Proposed "Patriots" Act of 2003

[Lemastre]

If you saw Bill Moyers' NOW show on Friday, you probably realize that it behooves everyone to examine the Justice Department's surreptitious proposed updating of the so-called patriots bill that came into being following 9/11. The new bill is even more destructive to civil liberties. A summary of its key elements may be found at

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/home.asp

According to the Center for Public Integrity, which acquired a copy of the bill from a public-spirited government employee, this legislation was being kept under wraps by Ashcroft. He apparently was waiting till a war with Iraq begins, hoping that would distract public attention from the bill as it made its way through Congress.

[subgenius]

Well, if you're against the "Patriots" Act you're a traitor, aren't you? :eek:
Grab the Vaseline folks, its going to be a bumpy ride.:eek:

[Wolverine]

Why does this remind me of the "Majestic 12 documents?"

[Lemastre]

What are the Majestic 12 documents?

[Wolverine]

http://ufos.about.com/cs/majestic12/index.htm

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-05/majestic-12.html

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Wolverine
Why does this remind me of the "Majestic 12 documents?"

After perusing the web sites you suggested regarding the Majestic 12, I have to say your question is warranted. I, too, wonder why a bill recently drafted by the Justice Department would remind you of some phony memos concocted by UFO hobbyists several years ago.

It's conceivable that the bill is equally phony, but there seems to be no point in that, other than perhaps as someone's idea of a joke. And when questioned about the bill, Justice does not deny authorship, but claims the bill has not been finalized or presented to the White House or Att'y General. I find it pretty disturbing to see that some of its provisions are even being considered, whatever stage they're in. It is, I suppose, considered a modest srengthening of the act it is supposed to modify and which is scary on its own.

[Wolverine]

Why would these documents remind me of MJ-12? Simple, actually:

- "leaked" documents mysteriously arrive on the doorsteps of interested parties

- blatant lack of evidence to support the documents' accuracy or origin

- conspiratorial themes are involved

I've been trying to access the documents to read more about the particulars, and how they arrived at the conclusion that this "bill" was authored by the staff of Attorney General John Ashcroft, but cannot get the pages to load from the website provided.

As I'm sure we're all aware, the executive branch and departments thereof do not directly submit legislation to Congress. They can be forwarded to Congress with a request, however.

The Justice Department did not author HR 3162 (USA Patriot Act); this legislation was a combination of 3 bills (S 1510, HR 2975, HR 3004), authored and sponsored/co-sponsored by legislators on the Hill in bipartisan fashion.

And when questioned about the bill, Justice does not deny authorship, but claims the bill has not been finalized or presented to the White House or Att'y General

Let's take a look at the full press release issued three days ago in response to this material, by the DOJ's director of public affairs, Barbara Comstock:

The President expects all his cabinet departments that are involved in homeland security, including the Department of Justice, to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect the American people. It should not be surprising that the Department of Justice takes that responsibility seriously and discusses additional tools to protect the American people. We are continually considering anti-terrorism measures and would be derelict if we were not doing so. The Department's deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties.

We are continually asking our field prosecutors, investigators and experts what tools they need to prevent future acts of terrorism. During our internal deliberations, many ideas are considered, some are discarded and new ideas emerge in the process along with numerous discussion drafts. Department staff have not presented any finalproposals to either the Attorney General or the White House. It would be premature to speculate on any future decisions, particularly ideas or proposals that are still being discussed at staff levels.

No, they don't offer a denial. Neither, however, do they offer a confirmation. Let's not put the proverbial cart in front of the horse.

The Center for Public Integrity web site states that:
Comstock later told the Center that the draft "is an early discussion draft and it has not been sent to either the Vice President or the Speaker of the House."

Let's not misconstrue this as any sort of verification.



IMHO, the Patriot Act is one of, if not the most misunderstood pieces of legislation in recent history. The only thing I find "pretty disturbing" or "scary" about this topic is that from my experience, people seem to base their opinions of this legislation on the interpretation of special-interest groups and third parties rather than undertake the modest effort to read its text and reference its sections to United States Code.

