Justice Dept. Details Patriot Act Cases

[Jolie Rouge]

By CURT ANDERSON

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/st...574.htm&sc=1152

WASHINGTON (AP) - Seeking to bolster support for the Patriot Act, the Justice Department provided Congress on Tuesday with details of numerous cases in which the anti-terrorism law has been used.

The 29-page report is part of a Bush administration effort to discourage Congress from weakening a law that critics say threatens civil liberties by giving authorities more latitude to spy on people. Key sections of the law expire at the end of 2005.

Release of the document comes less than a week after House Republican leaders barely turned back an amendment that would have prevented the FBI from using Patriot Act authority to obtain library and bookstore records.

The report says that in the period starting with the Sept. 11 attacks and ending May 5, Justice Department terrorism investigations resulted in charges against 310 people, with 179 convictions or guilty pleas. The Patriot Act, it says, was instrumental in these cases.


Attorney General John Ashcroft, appearing at a news conference with House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said the report provides ``a mountain of evidence that the Patriot Act continues to save lives.' The Patriot Act is al-Qaida's worst nightmare,'' Ashcroft said.


Among the specific examples:

It allowed intelligence agents to share with FBI criminal investigators evidence that an anonymous letter sent to the FBI had come from an individual with al-Qaida ties. That letter began the investigation into an alleged terror cell in Lackawanna, N.Y., that has resulted in six guilty pleas.


That same information-sharing authority was used against members of an alleged terror cell in Portland, Ore., that an undercover informant said was preparing for possible attacks against Jewish schools or synagogues. Continued surveillance under the Patriot Act of one suspect led to six others, who likely would have scattered or fled if the first suspect had been arrested right away.


Terror financing provisions of the law were used in numerous cases, including charges against a member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, on charges of being an unlicensed money transmitter. The same authority has been used to prosecute people illegally sending money to Iraq, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and India.


Powers permitted under the Patriot Act have also been used in investigations involving potential school bomb attacks, computer hackers, child pornography, violent fugitives and illegal weapons sales. In one case, Patriot Act electronic communications authorities allowed law enforcement agencies to identify a person who had sent 200 threatening letters laced with white powder in Lafayette, La., the department said.


The report did not say whether the FBI had used its authority to obtain library or bookstore records. That information is classified, but Ashcroft last year issued a declassified statement saying that, up to that point, the power had not been used.


Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, accused the department of selectively releasing information about the Patriot Act and refusing to address civil liberties concerns. "Coupled with the department's consistent record of exaggerating their record about terrorism, this entire report is suspect,'' Conyers said.


Sensenbrenner said opponents were also guilty of being selective in information they use to undermine the law. ``The people who criticize the Patriot Act cherry-pick their contentions the same way,'' he said.


On the Net:

Justice Department: www.usdoj.gov

[Jolie Rouge]

Evil and the Anarchy-Repression Continuum
Jay Bryant
August 24, 2004



There is something liberals don't get about civil liberty, and that conservatives have done a poor job of explaining.

Let's try and sort it out, by starting with the concept of law enforcement and its relationship to liberty.

We need think only a few seconds to realize that all law enforcement infringes to some extent on the liberty of innocent people. You pay taxes for the salary and expenses of the first cop hired, and the minute you do so, you have given up the liberty to spend that money in some other way. From that point on, in a thousand ways, it can be shown to be necessary for the innocent to sacrifice something in order for the policeman to his job. You may be required to drive only on the right hand side of the road. You may be required to give up your free time to serve on jury duty, or testify in court. You may be required to show identification in order to cash a check,or enter a building. You may have to pass through a metal detector in order to board an airplane.

How much of this loss of liberty is to be permitted? Where is the line to be drawn on the continuum between anarchy and repression? This is the constant task of public policy.

Let us now pause to consider my selection of the word "repression" in the above paragraph. I'm not happy with it, because it seems too strong, but it is the best option I have. As I mean it, it describes a society where civil liberties have been overly "repressed" in the interest of advancing domestic tranquility and the common welfare. I've never been to Singapore, but as itis often described, it would seem to me a repressive society.

In the end, defining the golden mean between anarchy and repression is a subjective exercise. I, for example, would not willingly live in one of those communities where an active homeowners' association is empowered to restrict my freedom in regard to things like landscaping, siding, fencing, etc. You, on the other hand, may find such "laws" perfectly acceptable in the interest of creating an orderly and pleasant neighborhood.


I've spent all this time on the meaning of "repression" in order to distinguish it from what it is not. It may well describe present-day Singapore, or even present-day America. But it does not describe the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Ba'athist Iraq or Taliban Afghanistan.

The continuum that runs through seat belt laws, capital punishment and the designation of captives in the War on Terrorism as "detainees" rather than "prisoners" does not go there.

There's a discontinuity. Some other factor is needed beyond the incrementalism of the anarchy-repression continuum. Otherwise you do not get to the Gulag, the gas chambers or the mass graves of Iraq. And that factor is what liberals miss because, well, because they don't believe in it.

That factor is evil – specifically, evil intent on the part of national leaders. A leader who seeks a better life for the people may define that goal in a way that moves up or down the continuum. But that's not what Hitler, Stalin or Saddam was trying to do.

They were not overly harsh on people suspected of crimes, or treason. They invented those charges against utterly innocent people in order to terrorize, bolster their power, serve some ideological objective or feed their blood lust. They were, in a word, evil.

Robert Conquest writes of Neville Chamberlain that he "could not conceive of anyone whose attitudes were not more or less within the limits of those prevalent in the Midlands." Churchill, on the other hand, was not deceived by Hitler, not because he was more intelligent, but because he had "a knowledge of history, and of evil" (my emphasis).

Now, you may argue that a society that moves too far toward repression will make itself more likely to fall under the sway of evil leaders. Perhaps, but I have racked my brain and can find no example in all of human history which supports that proposition, although one can make a case for movement in the opposite direction, and cite both the Bolsheviks and Nazis.


Please understand, I am not making a case for repression here. I believe myself to favor a nation farther toward anarchy than most other people I know. But when threatened by evil, I am prepared to make sacrifices, including such things as airline metal detectors, even though I am not really convinced they do much good. You must fight evil, or succumb to it. You cannot negotiate with it, as the failure of Chamberlain and so very many subsequent western liberals demonstrates. The only legitimate reasons ever to negotiate with an evil leader are to perpetrate trickery or stall for time.

But if you attempt serious negotiation – you get this and he gets that – with a Brezhnev, Milosevic or Osama, you may as well engage in plea-bargaining with Charles Manson.

Whatever you give up is a dead loss.

The leading modern authority on evil, author and Time Magazine writer Lance Morrow, notes that "many people do not believe evil exists," and echoes Conquest in saying, "The children of the Enlightenment sometimes have an inadequate understanding of the possibilities of the Endarkenment."

He believes it is "fatuous" to deny the existence of evil, cautioning also against tossing the word around irresponsibly. I agree; neither John Kerry nor George W. Bush is evil, no matter how many faults you may find in one, the other or both.

