Patriot Act civil liberties violations investigated

[Jolie Rouge]

No rights have been violated
By F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
Thu Mar 2, 7:02 AM ET

Zero. That's the number of substantiated USA Patriot Act civil liberties violations. Extensive congressional oversight found no violations.

Six reports by the Justice Department's independent inspector general, who is required to solicit and investigate any allegations of abuse, found no violations.

Intense public scrutiny has yet to find a single civil liberty abuse. Despite many challenges, no federal court has declared unconstitutional any of the Patriot Act provisions Congress is renewing.


Building upon this stellar record, congressional negotiators added more than 30 civil liberty safeguards not included in current law to ensure that the Patriot Act's authorities would not be abused in the future. Remarkably, that's still not enough for some.


So what has the Patriot Act done?

It has been a tremendous asset in helping thwart other terrorist attacks. The Justice Department and other agencies have properly utilized these new tools to detect, disrupt and dismantle terrorist cells in New York, Virginia and Oregon before they strike. Since 9/11, the Justice Department has charged hundreds of defendants, of whom more than half have been convicted or pleaded guilty, as a result of terrorism-related investigations.


Most important, this renewal would permanently tear down the pre-9/11 "wall" that prevented the FBI and CIA from communicating. This law recognizes the vital importance of sharing information to "connect the dots." The Patriot Act has made it much more difficult for America's enemies to live openly among us as they plot to murder innocent Americans.


Regrettably, some criticizing the government for weak port security tried to block the Patriot Act renewal, which helps law enforcement strengthen port security. The law also combats terrorism financing networks and enhances penalties for attacks against railroads and mass transit. In short, the Patriot Act is an essential tool in the war on terror.


We must never forget we are a nation at war with an enemy determined to extinguish our nation, our values and our civil liberties. The Patriot Act has kept us safer and has not violated anyone's civil rights. It deserves to be renewed.


F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...A2BHNlYwM3NDI-

[Advertisement]

[Bliss]

(IMHO) The Patriot Act does violate civil liberties and freedom for all americans. The Patriot Act doesn't necessarily distinguish what a terrorist is. It is very vague in the lingo of the Patriot Act and could be construed as an enemy of the State (dissidents fall in that category). Under anti-terrorism bills, simple disruption of government process can get you confined.

Most people probably don't realize that it gives law enforcement the ability to seek personal records. Under the P. A. and anti-terrorism bill, you can be held without notification of relatives, the evidence used to convict or try you does NOT have to be revealed and you don't even have a jury. You can also be held INDEFINITELY.

These laws aren't just designed for foreign combatants and if some are compelled to say that "If you're clean you have nada to worry about", Think again! The government has/will/does overstep it's boundaries. This hasn't/will not be any different. You act as an obstacle to the government and you could find yourself labeled a terrorist and locked away indefinitely.

[stresseater]

The sky is falling.... the sky is falling.

[Jolie Rouge]

Senate Approves Patriot Act Renewal
By LAURIE KELLMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Thursday gave its blessing to the renewal of the USA Patriot Act after adding new privacy protections designed to strike a better balance between civil liberties and the government's power to root out terrorists.

The 89-10 vote marked a bright spot in President Bush's troubled second term as his approval ratings dipped over the war in Iraq and his administration's response to Hurricane Katrina. Renewing the act, Bush and congressional Republicans said, was key to preventing more terror attacks in the United States.

Bush applauded the Senate for overcoming ``partisan attempts to block its passage.'' The House was expected to approve the two-bill package next week and send it to the president, who would sign it before 16 provisions expire March 10.

``This bill will allow our law enforcement officials to continue to use the same tools against terrorists that are already used against drug dealers and other criminals, while safeguarding the civil liberties of the American people,'' Bush said in a statement from India.


Critics held their ground. A December filibuster led by Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and joined by several libertarian-leaning Republicans, forced the Bush administration to agree to modest new curbs on the government's power to probe library, bank and other records.