Reminiscent of UFO believers, I've seen horribly short-sighted assertions of what the Patriot Act seeks to accomplish, ignoring the factual information in favor of relying on emotionally-fueled speculation and (usually, partisan) rhetoric.

I apologize for the stark contrast in topics between the legislative processes of our government and UFO woo-woo methodology; my point is only to underscore my distaste for the observed trend on this forum that the political and/or legislative spectrum is seemingly immune to skepticism.

[Lemastre]

When a window shatters in the night, I know mischief is afoot and that an alarm should be raised. Exactly what chicanery is in store may be of secondary importance. In the same way, an alarm is raised by the fact that the Justice Department is cooking up a bill to revise the 2001 patriot act. It can only mean that law-enforcement agencies are out to further convenience themselves at the expense of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. The overall effects of such abrogations need to be weighed against their immediate goals. At least we should stay aware of what may come down the legislative pipe in this regard.

I haven't read this particular draft bill. The PDF provided by the Center for Public Integrity is so large and slow to load and then to traverse that I cannot manage it. I hope someone will make the thing easier to get at. I assume that the summary appearing at the CPI web site is a fair representation of what's proposed.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Lemastre
In the same way, an alarm is raised by the fact that the Justice Department is cooking up a bill to revise the 2001 patriot act.

Based upon what evidence?

It can only mean that law-enforcement agencies are out to further convenience themselves at the expense of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Repeat previous question.

Additionally, are you aware of the section of the Patriot Act which mandated that the Office of the Inspector General:

- designate an official to compile and review any incoming complaints against any level of law enforcement citing abuse of civil rights/civil liberties while carrying out specific duties contained in the Act

- investigate the claims against DOJ personnel where they fall within its jurisdiction

- forward claims falling outside its jurisdiction to other appropriate agencies (e.g. police departments' internal affairs divisions...)

- provide means to prosecute abuse where applicable within the DOJ

- and file all findings to both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on a semi-annual basis for further review?

OIG personnel have also met with advocacy groups like Amnesty International and the ACLU to seek input and hear concerns.

I fully recognize the significance of monitoring the ongoing activities within all branches of our government to preserve and defend our civil rights and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution. Again, though, I must re-emphasize particularly on this issue the importance of understanding all the facts before forming an opinion.

The legislation discussed in this thread has been positively demonized by certain groups for circumventing numerous constitutional amendments, but again, where is the evidence which clearly demonstrates these infractions?

Realizing that I'm neither a lawyer nor constitutional scholar, should sections of the Patriot Act be deemed unconstitutional, there are processes to reverse said sections. If not, all but a few portions of the legislation sunset on 12/31/05.

As for the "Patriot Act II" ... seeing as no such legislation has been introduced into Congress, and it seems that we're still awaiting evidence to corroborate the claims made by Moyer's television program and the Center for Public Integrity ... any complete conclusion drawn on the matter at this time would strike me as extremely imprudent.

So far, the only corroborative statement I've found concerning this information has been at www.infowars.com ... which, is almost as credible a source as Coast to Coast AM with George Noory or www.rense.com

From the infowars (http://www.infowars.com/patriotact2.htm) page:

Calling for even more governmental secrecy and increased surveillance on the American people, the legislation has been kept secret from the public, pending a more conducive environment for its introduction -- say, after a terrorist attack. After an attack, when the sheeple are down on their knees kissing the jackboots of the police state and begging for more control, begging to give up their liberty for security, loving Emperor Bush and his power-mad cabinet-of-thugs would have no problem convincing the duped and frightened population that this "new" legislation would be needed in light of the current, dangerous atmosphere.

We are trying desperately to read all 120 pages of the document. Section 501 (the Expatriation of terrorists) allows the government to grab American citizens secretly for the mere suspicion of a crime, take their citizenship away and extradite them to a foreign country for imprisonment, torture, or execution.

