection of Hussein Kamal....Clinton admin did nothing. Oh, later he bombed an asprin factory! Clinton even provided the central idea to al Qaida. From Somalia...hurt them...drag them thru the street and they will run.

Then...on 9/11 as I watched while the Pentagon burned and people lept from the flaming WTC every well cultivated, liberal bone in my body broke.

Thankfully they have not grown back. Many Liberals are nothing more than well meaning idiots, they serve no purpose in a time of war. They are useful only in times of peace when social progress towards more freedom can happen. In wartime they are downright dangerous. Be conservative in times of peril....entertain the notions of liberals when danger is far from our shores.

-zilla
That didn't answer the question.
None of your pain or those events had anything to do with liberalism.
Neither does Bush's complicity in events have a direct bearing on conservatism as a philosophy.

[crackmonkey]

Patriot 2 is a hoax, cooked up by the ACLU or some other anti-Bush organization. You guys don't need a very high standard of proof in order to believe what you want to be true...

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


OK, but then at least be honest about it. Next to JK, you are easily the farthest person to the right on this board. That's fine, but then don't be touchy when people point out just how really FAR to the right your opinions are. You can't have it both ways.

That may be true on this board. ;) But if I'm you're idea of a far right winger I shudder to think of what you call GWB, Colin Powell or even the slightly evil J. Ashcroft! :D Sundog, what on earth would you call a fully robed grand dragon of the KKK,...David Duke, or the lovely and talented Pat Buchanon!! :rolleyes:

You better leave some room in your worldview for the "far right wing"!

I, OTOH, am a registered Democrat, I voted for Bill Clinton twice...and even registered a protest vote in 2000 for Ralph Nader (but only after it became common knowledge that GWB would win Virginia with ease)

....I am pro gun control...common sense gun control that is...(mandatory trigger locks and background checks with every purchase....anti assault weapon), full on against any restrictions against concealed carry for folks who can pass the legal tests

.....pro abortion...(with common sense limitation) 100% pro-choice in the first trimester....medical excuse only in 2nd trimester....100% against late term abortions.

.....pro Gay rights with no qualifications. These people are just as entitled as any other American to live their lives as they wish as long as they do not impede the rights of others...In other words they should be treated just like anyone else...no worse, no better.

I am a shop steward in my union (Teamsters Local 111...communications workers of America)

.... A proponent of women's rights.....again, equal rights...not better rights....just equal in all aspects of public and private life.

.....A foe of the "War on Drugs".....In the land of freedom we should be free to make choices for ourselves. Tobacco and alcohol have killed more of my friends than illegal substances ever have (and I have alot of friends who have partaken in alot of "controlled substances")

.....

I still hold all these opinions. My opinion on interracial couples would undoubtedly get me hung within 5 mins at a KKK rally. So save a little room on the right wing son,...you'll need it for the real wackos.

-zilla

PS:
Sundog,...just because I have some controversial ideas and am not afraid to speak my peace doesn't mean you can put a label on me and make it stick. You can't. If I'm anything, I'm an EX-Liberal. One of those politically middle of the road people that you guys used to be able to count on...but started to lose on 9/11....and lost completely after I researched Iraq and the actions of the Clinton admin that helped build al Qaida and Iraq into the threats they are today.