For Morrow, evil has "a wandering, fluid quality," which "seeks its opportunities and settles in like a parasite."

Did it settle in the Third Reich? Of course. In the Soviet Union? Read Anne Applebaum's Pulitzer-winning Gulag and tell me it did not. In al-Qaeda? How else to explain 9/11? Among the RUF of Sierra Leone? Ask the children whose limbs they hacked off.

There was an Evil Empire, and there is today an Axis of Evil. And we face, moreover, no danger of becoming evil incrementally. The continuum we are on doesn't go there.

[kvmj]

We "liberals" believe that evil exists. I, for instance, believe that we should not throw the constitution out the window.

[mesue]

When I read about the PATRIOT ACT, I can't help but realize that we are essentially giving up fundamental rights to feel safer and in doing such I do not feel safer at all, much more vulnerable. I also recall that many of the people we put into office to vote on these things did not even bother reading it before they passed it. And it always reminds me of the writings of Martin Neemoller
First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a Jew
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out-- because I was not a communist
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out-- because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and by then there was no one left to speak out for me

[stresseater]

And it always reminds me of the writings of Martin Neemoller. First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a Jew
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out-- because I was not a communist
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out-- because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and by then there was no one left to speak out for me
I too love that quote. However I see the patriot act as a way for us to defend ourselves before they come for us.....and they are comming. Law biding people have nothing to fear it is the people who would do us harm that this is designed to protect against. Will there be some cases where it is misused, yes. As with any law there will be mistakes, look at the three strikes law. There have been miscarriages of this law as well but the upper courts are suppose to be there for just that reason, to overrule lower courts when there is a miscarriage of justice.. The courts will rule in those cases and hopefully we can learn from those mistakes. :D ;)

[mesue]

I too love that quote. However I see the patriot act as a way for us to defend ourselves before they come for us.....and they are comming. Law biding people have nothing to fear it is the people who would do us harm that this is designed to protect against. Will there be some cases where it is misused, yes. As with any law there will be mistakes, look at the three strikes law. There have been miscarriages of this law as well but the upper courts are suppose to be there for just that reason, to overrule lower courts when there is a miscarriage of justice.. The courts will rule in those cases and hopefully we can learn from those mistakes. :D ;)

Are you aware that they can take you or anyone based on very little info just someones suspicion and lock you away for months without access to a lawyer or for that matter they don't even have to notify your family that they have you, in many cases that I have read about families found out months later where their loved one were. I can't see how denying anyone access to a lawyer or notifying your family that you are being detained is helping to keep anyone safe. Giving up our fundamental rights that have stood the test of time is not protecting anyone. Imagine for a moment that you order pizza on a fairly regular basis you have a really crazy suspicious neighbor, your pizza delivery guy is from the middle east or looks like he is. You like him he is a nice guy, you slip him a big tip on occassion and a card, you feel sorry for him he is very lonely and starved for his family and misses them, you have gotten to know him well. One day they come to your door because the nosy neighbor has decided something is not right, in investigating they find he has a distant cousin who might be a terrorist. You have been seen chatting with him about current events and his native land and passing him notes and money. She has overheard you discussing 911 with him, she has overheard you innocently telling him all about your trip to DC and how amazed you are at the layout of the city, next thing you know you are locked away for months with no access to a lawyer, no access to family or friends, you are just locked away in a cell until they want to deal with you. Please tell how that is helping anyone. I realize we have to protect ourselves, but not at the expense of fundamental rights. They said right after 911 the way to fight the terrorist was to go on and do as we had done before but yet now we are supposed to give up our rights, how is that protecting anyone? How is that fighting terrorism?

[stresseater]

It's all hyperboyle and scare tactics. Nothing like this or even remotely like this has happened. They are not, nor will the American public allow this to happen and most people know this. It is however now possible to keep people from useing our own public libraries to find information on our installations,weapons, and security to do us horm. It also allows for a faster response in finding responsible parties after the fact. I'm sure there are people out there that believe the black helicopters are already hovering over their house. I just don't happen to be one of them. :D :D In your example chances are homeland security already has the neighbor on their "list". :eek: :eek: Trust me I understand FULLY what is at stake to be lost if the Patriot Act is misused. :o :o

[mesue]

It's all hyperboyle and scare tactics. Nothing like this or even remotely like this has happened. They are not, nor will the American public allow this to happen and most people know this. It is however now possible to keep people from useing our own public libraries to find information on our installations,weapons, and security to do us horm. It also allows for a faster response in finding responsible parties after the fact. I'm sure there are people out there that believe the black helicopters are already hovering over their house. I just don't happen to be one of them. :D :D In your example chances are homeland security already has the neighbor on their "list". :eek: :eek: Trust me I understand FULLY what is at stake to be lost if the Patriot Act is misused. :o :o

I'm glad you do understand, here is a real person suffering greatly I'm sure she understands more than you and I could ever imagine what is at stake, please read this story and tell me what you think? also listing the link
http://www.nothomelandsecurity.com/AmericanChildren.htm

This is a true story of how in one day with no warning two American children,
Joshua and Sandra McClurg, lost their single mother to the Department of Homeland Security on July 01, 2004.


Most Americans may not realize the fact that American Children under the age of twenty-one do not have what should be their most basic right and that is the right to a natural parent. Every day American children lose a parent to the Department of Homeland Security. American children whose parents are not United States citizen’s may be in jeopardy of having their parent or parents deported to their natural born country, regardless of the years they have established their homes and families in the US.


It seems unfair that here in America, Land of the Free, that our children do not have the freedom or the right to their natural parent if that parent is not an American citizen.


What happens to these children when a parent is abruptly taken away from them without any warning or preparation? One could only imagine the devastation and repercussions of a destroyed family.


Immigration and Naturalization have dramatically increased efforts to deport immigrant residents. Therefore any immigrants, regardless of the fact that they may have permanent residence status, families, children and spouses are subject to deportation and are being scrutinized for any blemishes they may have in their past.


Our US children should be spared the wrath of our countries anger, resulting from 911 tragedies.


On June 30, 2004 Penny McClurg responded to a letter she had received in the mail from the Department of Homeland Security. The letter requested her to report to Tampa International Airport Airside F. Penny made the necessary arrangements to have her children cared for, while she attended this appointment. Upon arriving at the airport airside F, she called the telephone number listed on the letter and informed the respondent on the phone that she was waiting at the instructed area as described in the letter. The operator told her that they would send someone to escort her into the terminal. Penny waited approximately 30 minutes; however nobody came to escort her. Penny called the number on the letter again and told the operator that she had been waiting. The operator then asked her if she was sure she had an appointment letter to come in because they were apparently not expecting her.


A Department of Homeland Security officer finally arrived and escorted her through to the secured airside F terminal and asked her to be seated in an office area. She was greeted by a Department of Homeland Security officer by the name of Mr. Guthier and told to remain seated and that he would be with her shortly. Approximately two hours went by before Mr. Guthier motioned her into his office. Inside his office he questioned her about a 1997 felony conviction that she had on her record. She acknowledge the felony conviction and informed him that she he had completed her sentence and probation for this incident.


