Illegal to follow Patriot Act

[arcticpenguin]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/05/18/patriot.act.ap/index.html

In Arcata, California, USA, it is now illegal to comply with the federal "USA Patriot Act".

Starting this month, a new city ordinance would impose a fine of $57 on any city department head who voluntarily complies with investigations or arrests under the aegis of the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism bill passed after September 11.

Arcata's law is mostly symbolic, since federal law trumps any local ordinance. Still, the notion of civic disobedience is drawing plenty of attention.

[Tony]

I wonder if these hypocrites are as zealous in their defense of the constitution as it relates to gun control. Probably not.

[arcticpenguin]

1) Gun control is not relevant to the topic of discussion

2) You have not established in any way that these people are hypocrites

3) You have not established that their primary concern is one of constitutionality

Other than that, thanks for your well-thought out contribution to the thread

[schplurg]

I'm not sure how to respond specifically to that article, but I can say that I am confused over the contents of the Patriot Act. I've read parts of it, most noteably the section (215?) that details how information can be requested from libraries etc, and the following sections that discuss wiretapping.

I am wary of the Patriot Act, but I'm having trouble sorting out what it means and how it is actually being applied. The opponents of the act say that officials can now get information without a subpoena, and that search warrants are much broader and easier to obtain.

From reading the act, it seems that both sides are interpereting the act differently. In what specific way is it easier to gain a warrant now than it was previously? Opponents claim that only "probable cause" is needed, but where is this stated? I see that the "parameters" of the search are looser, in that information allowed to be retrieved in a search includes any "tangible items" that may relate to the case, rather than any one specific item.

Also, the fact that libraries cannot report that a warrant was served, ever, seems to remove some of the "checks and balances". Who keeps track of these warrants and oversees that the FBI aren't abusing their rights?

Actually, I believe the act states that congress is to report information on warrants-served every 6 months (I may be wrong here). I have read some articles recently claiming that they have resisted revealing this information.

[a_unique_person]

$57?

[Agammamon]

Looks like this sort of stuff is a continuation of the confilct between states rights and federal rights. CA has also defied the feds by making it legal to produce/distribute/use marijuana for medical purpose and they have been in conflict with the federal government ever since.

[Ladewig]

The American Library Association's take on Patriot I
Section 215: Access to Records Under Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA)
* Allows an FBI agent to obtain a search warrant for “any tangible thing,” which can include books, records, papers, floppy disks, data tapes, and computers with hard drives.
* Permits the FBI to compel production of library circulation records 1 , Internet use records, and registration information stored in any medium.
* Does not require the agent to demonstrate “probable cause,” the existence of specific facts to support the belief that a crime has been committed or that the items sought are evidence of a crime. Instead, the agent only needs to claim that he believes that the records he wants may be related to an ongoing investigation related to terrorism or intelligence activities, a very low legal standard. 2
* Libraries or librarians served with a search warrant issued under FISA rules may not disclose, under of penalty of law, the existence of the warrant or the fact that records were produced as a result of the warrant. A patron cannot be told that his or her records were given to the FBI or that he or she is the subject of an FBI investigation.

1
Under this statute, the government doesn't even have to produce a name. It can ask for all the patrons that checked out a certain book.
2 The phrase " a low legal standard" is hyperbole. It really is no legal standard at all. When the government can say, "give us this information and don't tell anyone that you gave us this information under penalty of law," then it is impossible for defense lawyers to determine if the government met any standard.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Looks like this sort of stuff is a continuation of the confilct between states rights and federal rights. CA has also defied the feds by making it legal to produce/distribute/use marijuana for medical purpose and they have been in conflict with the federal government ever since.

The irony is thick. For years, leftists have fought aqainst states's rights. Now it has come to bite the in the ass.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony


The irony is thick. For years, leftists have fought aqainst states's rights. Now it has come to bite the in the ass.

Speaking as a "rightist" who you call a leftist, I note that you are attempting to continue your slide into fascism by tarring the moderate right-wing as "leftist".