Feingold insisted those new protections are cosmetic. ``Americans want to defeat terrorism and they want the basic character of this country to survive and prosper,'' he said. ``They want both security and liberty, and unless we give them both - and we can if we try - we have failed.''


Some lawmakers who voted for the package acknowledged deep reservations about the power it would grant to any president. ``Our support for the Patriot Act does not mean a blank check for the president,'' said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who voted to pass the bill package. ``What we tried to do on a bipartisan basis is have a better bill. It has been improved.''


Not enough even for the bill's chief sponsor in the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa. After prolonged negotiations produced a House-Senate compromise, Specter urged his colleagues to pass it even as he promised to introduce a new measure and hold hearings on how to fix it.


For now, Bush and his Republican allies savored a significant victory. For months, their tough-on-terror image has been tarnished by the revelation that the president authorized a secret domestic wiretapping program. The report in December gave Democrats ammunition for their charge that the Bush administration had run amok in its zeal to root out terrorists.


With the help of some Republicans, they blocked a vote on whether to renew the law before 16 provisions expired on Dec. 31.


GOP leaders were unable to break the gridlock, so Congress opted instead to extend the deadline twice while negotiations continued. In the end, the White House and the Republicans broke the stalemate by crafting a second measure that would curb some powers of law enforcement officials seeking information. Both will be sent as a package to Bush.


This second bill - in effect an amendment to the measure renewing the 16 provisions - would add new protections to the 2001 antiterror law in three areas. It would:


Give recipients of court-approved subpoenas for information in terrorist investigations the right to challenge a requirement that they refrain from telling anyone.


Eliminate a requirement that an individual provide the FBI with the name of a lawyer consulted about a National Security Letter, which is a demand for records issued by investigators.


Clarify that most libraries are not subject to demands in those letters for information about suspected terrorists.


Passed in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the original Patriot Act expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers.


The renewal package would make 14 of 16 temporary provisions permanent and set four-year expirations on the others.


The renewal includes several measures not directly related to terrorism. One would make it harder for illicit labs to obtain ingredients for methamphetamine by requiring pharmacies to sell nonprescription cold medicines only from behind the counter.


Another focuses on port security, imposing new criminal sanctions and a death sentence in certain circumstances for placing a device or substance in U.S. waters that could damage vessels or cargo.


Feingold's chief ally, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said the package was not enough to check what he described as a presidential tendency through history of ``always grabbing more power.''


``The erosion of freedom rarely comes as an all-out frontal assault,'' warned Byrd, the dean of the Senate. ``Rather, it is a gradual, noxious creeping cloaked in secrecy and glossed over by reassurances of greater security.''


The ``no'' votes came from Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., and Feingold, Byrd and seven other Senate Democrats: Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Carl Levin of Michigan, Patty Murray of Washington and Ron Wyden of Oregon.


Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, did not vote.


The bill is HR3199.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...46.htm&sc=1153

03/02/06 18:12

[dlwt]

ONe thing about the Patriot Act that surprises me and scares me is if they are looking into YOU being the Library, your isp or whatever. The Isp or Library CAN NOT tell you they are looking into you, thats a criminal offense to let you know they are looking into you. I just cant imagine how many terrorist are going to the Library and doing what? Checking out books?

[stresseater]

I just cant imagine how many terrorist are going to the Library and doing what? Checking out books?

Or communicating with other cell members, coordinating attacks because they think it will be harder to trace them at a public place. I say good, catch em and fry em.

[Jolie Rouge]

FBI criticized for Patriot Act use
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A blistering Justice Department report accuses the FBI of underreporting its use of the Patriot Act to force businesses to turn over customer information in terrorism cases, according to officials familiar with its findings.

The report, to be released Friday, also says the FBI failed to send follow-up subpoenas to telecommunications firms that were told to expect them, according to several government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report by the Justice Department's inspector general had not yet been released.