Penny was sent back out to be seated again and waited another three hours. She had now been in the office approximately five hours.


Mr. Guthier finally came out of his office and informed her that he was not able to get a hold of who he needed to speak to and that she should report back the following morning at 9:00am. Penny reported back the following morning as instructed and this time remained in the seated office area. During this time officer Guthier told her that he was still waiting to get a hold of the person he had been trying to reach the previous day. Approximately three hours went by before Mr. Guthier asked Penny to come into his office. Mr. Guthier told Penny that he had some bad news for her and that she was officially being detained. Penny asked what that meant and officer Guthier informed her that she was basically being arrested and that everything would be explained to her when she arrived at her next destination. Penny asked where she was being taken and she was told by Guthier that he did not know and that someone else would tell her.


Penny did not in her wildest imagination realize that this appointment letter was going to result in her being arrested.


Penny arrived in the US, from South Africa, in 1986 when she was fifteen years old. In 1991 she had received her permanent resident status in the US. Penny is now thirty three years old and is a single mother of two American children ages 10 and 11. She also has an American fiancée and was, at this time, six weeks pregnant with his child. Penny has been residing in the US for the past 18 years and in the last three years established a successful business in the Tampa Bay area. The sudden and abrupt news that she was being incarcerated was devastating to all who know her. There was no time or warning to make any arrangements for her children, home or business. That was it…she was no longer to continue with her life and she had no forewarning to make any preparations for this day.


Penny has now been incarcerated since July 01, 2004. On July 15, 2004 she lost her eight week old unborn child while in detention. She was taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami in handcuffs and shackles where she was seated in the waiting room for two hours. Penny did not get seen until she finally started to hemorrhage. The doctor informed her that she was miscarrying and proceeded to perform a D&C on her without any anesthesia. Several hours after the procedure she was taken back to Turner Guilford Knight County Jail in Miami in shackles and handcuffs, barely able to keep consciousness while walking, due to the blood loss.


Three days before Penny‘s miscarriage, she submitted a written request to see the facility counsellor. She needed to talk to someone about the depression and stress she was undergoing…how it was affecting her ability to eat, sleep and try to stay calm as she knew that it was essential in order for her to have a healthy pregnancy. Her request went unanswered. In fact, to this day, no official has informed her as to what is happening with her or why she is being detained. No information has been provided by any officials regarding this matter.


Penny has since hired attorney Steven Goldstein and Grant Kaplan to handle her case. She learned, only through the attorneys, that she is being charged with illegal entry into the US.


Penny is being denied entry into the US, resulting from a deferred inspection. This deferred inspection resulted from a cruise Penny took in June of 2003, where she left and reentered the United States within a 4-day period. While in this "deferred inspection" status, Penelope's resident alien card was supposed to be taken and substituted with a temporary card. This did not occur. Instead she was allowed to exit and re-enter the United States twice more in September of 2003 and again in May of 2004.


Penny has been a US permanent resident since 1991 and at no time to her knowledge was this status ever revoked. Her attorney has informed her that these situations are never good and that probably the fastest way out of jail is to ask for expedited deportation, otherwise she could remain in jail indefinitely while trying to fight the case against her.


This is a true story of how in one day with no warning two American children, Joshua and Sandra McClurg, lost their single mother to the Department of Homeland Security on July 01, 2004.

[mesue]

There has been no follow up by this department or for that matter any US department to make sure that these two American children where to be taken care of. Fortunately for Penny she has her father and fiancée to step in to help with her children, but again no departmental agency has checked to make sure of that. One could only imagine what could have happened if there had been no one to take care of these children.


Penny is currently being held at Turner Guilford Knight County Jail, in a designated woman’s immigration unit. There she has learned of about many other women, who also have American children and that have been separated from them abruptly in this way.


It seems unfair and not traditional with American standards that these children have no voice or rights as American Citizens and that their futures are placed in jeopardy with no one to follow up and make sure that they are surviving as they should be with the appropriate care.


My name is Eric Schmidt, fiancé of Penny McClurg. As a concerned American citizen and ten year Navy veteran, I would like to come forward and let the country know what awful atrocities are going on behind the scenes in our great country, with respect to immigrants.


If I could ask anything of my country in exchange for my ten years of service, it would be to return my fiancée back to her family where she rightfully belongs. She does not belong in indefinite incarceration, waiting for the slow wheels of immigration department.


If any agency would like to pick up this story I am readily available for comment and can be reached at the following:


Eric Schmidt
322 Manatee Lane
Tarpon Springs, FL 34689
321-354-4044 cell
727-938-5374 home 727-944-2699 fax

[stresseater]

I read that one in OT before I came here and This is an article about a illegal, convicted felon, who by the article didn't follow the rules while leaving the country.. She probablly should have been deported long ago, and yes she is right to be upset about being incarcerated for so long. It frustrates me too that it seems to take so long to deport illegal immigrants. Hopefully the bolstering of the INS through the homeland security act will help to speed up the process. It is still a far cry from snatching up legal, law biding citizans in the middle of the night for talking to the pizza guy. ;)

[mesue]

Please see my thread Please read this hrror stroy and sign petitiion in Hey how are things, read the third post about the conditions at the place she is being kept and also read the post where someone researched more and found why she was locked up to begin with, also you missed the something in the above post this woman had received her permanent residence status in the US. She has been an upstanding person, works as an accountant and owns her own home, not someone here illegally.

[Jolie Rouge]

Spy Imagery Agency Watching Inside U.S.
By KATHERINE PFLEGER SHRADER

BETHESDA, Md. (AP) - In the name of homeland security, America's spy imagery agency is keeping a close eye, close to home. It's watching America. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, about 100 employees of a little-known branch of the Defense Department called the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency - and some of the country's most sophisticated aerial imaging equipment - have focused on observing what's going on in the United States.

Their work brushes up against the fine line between protecting the public and performing illegal government spying on Americans.

Roughly twice a month, the agency is called upon to help with the security of events inside the United States. Even more routinely, it is asked to help prepare imagery and related information to protect against possible attacks on critical sites.

For instance, the agency has modified basic maps of the nation's capital to highlight the location of hospitals, linking them to data on the number of beds or the burn unit in each. To secure the Ronald Reagan funeral procession, the agency merged aerial photographs and 3D images, allowing security planners to virtually walk, drive or fly through the Simi Valley, Calif., route.


The agency is especially watchful of big events or targets that might attract terrorists - political conventions, for example, or nuclear power plants.


Everyone agrees that the domestic mission of the NGA has increased dramatically in the wake of Sept. 11, even though laws and carefully crafted regulations are in place to prevent government surveillance aimed at Americans.


The agency is not interested in information on U.S. citizens, stresses Americas office director Bert Beaulieu. ``We couldn't care less about individuals and people and companies,'' he said.


But that's not good enough for secrecy expert Steven Aftergood, who oversees a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists. ``What it all boils down to is 'Trust us. Our intentions are good,''' he said.