:rolleyes:

[Lemastre]

What is the evidence that the Justice Department is devising a bill, you ask? Well, we have a copy of the bill, plus Justice's acknowledgment that such a bill is being drafted.

Is the legislation a fait accompli? No, but we at least have been apprised of what's in the works.

Did the authors of the USA Patriots Act foresee Constitutional problems and include provisions to mollify those who complain? If you say so. Perhaps we should prefer that legislation not be so blatantly unconstitutional that its authors feel the need to suggest avenues by which the public can exercise its right to complain. And the mollifying provisions you describe call for the compiling of evidence and filing of reports and other comings and goings. All this may well eventually help nullify some part of the legislation. But I assume that while it is under way, the objectionable legislation is in force and being used.

The best we can do is be vigilant and tell our legislators of our concerns.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Lemastre
.... plus Justice's acknowledgment that such a bill is being drafted.

*signals time-out*

Where???

[Lemastre]

Pardon my quoting this PR item from Justice again:
The President expects all his cabinet departments that are involved in homeland security, including the Department of Justice, to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect the American people. It should not be surprising that the Department of Justice takes that responsibility seriously and discusses additional tools to protect the American people. We are continually considering anti-terrorism measures and would be derelict if we were not doing so. The Department's deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties.

We are continually asking our field prosecutors, investigators and experts what tools they need to prevent future acts of terrorism. During our internal deliberations, many ideas are considered, some are discarded and new ideas emerge in the process along with numerous discussion drafts. Department staff have not presented any final proposals to either the Attorney General or the White House. It would be premature to speculate on any future decisions, particularly ideas or proposals that are still being discussed at staff levels. [italics added]
This statement indeed does not flatly state that the draft originated at Justice. Probably because Justice didn't want to suddenly reverse its previous denials of the bill's existence. What they are willing to suggest is that they gin up lots of drafts, and that what CPI has is only preliminary.

But even if CPI's informant got the document out of a senator's office and the authors have no connection to the Justice Department, it's worthy of concern.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by subgenius
Well, if you're against the "Patriots" Act you're a traitor, aren't you? :eek:
Grab the Vaseline folks, its going to be a bumpy ride.:eek:

Nothing new, coming from Ashcroft, it seems.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Lemastre
If you saw Bill Moyers' NOW show on Friday, you probably realize that it behooves everyone to examine the Justice Department's surreptitious proposed updating of the so-called patriots bill that came into being following 9/11. The new bill is even more destructive to civil liberties. A summary of its key elements may be found at

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/home.asp

According to the Center for Public Integrity, which acquired a copy of the bill from a public-spirited government employee, this legislation was being kept under wraps by Ashcroft. He apparently was waiting till a war with Iraq begins, hoping that would distract public attention from the bill as it made its way through Congress.

The Democrats will probably let this through, like they have everything else Bush has wanted. Spineless bastards.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Renfield


The Democrats will probably let this through, like they have everything else Bush has wanted. Spineless bastards.
You're losing focus on who you're real opposition is. They love it.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Lemastre
Is the legislation a fait accompli? No, but we at least have been apprised of what's * in the works.

* Allegedly.

Did the authors of the USA Patriots Act foresee Constitutional problems and include provisions to mollify those who complain? If you say so.

1) That's not what I stated; I was merely asking if you were familiar with that section of the legislation, to which I received no answer. I cannot speak as to the foresight of the authors/sponsors/cosponsors of the legislation.

2) Have you read the full text of the bill (now law), or do you plan to, rather than relying on the opinions of others (myself included)?

Perhaps we should prefer that legislation not be so blatantly unconstitutional that its authors feel the need to suggest avenues by which the public can exercise its right to complain.

Please describe what portions of the Patriot Act are "so blatantly unconstitutional" or feel free to cite any court decisions that have ruled as such.