On another note, http://www.arcataeye.com/police/index.shtml

Mr. Sherriff, check out their police log. Ever wanted to say some of that but can't? :D

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


Speaking as a "rightist" who you call a leftist, I note that you are attempting to continue your slide into fascism by tarring the moderate right-wing as "leftist".




When did I call you a leftist? And when did I tar the moderate right as leftists?

And I guess I am now a fascist because I think the constitution should be followed? Because I think we should not have the income tax? Because I want as little government intrution into our live's as possible? Because I believe in individual rights? And because I think gun laws and drugs laws should be repealed? Well s**t, if I am "sliding into fascism", you must be Hitler incarnate.

[schplurg]

Originally posted by Ladewig


The American Library Association's take on Patriot I
Section 215: Access to Records Under Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA)
* Allows an FBI agent to obtain a search warrant for “any tangible thing,” which can include books, records, papers, floppy disks, data tapes, and computers with hard drives.
* Permits the FBI to compel production of library circulation records 1 , Internet use records, and registration information stored in any medium.
* Does not require the agent to demonstrate “probable cause,” the existence of specific facts to support the belief that a crime has been committed or that the items sought are evidence of a crime. Instead, the agent only needs to claim that he believes that the records he wants may be related to an ongoing investigation related to terrorism or intelligence activities, a very low legal standard. 2
* Libraries or librarians served with a search warrant issued under FISA rules may not disclose, under of penalty of law, the existence of the warrant or the fact that records were produced as a result of the warrant. A patron cannot be told that his or her records were given to the FBI or that he or she is the subject of an FBI investigation.
Thanks for the info Ladewig. This is the stuff I'm wondering about. It says this is the Library Associations "take on it", and I'm just wondering how they are deriving this, especially the part about not needing to demonstrate "probable cause" and that "the agent only needs to claim that he believes that the records he wants may be related to an ongoing investigation".

What does that mean? What exactly must an "officer" present to a judge or official as evidence for a search? I'm looking for details of exactly how this search order is granted and how that is different from the pre-Pat Act days. I suppose it's all in there and I just don't understand it, or the Act refers to other documents and orders to clarify its meaning.

I'd love to "hate" the Patriot Act (or not) but it seems that everyone has their own "take" on it. So whose take is correct?

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony



When did I call you a leftist?

Memory is fleeting, I see.

And when did I tar the moderate right as leftists?

I'm a Goldwater republican.

And I guess I am now a fascist because I think the constitution should be followed?

Straw man.

Because I think we should not have the income tax?

Somebody has to pay for government. Would you prefer a VAT?
Because I want as little government intrution into our live's as possible?

I'd assume you'd support Arcata, then. Perhaps you were, but your support is hard to fathom.

Because I believe in individual rights?

Ditto...

And because I think gun laws and drugs laws should be repealed? Well s**t, if I am "sliding into fascism", you must be Hitler incarnate.
(Note: I had, until now, no idea what you thought on those matters.)

I think there ought to be gun laws, you ought to have to watch a 1-hour video of what guns do to people before you buy one.

As to drug laws, my position on them is simple, the only thing dumber than doing drugs is trying to ban them. Prohibitions have failed time and again, throughout history. They have never stood the test of time, except in some cases in extremist religious circumstances, and even then the "undercurrent" never ceases.

I guess us Goldwater republicans are "Hitler incarnate" then, after all, you've just taken the same tactic that LBJ used to win the election. Proud?

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


Memory is fleeting, I see.



I guess. I dont remember every yahoo I insult, sorry.

I'm a Goldwater republican.


Ok, and a Goldwater republican is.....?

Straw man.

It was a valid question.

Somebody has to pay for government. Would you prefer a VAT?

Whats VAT? I would prefer a national sales tax to an income tax.


I think there ought to be gun laws, you ought to have to watch a 1-hour video of what guns do to people before you buy one.

Perhaps, but you can go to www.rotten.com and see the same stuff.

I guess us Goldwater republicans are "Hitler incarnate" then, after all, you've just taken the same tactic that LBJ used to win the election.

What tactic is that? You are the one that tried to demonize me first, if you cant take it, dont dish it out.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony


I guess. I dont remember every yahoo I insult, sorry.
Take notes?
I'm a Goldwater republican.