Adds Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington: ``As a general matter, when there are systems of public surveillance, there needs to be public oversight.''


Geospatial intelligence is the science of combining imagery, such as satellite pictures, to physically depict features or activities happening anywhere on the planet.


Outside the United States, it can be a powerful tool for war planners who may use imagery to measure soil wetness to determine if tanks could travel an area. It can help weapons proliferation experts look for ground disturbances that can indicate new underground bunkers.


Before Sept. 11, the NGA's domestic work often meant things like lending a hand during natural disasters by supplying pictures of wildfires and floods. But now the agency's new Americas Office has been called on to assemble visual information on more than 130 urban areas, among scores of other assignments, including maps of the national mall, the country's high-voltage transmission lines and disaster exercises.


Sometimes, agency officials may cooperate with private groups, such as hotel security offices, to get access to video footage of lobbies and hallways. That footage can then be connected with other types of maps used to secure events - or to take action, if a hostage situation or other catastrophe happens.


The level of detail varies widely, depending on the threat and what the FBI or another agency needs. ``In most cases, it's not intrusive,'' said the NGA's associate general counsel, Laura Jennings. ``It is information to help secure an event and to have people prepared to respond should there be an attack, or to analyze the area where a threat has been made.''


According to Executive Order 12333, signed by President Reagan in 1981, members of the U.S. intelligence community can collect, retain and pass along information about U.S. companies or people only in certain cases.


Information that is publicly available or collected with the consent of the individual is fair game, as is information acquired by overhead reconnaissance not directed at specific people or companies.


The NGA says it has aggressive internal oversight and its employees go through annual training on what is and isn't allowed. ``If they deviated from their own rules, how would it be discovered?'' asks secrecy expert Aftergood. ``I am not satisfied that they have an answer to that question.''


One oversight committee in Congress noticed after Sept. 11 that an intelligence agency was snapping pictures of the United States, said a congressional aide, speaking on condition of anonymity. A staff member is now monitoring the issue, and the aide said so far problems have not been spotted. But Aftergood notes that while intelligence budgets have increased dramatically in the last five years, congressional oversight budgets have not.


Even the agency concedes gray areas do emerge.


Generally, for example, intelligence resources can't be used for law enforcement purposes. So the FBI or another agency could use an NGA-produced aerial photograph to solve a domestic crime. But the NGA couldn't take actions to target a specific individual, such as highlight a suspect's home, unless the information was linked directly to a national security issue. Agency officials call that ``passive assistance'' and say certain legal tests must be met.


Law enforcement officials occasionally ask if the agency has information that could provide evidence about a crime - say, for example, whether a white truck was at a location at a certain time, Beaulieu said hypothetically. ``Yes, we will do a check,'' he said. ``But I can't remember a single case where we actually even had an image for that day.''


Jennings concedes that toeing such fine lines can be difficult. ``We look, we check, and it just so happens that we haven't had a situation where there is a smoking gun,'' she said. ``We would analyze each one, case by case.''


``Everybody wants to do the right thing and provide the information that is appropriate without overstepping their authority,'' she later added.


The NGA says it is working to build trust - with the public and with private companies.


Before Sept. 11, for instance, chemical plants and other critical sites weren't as cooperative as they are today, out of fear that aerial photographs might be shared with federal environmental regulators. NGA officials say the Homeland Security Department has been careful to protect proprietary information.


What if NGA analysts were to see an environmental crime?


``I don't think any of my people know enough to know an environmental crime,'' Beaulieu said.



09/26/04 22:34


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?&idq=/ff/story/0001/20040926/2234410448.htm

[Jolie Rouge]

Patriot Act takes a hit
Wednesday, September 29, 2004 Posted: 1:38 PM EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Part of the Patriot Act, a central plank of the Bush Administration's war on terror, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI has to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorism investigations.

The ruling was the latest blow to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that terror suspects being held in places like Guantanamo Bay can use the American judicial system to challenge their confinement. That ruling was a defeat for the president's assertion of sweeping powers to hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The ACLU sued the Department of Justice, arguing that part of the Patriot legislation violated the constitution because it authorizes the FBI to force disclosure of sensitive information without adequate safeguards.

The judge agreed, stating that the provision "effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge."

Under the provision, the FBI did not have to show a judge a compelling need for the records and it did not have to specify any process that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/29/patriot.act.ruling.reut/index.html

[Jolie Rouge]

YOUR RIGHTS, THEIR RIGHTS
Mon Nov 15, 6:04 PM ET
By William F. Buckley Jr.

We hear the clamor in the matter of the Patriot Act and other measures especially associated with retiring Attorney General John Ashcroft. Just rubbing a hand lightly over U.S. history reminds us that these questions arose in the past, notoriously with the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Abraham Lincoln liked to have his own way when pressures were rife, and of course he suspended habeas corpus, to the dismay of members of his own Cabinet and the judge who gave us Dred Scott.


Somebody should do something about that situation? Well, somebody is doing something, not surprisingly, under the auspices of Harvard University. They have going there something called the Harvard Long-Term Legal Strategy Project. Its co-directors are the scholars Philip Heymann and Juliette Kayyem.


A few people have been sent drafts of the project's tentative findings with, however, a warning that direct quotations are as yet forbidden -- a warning so direly repeated on each of 11 pages that one wonders if a bolt of lightning would come down on any transgressor. But without direct quotation from the project's summaries, we can usefully study the divisions in the questions being posed.


There are 10 recommendations in the report, which "seeks to find balance between competing concerns." The thinking is done logically. Under "Coercive Interrogation," for instance, one sees: "National security viewpoint," which is elaborated, but in the forbidden language. There follows: "Democratic freedoms viewpoint" -- which the imaginative reader can easily supply -- and then "Recommendations."


We move on to questions of Detentions; Military Commissions; Targeted Killing; Communications of U.S. Persons or Others within the United States Intercepted During the Targeting of Foreign Persons Abroad; Information Collection; Identification of Individuals and Collection of Information for Federal Files; Surveillance of Religious and Political Meetings; Distinctions Based on Group Membership (Profiling); and Oversight of Extraordinary Measures.


I take a single liberty and give the text of Information Collection, "National security viewpoint." We read:
"There is no constitutional right to privacy of information that an individual has freely furnished to such parties as credit card, electronic communications or car rental companies. That information can provide a trail of activities that, if identified, would reveal a likely terrorist plan. For example, the following pattern discoverable from such records would be highly suspicious: a recent arrival from Yemen accompanied by prompt rental of a crop duster airplane and purchase of equipment or material that would not be useful for crops but would be useful to spread anthrax. We should not forgo this opportunity to 'connect the dots' in time."


Yeah. Let's not let that one get away.


Two points, in the welter of discussion about individual rights and corporate obligations, are worth stressing.


There is wide resistance, in the libertarian fold (in which I count myself), to expediting individual identification by means other than those we already have.