If indeed any of the Patriot Act should be deemed unconstitutional, I would agree that those who authored and voted in favor of the bill at the time should be held accountable for not abiding by their respective oaths of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, including President Bush for having signed the bill into law. Obviously, we would first have to demonstrate the validity of cries claiming it to be unconstitutional.
Wouldn't we?

And the mollifying provisions you describe call for the compiling of evidence and filing of reports and other comings and goings. All this may well eventually help nullify some part of the legislation.

See above.

But I assume that while it is under way, the objectionable legislation is in force and being used.

Objectionable to whom, and on what grounds?

----------------------------

Department staff have not presented any final proposals to either the Attorney General or the White House. It would be premature to speculate on any future decisions, particularly ideas or proposals that are still being discussed at staff levels.

This statement indeed does not flatly state that the draft originated at Justice.

Exactly.

But the CPI web site alleges that Ashcroft's staff indeed did author the document, yet no corroborative evidence has been presented other than a separate "cover sheet" -- and we're expected to believe that the two documents are linked without clear demonstration (enter the mysterious "public-spirited government employee")...

((This is also why I was reminded me of the MJ-12 documents... from the previously referenced Klass URL: One of the original MJ-12 documents released by Moore and his two partners (UFO lecturer Stanton Friedman and TV producer Jaime Shandera) purported to be a memo from President Truman to Defense Secretary James Forrestal, dated September 24, 1947, which authorized the creation of the MJ-12 group. ... a single-page memo "discovered" elsewhere which was used used as leverage in an attempt to bolster the authenticity of the larger, more oddball document. Thought I'd add some further clarification. ))

Probably because Justice didn't want to suddenly reverse its previous denials of the bill's existence.

Where do you observe "denials" made by the DOJ from any of the information presented in the text of the CPI article (or elsewhere if I missed something)? The very term (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=denial) connotates deceit or deception. Those involved from the DOJ stated that they had no knowledge of this alleged legislation, same with individuals involved with Congressional Judiciary Committees.

What they are willing to suggest is that they gin up lots of drafts, and that what CPI has is only preliminary.

One of the functions of the Department of Justice is to evaluate what is necessary to prevent and control crime (terrorism included). I won't bother re-posting the info in DOJ PA Director Comstock's comments, although I'm left with the notion that you're reading a great deal more into the statement than is intended. Is it somehow unclear that the portion of her comments you've chosen to italicize do not necessarily reflect upon this specific alleged bill but on the first two sentences of the paragraph, in reference to the agency's regular, ongoing functions?

Additionally, having had some time to scrutinize the PDF file of the documents, there are no references to the DOJ, Attorney General (or any other seemingly relevant search results for specific terms), no governmental traces of any sort in terms of page headers/footers... it seemingly comprises 120 pages of proposed changes to various segments of USC alone.

But even if CPI's informant got the document out of a senator's office and the authors have no connection to the Justice Department, it's worthy of concern.

There are undoubtedly a number of classified documents, proposals, inquiries, discussions underway by any number of governmental agencies which could be worthy of concern.

By this point, we've run the gamut of "ifs," "maybes," "rumors," -- that, presented in a different subject, we as skeptics would laugh at. Why does this methodology apply to UFOs, psychics, areas of the paranormal, but not to politics?

I, for one, require concrete evidence in order to place the slightest creedence in these materials, particularly when dealing with a part of our government committed to safeguarding our civil liberties rather than erasing them.

[Ladewig]

Some items I did not find all that disturbing:

Section 201, “Prohibition of Disclosure of Terrorism Investigation Detainee Information"
... the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 follows in the footsteps of his October 2001 directive to carefully consider such interest when granting Freedom of Information Act requests...

I thought that FOIA requests were already denied based on a number of reasons including national security. Bush's administration had been denying many FOIA requests even before 9/11.

Section 405, “Presumption for Pretrial Detention in Cases Involving Terrorism”: While many people charged with drug offenses punishable by prison terms of 10 years or more are held before their trial without bail, this provision would create a comparable statute for those suspected of terrorist activity. The reasons for presumptively holding suspected terrorists before trial, the Justice Department summary memo states, are clear. “This presumption is warranted because of the unparalleled magnitude of the danger to the United States and its people posed by acts of terrorism, and because terrorism is typically engaged in by groups – many with international connections – that are often in a position to help their members flee or go into hiding.”