Ok, and a Goldwater republican is.....?
Err, you do know how Barry Goldwater was, don't you? You know, that Arizona guy that the Arizona republicans threw out of the party once for being too liberal?

It was a valid question.
and now you know the answer anyhow
Whats VAT? I would prefer a national sales tax to an income tax.
What's wrong with a VAT, then?

Perhaps, but you can go to www.rotten.com and see the same stuff.
My experience is that quite a few people who used a gun in anger didn't have any conception of what one does until they actually used it. Ergo, my proposal.

[What tactic is that?

You must remember "in your guts, you know he's nuts".
You are the one that tried to demonize me first, if you cant take it, dont dish it out.
Oh, yeah. You're the one nattering about "leftists" and I'm the one doing the demonizing. Get a grip.:rolleyes:

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony,

You demonize others constantly, almost at random and with no restraint. It's a disingenuous for you, the archetypical verbally indigestive conservative, to whine about being demonized.

It's a tad late for that, bedwetter.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj

Take notes?

Ill consider it. ;)

Err, you do know how Barry Goldwater was, don't you? You know, that Arizona guy that the Arizona republicans threw out of the party once for being too liberal?

No, I dont know how he was, thats why I was asking you want a Goldwater Rupublican was. (i.e. what do you stand for?)

What's wrong with a VAT, then?

What's VAT?

You must remember "in your guts, you know he's nuts".

That was before my time (I assume that was a campaign slogan), I think my dad was 9, Ill ask him if he remembers.


You're the one nattering about "leftists" and I'm the one doing the demonizing.

You're the one that made the unfounded assertion that I was 'slipping into fascism". I was merely making an observation.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko


It's a tad late for that, bedwetter.

Good one. :)

[schplurg]

So uh, this thread IS about the Patriot Act still, right? Anyone care to maybe explain my questions above as to how and why the act is being interpreted the way it is?

Or should I just call someone here a fascist or a leftist or a poo-poo head and be done with it?

[Ladewig]

"the agent only needs to claim that he believes that the records he wants may be related to an ongoing investigation".

What does that mean? What exactly must an "officer" present to a judge or official as evidence for a search? I'm looking for details of exactly how this search order is granted and how that is different from the pre-Pat Act days. I suppose it's all in there and I just don't understand it, or the Act refers to other documents and orders to clarify its meaning.

I'm still looking for a precise quote to link to, but I believe that it means a judge is not involved. A federal agent can walk into a library, flash badge and ask for records. Such a loosening of legal requirements is being criticized because 48 states had laws requiring judge-issued search warrants for such information.

[schplurg]

Thanks for the info Ladewig.

I have heard that a warrant must be granted instead of a court ordered subpoena, and that supposedly the warrant was much easier to obtain.

actually...Libraries or librarians served with a search warrant issued under FISA rules may not disclose, under of penalty of law, the existence of the warrant or the fact that records were produced as a result of the warrant. So there is a warrant of some type involved, I sure hope so anyways. I guess I'm curious as to how much easier this warrant is to obtain than the court ordered subpoena that was required previously. I believe a subpoena would be public knowledge as well, whereas under the Pat Act any warrant issued must be kept confidential.

It's scary how laws that most citizens (myself included) know little about can get passed right in the face of the public. At the same time, you can hear two people "on the street" arguing passionately over the Pat Act, knowing that the odds are good that at least one of them has never laid eyes on the actual text.

BTW I have a PDF version of the Patriot Act. I'm sure it's available all over the web, but if anyone wants it lemme know and I'll upload it to my server.

[Ladewig]

Yes, I was wrong in my last posting.

Section 215 (c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the
judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified,
approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application
meets the requirements of this section.

Because the only "requirements" are that the request was made by someone with rank equal to or higher than "Assistant Special Agent in Charge" and that the investigation is "not [to] be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States," judges will effectively have to sign all orders presented to them. I prefer the judicial branch of the government providing a check for the executive branch.

Furthermore, even the second requirement is somewhat meaningless because United States person is not really defined.