There are those who find this inexplicable. We are a nation of people who acquiesce in passport numbers (I was playfully given, years ago, No. 1234567). You can't easily mount a case against them without renouncing the very idea of passports. And of course there is the Social Security number. My liege William Safire some time back declared that he would not write out his Social Security number on random forms, which does not answer the question: Why not? What clerical sycophancy is involved in owning up to your name?


And then there is the grand question that stands athwart such efforts as Harvard's to codify the separation of powers between the collectivity and the individual. It is: Everything ultimately depends on judgment. There can be (and there should be) rules against targeting chiefs of state. But there are imaginable times when the failure to squeeze the trigger at just that moment -- say, when Col. Amin is signaling the bomber pilot with the nuclear bomb headed for Jerusalem -- would have worse consequences.


The moral artist tells you more than any committee of Harvard scholars, however distinguished. It is not true that rules are made to be broken. But it is true that breaking the rules can be lifesaving.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=128&ncid=742&e=18&u=/ucwb/20041115/cm_ucwb/yourrightstheirrights

[Jolie Rouge]

Ashcroft delivers parting shot to foes on sentencing, Patriot Act
From Terry Frieden -- CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, February 1, 2005 Posted: 4:05 PM EST (2105 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a stinging parting shot at administration critics, Attorney General John Ashcroft on Tuesday warned of serious threats to public safety and security if Congress fails to restore stiff sentencing guidelines and does not renew portions of the Patriot Act.

In his final hours in office, Ashcroft delivered the hard-hitting remarks notable as much for his characteristic stark language as for his uncompromising message. He was especially blunt in his view of the 5-4 Supreme Court decision that dealt a blow to federal sentencing guidelines. "Last month's Supreme Court ruling that federal judges are not bound by sentencing guidelines is a retreat from justice that may put the public's safety in jeopardy," Ashcroft declared. "Which of our daughters, wives and husbands -- are we willing to sacrifice to return to revolving door justice."

Ashcroft demanded Congress "reinstitute tough sentences and certain justice for criminals".

The attorney general issued equally dire predictions if Congress allows provisions of the Patriot Act to expire later this year. The Justice Department points to the Patriot Act as providing key tools in the war on terrorism.

Ashcroft credited tough prosecution and long sentences for the continuing decline in the rate of violent crime in the United States. "Criminals can't commit crimes from behind prison walls," he said.

Ashcroft declined to identify by name foes he termed "cynics and defeatists," but provoked laughter when he criticized the New York Times for its reaction to declining crime rates. "The New York Times annually sums up this resistance to reality when it runs a story wondering with violent crime at an all-time low why so many people are in prison," he said.

Ashcroft's final speech was loudly applauded by the audience in the auditorium of the staunchly conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. Ashcroft was introduced by the organization's chief legal strategist, former Attorney General Ed Meese, as a man who "served with dignity, integrity and excellence."

Ashcroft noted that Tuesday marks the fourth anniversary of his swearing in as the nation's chief law enforcement official. He said his resignation will be effective the moment his designated successor, Alberto Gonzales, is confirmed by the Senate, which could come Thursday.


www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/01/ashcroft.parting/index.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Bush urges renewal of Patriot Act
Monday, February 14, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Monday urged Congress to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, the Justice Department's widely criticized anti-terrorism law. "We must not allow the passage of time or the illusion of safety to weaken our resolve in this new war" on terrorism, Bush said at a swearing-in ceremony for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the Justice Department.

The president also argued that the Senate must give his nominees for the federal bench up-or-down votes without delay to fill vacancies in the courts.

The Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, bolstered FBI surveillance and law-enforcement powers in terror cases, increased use of material witness warrants to hold suspects incommunicado for months, and allowed secret proceedings in immigration cases.

Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates lambasted the law because they said it undermines freedom. But Bush said the act "has been vital to our success in tracking terrorists and disrupting their plans."

He noted that many key elements of the law are set to expire at the end of the year and said Congress must act quickly to renew it.

The Patriot Act was pushed by Gonzales' predecessor, John Ashcroft, who was in the audience as Gonzales took his oath from Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Bush lauded Ashcroft's tireless efforts to make America safer as he oversaw a drop in violent crime besides his counterterrorism work.

Gonzales, who served as White House counsel during the last four years, said he would be a part of Bush's team but his first allegiance will be to the Constitution. "I am confident that in the days and years ahead we in the department will work together tirelessly to address terrorism and other threats to our nation and to confront injustice with integrity and devotion to our highest ideals," Gonzales said.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/14/bush.patriotact.ap/index.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Patriot Act must be reined in
By Anita Ramasastry
FindLaw columnist -- Special to CNN.com
Wednesday, June 1, 2005

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/01/ramasastry.patriotact2/index.html

(FINDLAW) -- The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee is considering a draft bill that would reauthorize some of the most controversial provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act. The bill is called the Patriot Reauthorization Act (PAREA).

The reasons why these provisions are controversial -- that they trample on Fourth Amendment and privacy rights -- are reasons not to renew them. At a minimum, if they must be renewed, it must be renewed with a "sunset" provision, allowing Congress to once again consider whether they are necessary

In addition to reauthorizing these provisions, the bill, if enacted into law, would expand the government's power to secretly --- and without getting a court's approval -- demand people's private records, even though the people aren't suspected of terrorist acts.

Overall, the result of PAREA becoming law would be to further enlarge the government's surveillance powers -- without any requirement that it link individuals to particular suspected crimes before using these powers. Yet the government has not made a compelling case that such extraordinarily broad powers are necessary.

The proposal, which is likely to be considered in a closed-door meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee, should be rejected or dramatically modified to require independent judicial review prior to subpoena issuance.

Nightmare with tiny changes

One of the controversial Patriot Act provisions PAREA would make permanent is Section 215. This section allows intelligence investigators to demand all kinds of records about citizens, even though they are not suspected of spying or terrorism.

It allows the FBI to gain records or other "tangible items" from any person or organization, if the FBI claims a link to an ongoing terrorist or foreign intelligence investigation. Secrecy is the key here: Section 215 gags those who receive an order to produce such records

Before Patriot, the FBI had access to only a few types of records: those belonging to hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities. But Section 215 allows the FBI to seek any tangible item -- "including books, records, papers, documents, and other items" -- regardless of who holds it. This could include sensitive medical records or membership lists from clubs or religious organizations.

Also, before the Patriot Act, the FBI had to present to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court "specific and particularly facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain[ed]" was an agent of a foreign power. But now the FBI need not show a link between the people whose records it is accessing, and any crime -- let alone a crime of terrorism.

Granted, Section 211 of PAREA would now require that the items that the government seeks are "relevant" to that investigation. But with reasonable minds disagreeing about what is "relevant," the addition of this word means little.

Surely, lists of people who worship at a particular mosque may be relevant to an investigation of possible terrorist connections of one among the worshippers. But is each member's identity relevant? The whole point of the law is that innocent non-uspects can be subjected to searches; that the search must, at least, be "relevant" to the investigation provides little reassurance..

A much more palatable amendment than Section 211, is the one provided in the bipartisan Security and Freedom Enhancement Act (SAFE Act). The SAFE Act is meant to curtail some of the more intrusive portions of the Patriot Act while recognizing the importance of the government's need for strong investigative tools.