Even without this statute, can't judges deny bail to any high-flight-risk suspect?


On the other hand, there are a few that I want to learn more about:

Section 301-306, “Terrorist Identification Database”: These sections would authorize creation of a DNA database on “suspected terrorists,” expansively defined to include association with suspected terrorist groups, and noncitizens suspected of certain crimes or of having supported any group designated as terrorist.

Is this DNA collected with the subjects' knowledge or to police do 'black bag' jobs to collect DNA from homes? Are the judges issuing these warrants carefully weighing initial evidence against these suspects?

Section 312, “Appropriate Remedies with Respect to Law Enforcement Surveillance Activities”: This section would terminate all state law enforcement consent decrees before Sept. 11, 2001, not related to racial profiling or other civil rights violations, that limit such agencies from gathering information about individuals and organizations. The authors of this statute claim that these consent orders, which were passed as a result of police spying abuses, could impede current terrorism investigations. It would also place substantial restrictions on future court injunctions.

So, the police agencies abused people's rights by inapproprately spying on them. Laws were passed preventing this abuse from continuing. The police now want these laws repealed. I don't see how that helps the U.S. There are all sorts of laws that "impede current investigations" (e.g. 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 6th amendment). A temporary or permanent suspension of these laws is not appropriate no matter how heinous the crime is. Similarly, a suspension of laws preventing potential police abuses is not appropriate.

Besides, the government's definition of terrorist investigations is even more broad than the government's definition of conspiracy.

[Roadtoad]

Maybe it's me, but there are sections on the first reading of this that strike me as pushing Constitutional limits to the near breaking point. Another hour or two to read, perhaps. But I'm worried about what I think I'm seeing.

[Lemastre]

I now realize how misguided I was in suspecting that the Justice Dep't would ever for a moment contemplate submitting a bill that might impact our Constitutional guarantees in any way. For my achieving this enlightenment let me blushingly thank The Gridiron Guru (whatever that colorful sobriquet means) for laboriously parsing each line of my various contributions to this forum to reveal so dramatically how absurd my suspicions of Justice must have been. I mean, without having the final bill in hand, with the President's signature still moist upon it, we really have nothing to discuss, do we?

Let me also admit that I now see the patriot act of 2001 for what it really is -- no less than perhaps our only hope of ferreting out the terrorists here and abroad and winning the "war on terrorism" that President Bush's administration is so valiantly and effectively waging (as I'm sure will happen whenever it finishes with Saddam Hussein). I now see how totally illogical it would be for Justice to even consider an amendment to a bill of such perfection. And I hope that any Justice Department agent, overt or otherwise, would, were he to peruse this thread, find it appropriate to ignore all of my previous, impetuous, posts on this topic and accept this mea culpa for what it appears to be. Amen.

[Wolverine]

Lemastre,

I meant nothing personal, please don't take it that way.

Rather, I was merely curious at how one arrives at such conclusions without embracing the very ideology that we (well, most of us) on this forum devoted to skepticism apply to a host of other topics.

If you'd rather abandon the thread than stand by your statements, that's certainly your prerogative. Although, I'm disappointed that you declined to answer so much as one question posed, favoring instead to concentrate your efforts on a clever satirical reply.

[shanek]

After reading this thread, I know that I don't have any definitive evidence that Patriot II is being considered, but I will say that we have a lot more evidence of the new act than we do for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Again, just looking for a little consistency...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by shanek
After reading this thread, I know that I don't have any definitive evidence that Patriot II is being considered, but I will say that we have a lot more evidence of the new act than we do for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Again, just looking for a little consistency...
But they are evil. We are good.:rolleyes:

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by shanek
Again, just looking for a little consistency...

Me too! That's my whole point. ;)