It would modify Section 215 to require the FBI to establish "specific and particularly facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

In layman's terms, the SAFE Act would require that the government would have to establish that individual suspects were in fact connected to spying or terrorism.

And granted, PAREA would also require semi-annual reporting for orders that relate to booksellers, firearm purchases, medical records and tax information --presumably because such records are especially sensitive or personal.

That's a good idea - but what about the sensitive, personal information relating to membership in religious, political or social organizations? Why is this information left out of the reporting requirement? Certainly, what gun one buys is less private than where one chooses to worship!

Erosion of the Fourth Amendment

PAREA would also make permanent another controversial Patriot Act provision: Section 218. Section 218 allows the government to obtain search warrants using the FISA court, without having to respect Fourth Amendment standards -- even when the evidence may be later used in a criminal prosecution that has nothing to do with foreign intelligence.

Before the Patriot Act, the U.S. government kept our justice system in a state of equilibrium by creating a wall. This sacred division separated, on the one hand, criminal law enforcement (where individual suspicion of criminal activity was required to investigate) and, on the other, foreign intelligence (where data was sought broadly, to help prevent terrorism that might occur in the future.).

But under the wall has been broken down.

From 1978 until the Patriot Act was passed, the FISA court's power to issue secret warrants was limited solely to intelligence-gathering, with a view toward preventing espionage and terrorism. Thus, to procure such a warrant, the government had to convince the FISA court there was "probable cause" that the surveillance target was a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Meanwhile, in other federal courts, and in and state courts, under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant to intercept a communication, or a search warrant, had to be based on "probable cause" to believe that a crime has been or is being committed.

Now, as a result of Section 218, intelligence gathering need only be "a significant purpose" of FISA-authorized surveillance. This amounts to an end run around Americans' Fourth Amendment rights, because another purpose of the surveillance could well be domestic law enforcement.

And it has been: Not just CIA agents, but FBI agents as well -- or even state law enforcement, cooperating with the CIA and FBI -- have used FISA's secrecy and its lower legal standards for warrants and wiretaps.

This "significant purpose" standard should be removed, or clearly limited by the requirement of a nexus to terrorism on the domestic side. But that is not what PAREA does.

Indeed, Section 203 of PAREA not only will make Section 218 permanent, it will also broaden the section. It states that that "foreign intelligence information" includes a need to gather information for criminal law enforcement related to terrorism.

What counts as "law enforcement related to terrorism"? "International terrorism" need not be involved, according to PAREA's sponsors' memorandum summarizing the bill. It is enough if the law enforcement involves "sabotage, clandestine activities and other grave hostile acts."

Broader secret subpoena powers

In addition to making these provisions permanent, PAREA Section 213 would also introduce a new type of "administrative" -- read: not court-approved -- subpoena in national security cases. The government could use such subpoenas to secretly demand all sorts of records from businesses and other institutions, without first receiving a court's permission.

All that would be required would be for the investigators themselves to declare that the material they seek is needed as part of a national security investigation.

But that leaves room for exactly the kind of excessive prosecutorial zeal that inspires the typical Fourth Amendment requirement of a "neutral magistrate." Judges provide important checks and balances in the criminal justice system, especially in the federal system, where life tenure guarantees their independence.

With the new PAREA subpoenas, a person may be investigated and never know that he was a government target. Without his knowledge, the results of the search may go into his dossier.

In the context of anti-terrorism efforts, these no-probable-cause searches may well target searchees based on race, national origin, or religion. Yet because they are secret, they may never be challenged in court. And the possibility these searches may occur will doubtless chill free speech -- when any public remark may lead to a secret search on one's private documents, for which there is no recourse or remedy.

(( continues ))

[Jolie Rouge]

Challenges

As a safeguard, PAREA proposes to allow the third party from whom the records are sought -- say, your Internet Service Provider (ISP) -- to challenge the administrative subpoena in court. But there's no guarantee the ISP would bother to do so.

Going to court is costly, and if the third-parties don't bother, the customer will never know. (Indeed, the business is prohibited from notifying its customer of the existence of the subpoena.)

PAREA should be rejected, or substantially modified to allow review by a neutral judge (a federal judge, not an administrative judge).

The government has obtained a broad range of powers in intelligence investigations -- especially against foreigners, but also against U.S. citizens. Given the secrecy with which these investigations are conducted, their wide scope, and the lack of checks and balances, independent judicial review --requiring a factual premise and particularized suspicion for a subpoena to be authorized -- are the very minimum required to safeguard our liberty.


Anita Ramasastry is a FindLaw columnist and an associate professor of law at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle and a director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce and Technology.






http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/01/r...act2/index.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Feingold Moves to Strike Material Support Law
By The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2009/09/feingold_moves_to_strike_mater.php

As we reported on the IPT blog earlier this week, Congress is set to debate the reauthorization of several provisions of the PATRIOT Act next week. While that discussion will focus on three of the more controversial provisions of the much maligned law, some members of Congress are more interested in seeking expansive overhaul, effectively gutting the PATRIOT Act. Friday, Senator Russ Feingold introduced the JUSTICE Act, a bill proposing wide ranging amendments to this critical counter-terrorism tool.

Among the provisions in the JUSTICE Act is an amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, commonly referred to as the “material support” statute. If the amendment suggested by Senator Feingold is approved, the “new” statute will read in part:


“Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, knowing or intending that the material support or resources will be used in carrying out terrorist activity…[shall violate the statute].” [quote]

Under current law, federal prosecutors must show that an individual provided financial, logistical, or other resources to a terrorist organization, whether or not they intended the donation to support violence. In announcing this change, Senator Feingold explained that the revision would require “that a person must know or intend that support provided will be used for terrorist activity.” In reality, this amendment would eviscerate the statute—stripping the government of a valuable tool in the fight against the support structure of international terrorist organizations. The fact is that the italicized portion above is a tremendous departure from Congressional intent, long standing judicial precedent, and common sense.

Supporters of this type of amendment often argue that terrorist groups are also engaged in charitable, humanitarian, educational, and political activities, and that donors should be able to promote these lawful activities. Each time this argument has been put forth in a federal court, it has been quickly dismissed. As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained in Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno:

[quote]“all material support given to such organizations aids their unlawful goals. Money is fungible; giving support intended to aid an organization’s peaceful activities frees up resources that can be used for terrorist acts.”


The argument that there are multiple “wings” in terrorist organizations has been repeatedly rejected. When it was enacted, the material support statute was intended to make these groups radioactive—in the words of Andrew McCarthy—“an entity that merits only our contempt, not our contributions.” Senator Feingold and any other members who would support the proposed amendment to Section 2339B must remember that any support given to a terrorist organization furthers their violent acts. Requiring federal prosecutors to show that a defendant specifically intended to support acts of terrorism would make it almost impossible to shut down networks of individuals who are complicit in these acts of violence.

[Jolie Rouge]

Originally published December 21, 2009 at 6:40 PM

Obama signs $636.3 billion defense-spending bill
President Obama signed into law legislation that provides $636.3 billion for the U.S. military in fiscal 2010, including $128.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House announced today.
By Bloomberg News and Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — President Obama signed into law legislation that provides $636.3 billion for the U.S. military in fiscal 2010, including $128.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House announced today.

About $65 billion of the war funding is for operations in Afghanistan. The administration says it will need about $30 billion more to finance the addition of 30,000 more troops there that begins this month. That request is likely to come with the fiscal 2011 budget to be submitted in February.

The defense bill was the last of 12 annual spending bills to be sent to the president. It includes a stopgap provision to ensure that unemployment benefits aren't cut off over the holidays.

As the last major spending bill of the year, the legislation also carried about $13.3 billion in nondefense spending, most of it for temporary extensions of several domestic programs Congress didn't have time to consider separately.

Lawmakers extended through February a package of emergency unemployment and health-care benefits that had been part of this year's economic-stimulus package. Those benefits include health-insurance subsidies for laid-off workers under a federal program called COBRA. The benefit had been slated to expire at the end of this month.

Lawmakers also temporarily reauthorized portions of the anti-terror USA Patriot Act and provided funding for Medicare to forestall for two months a scheduled 21 percent cut in payments to doctors who treat patients in the government health program for the elderly.

Senators arrived at a vote on the bill after defeating a Republican effort to filibuster the legislation Friday. Most of the military spending had broad support, but Republicans sought the delay to express their displeasure with Congress' inability to consider nondefense items separately and to slow progress on the health-care legislation.

Some Republicans also blasted what they perceived as unnecessary pork-barrel spending in the bill. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, complained that the bill was laden with earmarks.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said several of the nondefense items in the bill, such as the unemployment-benefits extension, were sorely needed in the face of a lagging economy.

The bill includes about $11 billion more than the $625.3 billion Congress approved for fiscal 2009, according to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The funding for fiscal 2010 brings to more than $1 trillion the money approved since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks for the wars, veterans' care, embassy protection and enhanced domestic security, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

That includes $748 billion for spending related to the war in Iraq and $300 billion for Afghanistan, the research service said in a Sept. 28 report. The $128.3 billion for war spending is $22.1 billion less than the $150.4 billion approved in fiscal 2009 and the lowest since 2006, according to the CRS.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010564144_defense22.html

slipped that right by, didn't they ....

It's notable that every recent terrorist incident has been used by the Obama admin to push for extension of Patriot Act provisions. Those extensions were quietly granted as part of the defense bill the president signed into law a few days ago - but based on those poll results (Americans clearly support sanctions far beyond what the Patriot Act grants - but perhaps that's only applicable to swarthy, foreign-looking terrorists) he now has ammunition to push harder for a more permanent authority.

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/033058.html
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/033110.html#comments

[Jolie Rouge]

Senate votes to extend USA Patriot Act for 1 year
By Stephen Ohlemacher – 2 hrs 1 min ago

WASHINGTON – The Senate voted Wednesday to extend for a year key provisions of the nation's counterterrorism surveillance law that are scheduled to expire at the end of the month. In agreeing to pass the bill, Senate Democrats retreated from adding new privacy protections to the USA Patriot Act.

The Senate approved the bill on a voice vote with no debate. It now goes to the House.

Three important sections of the Patriot Act are to expire at the end of this month.

One authorizes court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones. A second allows court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations. A third permits surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen suspected of engaging in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Supporters say extending the law enables authorities to keep important tools in the fight against terrorism. It would also give Democrats some cover from Republican criticism that the Obama administration is soft on terrorism. Republicans have criticized the administration for trying terrorist suspects in civilians courts, rather than military ones, and for trying to close the military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Some Democrats, however, had to forfeit new privacy protections they had sought for the law.

The Judiciary Committee bill would have restricted FBI information demands known as national security letters and made it easier to challenge gag orders imposed on Americans whose records are seized. Library records would have received extra protections. Congress would have closely scrutinized FBI use of the law to prevent abuses. Dissemination of surveillance results would have been restricted and after a time, unneeded records would have been destroyed.

"I would have preferred to add oversight and judicial review improvements to any extension of expiring provisions in the USA Patriot Act," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But I understand some Republican senators objected."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_patriot_act;_ylt=AnFsuloDlCJbPhAT8i5A_ces0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTJqZ2h1Y25tBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMjI1L3VzX3 BhdHJpb3RfYWN0BGNwb3MDNgRwb3MDMwRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxp bmVfbGlzdARzbGsDc2VuYXRldm90ZXN0

[Jolie Rouge]

House sends extension of Patriot Act to Obama
Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer – Thu Feb 25, 7:37 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Key provisions of the nation's primary counterterrorism law would be extended for a year under a bill passed by the House Thursday evening after Democrats retreated from adding new privacy protections.

The House voted 315 to 97 to extend the USA Patriot Act, sending the bill to President Barack Obama. Without the bill, the provisions would expire Sunday.

The Senate approved the extension Wednesday. The privacy protections were cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.

The Democratic retreat is a political victory for Republicans and a major disappointment for Democrats and their liberal allies who believe the Patriot Act fails to protect privacy and gives the government too much authority to spy on Americans and seize their property.

The three sections of the Patriot act that would stay in force:

_Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

_Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

_Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., noted that the bill with privacy protections had been approved in committee by a bipartisan majority. He said the measure "should be an example of what Democrats and Republicans can accomplish when we work together, but I understand some Republican senators objected to passing the carefully crafted national security, oversight and judicial review provisions in this legislation."

But Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on Leahy's committee, said Thursday that any changes to the Patriot Act would weaken it.

"Recent terror attacks, such as those at Fort Hood and on Christmas Day, demonstrate just how severe of a threat we are facing," Sessions said. "This extension keeps Patriot's security measures in place and demonstrates that there is a growing recognition that these crucial provisions must be preserved."

The Obama administration supported the revisions to the law as approved by the committee.

Republicans have been steadily pounding the Obama administration over the closing of the detainee prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as the possibility of holding civilian trials for detainees in the United States. They have also criticized federal agents for informing a Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (OO'-mahr fah-ROOK' ahb-DOOL'-moo-TAH'-lahb), of his right to remain silent after 50 minutes of questioning for allegedly trying to ignite explosives on a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100226/ap_on_go_co/us_patriot_act;_ylt=AomLdrJykdk61K1bTrIzzGSs0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTFlNmhnOTEwBHBvcwM4NARzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3 BvbGl0aWNzBHNsawNob3VzZXNlbmRzZXg-

[Jolie Rouge]

Senate votes to extend provisions of Patriot Act
Jim Abrams, Associated Press Writer – Tue Feb 15, 7:49 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The Senate on Tuesday voted to extend for 90 days the legal life of three post-Sept. 11 terrorism-fighting measures, including the use of roving wiretaps, that are set to expire at the end of the month.

The short-term extension gives lawmakers a chance to review the measures that critics from both the right and left say are unconstitutional infringements on personal liberties.

The Senate voted 86-12 a day after the House agreed to extend the three provisions, including two from the 2001 USA Patriot Act, until Dec. 8. The two chambers must now agree on a common approach. With Congress in recess next week, there is pressure to reach a compromise this week.

The measures include the authority to initiate roving wiretaps on multiple electronic devices and the authority to obtain court-approved access to business records considered relevant to terrorist investigations. The third "lone wolf" provision, part of a 2004 law, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. individuals not known to be linked to a specific terrorist activity.

Without the three provisions, said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., "our law enforcement and intelligence agencies would lack important tools to protect this nation."

But from the inception of the Patriot Act in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, the increased surveillance powers have been subject to scrutiny and criticism from both conservatives and liberals who say they violate free speech rights and rights against unwarranted searches and seizures.

"We knew we were in a very emotional state" after the attacks, said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. He said the provisions give the government access to sensitive personal records such as medical, library and gun records, and "can lead to government fishing expeditions that target, unfortunately, innocent Americans."

Freshman Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky agreed that "in the fear after 9/11 we didn't debate these things fully."

Paul sent out a letter to his Senate colleagues earlier in the day, saying that in the wake of the attacks the government "greatly expanded its own power, ignoring obvious answers in favor of the permanent expansion of a police state."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt., has introduced legislation, scheduled to be taken up by his committee on Thursday, that would extend the three provisions through 2013 while tightening up oversight. Feinstein has also called for extension through 2013 while several Republicans have proposed that they be made permanent.

"The bill I hope we will consider before May 27 would give the intelligence community the certainty it needs by extending these expiring authorities while also strengthening congressional and judicial oversight," Leahy said.

The White House, in a statement last week regarding the House bill, said it "does not object" to the 10-month extension proposed by the House but would prefer continuing the authority through the end of 2012 because "longer duration provides the necessary certainty and predictability that our nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies require."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110216/ap_on_re_us/us_patriot_act

comments

Bipartisanship on the destruction of the Bill of Rights.... It's what the 2 parties agree on... how to better destroy our freedom. The Tea Party and TRUE conservatives better be against the Patriot Act. If you are really for smaller government.....this is NOT it.

---

Remember the media frenzy back in the day when Bush was wiretapping? Now not a peep ....

---

The only way to secure a 'free' nation is with a well informed and armed populace. This nation is on the edge of failure, and will fail economically, ecologically, morally and politically because the people have given 100% of their responsibility and liability for their own lives to strangers in suits. It's hard to digest how many people are going to simply die in a few weeks time because no one is there to provide everything for them. People complain about this nation becoming socialistic, but if you have an ounce of truth in your heart and mind you know it went completely socialistic decades ago, and it is petty and worthless parts of our lives that we have freedom of choice over, like what fake poison we stuff our faces with, what worthless plastic crap we run credit on, what mundane and zero productivity 'career' we change every 2 years and what pornographic filth we force into every orifice. That's not freedom, that's bankruptcy.

---

Is essentially martial law without the curfew and troops in the streets ... yet....
This is a great hypocrisy.while we are telling the whole world to have a free society the U.S. govt at the same time wants to monitor our conversations/phones/e-mails,etc.what a joke?

[Jolie Rouge]

Senate moves Patriot Act toward extension
Laurie Kellman, Associated Press – 2 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Squeezed against a deadline, the Senate late Wednesday moved past a standoff over a four-year extension of the anti-terror Patriot Act before part of it expire.

An agreement to hold a test vote early Thursday was the first progress all week toward resolving an impasse between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and tea party favorite Rand Paul, R-Ky., before three provisions of the act expire at midnight Thursday. Just before he closed the Senate on Wednesday night, Reid said there likely would be votes on amendments to the extension.

That could go a long way toward meeting Paul's demand that Reid make good on a promise earlier this year to hold a full debate on proposed changes to the post-9/11 law, which empowers the government to find terrorists on American soil. Paul and other civil libertarians of both parties say the Patriot Act should be reconsidered or repealed outright because it risks infringing free speech and guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The legislation would extend three expiring provisions until June 1, 2015.

The provisions at issue allow the government to use roving wiretaps on multiple electronic devices and across multiple carriers and get court-approved access to business records relevant to terrorist investigations. The third, a "lone wolf" provision that was part of a 2004 law, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. individuals without having to show a connection between the target and a specific terrorist group.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]


Paul did not respond to a request for comment late Wednesday. But officials of both parties close to the negotiations said it was now likely that the bill would to pass the Senate and the House on Thursday and be flown to Europe for President Barack Obama's signature by the midnight deadline.

The prospect of the law's expiration wasn't quite the nail-biter its supporters suggested.

If the act expired, the government would be unable to get court warrants for new investigations. But investigators still could get court authority for foreign intelligence probes that were already under way before the provisions expired.

The government seeks warrants for business records less than 40 times a year, on average, Todd Hinnen, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's national security division, said in congressional testimony in March. Between 2001 and 2010, the government has sought roving wiretap authority in about 20 cases a year on average, Hinnen added.

Hinnen said the government had not used the lone wolf authority.

But the White House and the intelligence community prodded Congress to act quickly, saying any lapse in the law would mean lesser capability to find and stop terrorist threats. Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., earlier this week said the terrorist threat survived the death of Osama bin Laden earlier this month.

Paul, a tea party favorite, had a dozen proposed amendments to the Patriot Act. He and Reid whittled the list down to four. One would have excluded some gun records from Patriot Act investigations. An exasperated Reid used procedural maneuvers to cut off debate, but Paul refused to allow the time for a final vote to be moved up.

On the Senate floor Wednesday, Reid accused Paul of holding up the debate because of one gun amendment and risking "a retaliatory terrorist strike against the homeland."

"If he thinks it's going to be a badge of courage on his side to have held this out, he's made a mistake," Reid, D-Nev., announced.

Paul objected to the "scurrilous accusation. I've been accused of wanting to allow terrorists to have weapons to attack America."

"Do we want a land, a government without so much restraint that at any time they can come into your house?" he said. "We were very worried about that. That's why our country was founded on principles such as the Fourth Amendment."

Later, Reid approached Paul on the Senate floor. The two talked briefly, grinned, and the majority leader patted Paul on the shoulder.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110526/ap_on_go_co/us_patriot_act

comments

Its amazing that the same people that yell the loudest about the intrusion of government into personal privacy and the explosion of government regulation are the loudest in defending that same governments power grab as demonstrated in the patriot act. Compare the 1933 german enabling act to the patriot act and you'll find very scary similarities-especially in the unilateral power granted to the executive.

---

As a conservative independent, I think the Patriot Act is the single, most egregious attack on our Constitution and the freedoms we enjoy. It should NEVER have passed and should be dumped completely now. It has not made us safer and has in fact increased the power of our government to oppress the citizens. If you're willing to sacrifice freedom for the illusion of safety, you deserve neither freedom nor safety. (Not my words. Paraphrasing the Founders.)

There were and are more than sufficient laws on the books to reduce any terrorist threat.