Overall, the FBI underreported the number of national security letters it issued by about 20 percent between 2003 and 2005, the officials said. In 2005 alone, the FBI delivered a total of 9,254 letters relating to 3,501 U.S. citizens and legal residents.

The Patriot Act, pushed through Congress by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, allows the FBI to issue national security letters without a judge's approval in terrorism and espionage cases. The letters require telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit bureaus and other businesses to produce highly personal records about their customers or subscribers.

It was unclear late Thursday whether the omissions could be considered a criminal offense. One government official familiar with the report said that it concluded that the problems appeared to be unintentional and that FBI agents would probably face administrative sanctions instead of an indictment.

The audit, required by Congress over the objections of the Bush administration, contains classified information about how the government pursues terrorists and spies in the United States. The Justice Department began notifying lawmakers of its damning contents late Thursday.

FBI Director Robert Mueller was to brief reporters on the report's findings Friday morning, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was expected to answer questions about it at a privacy rights event in Washington several hours later.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/...xP9kO0ipKs0NUE

[Jolie Rouge]

Judge strikes down part of Patriot Act
By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer
Thu Sep 6, 11:34 AM ET

NEW YORK - A federal judge struck down parts of the revised USA Patriot Act on Thursday, saying investigators must have a court's approval before they can order Internet providers to turn over records without telling customers.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said the government orders must be subject to meaningful judicial review and that the recently rewritten Patriot Act "offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers."

The American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law, complaining that it allowed the FBI to demand records without the kind of court order required for other government searches.

The ACLU said it was improper to issue so-called national security letters, or NSLs — investigative tools used by the FBI to compel businesses to turn over customer information — without a judge's order or grand jury subpoena. Examples of such businesses include Internet service providers, telephone companies and public libraries.

Yusill Scribner, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office, said prosecutors had no immediate comment.

Jameel Jaffer, who argued the case for the ACLU, said the revised law had wrongly given the FBI sweeping authority to control speech because the agency was allowed to decide on its own — without court review — whether a company receiving an NSL had to remain silent or whether it could reveal to its customers that it was turning over records.

In 2004, ruling on the initial version of the Patriot Act, the judge said the letters violate the Constitution because they amounted to unreasonable search and seizure. He found that the nondisclosure requirement — under which an Internet service provider, for instance, would not be allowed to tell customers that it was turning over their records to the government — violated free speech.

After he ruled, Congress revised the Patriot Act in 2005, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals directed that Marrero review the law's constitutionality a second time.

The ACLU complained that Congress' revision of the law didn't go far enough to protect people because the government could still order companies to turn over their records and remain silent about it, if the FBI determined that the case involved national security.

The law was written "reflects an attempt by Congress and the executive to infringe upon the judiciary's designated role under the Constitution," Marrero wrote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/...APUznpl.us0NUE

[Jolie Rouge]

ONe thing about the Patriot Act that surprises me and scares me is if they are looking into YOU being the Library, your isp or whatever. The Isp or Library CAN NOT tell you they are looking into you, thats a criminal offense to let you know they are looking into you. I just cant imagine how many terrorist are going to the Library and doing what? Checking out books?

Did W (or his minions) ask what books his political adversaries were reading?
Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:22 am - May 21, 2013.

Just caught this at Ace http://ace.mu.nu/archives/340180.php : “To Ask the Question Is To Answer It“ http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2013/...ng-web_17.html

Charles C. W. Cooke wonders why those who freaked out about the PATRIOT Act and how it might lead to people’s library records being seized aren’t so concerned about the IRS asking conservative groups to hand over their Facebook posts and a list of books they were reading. Or for records of conversations they had or their positions on issues. Shouldn’t the ACLU be as up in arms about the IRS’s intrusion into people’s privacy as they were about Homeland Security looking at suspected terrorist’s use of library computers?

Did the immediate past president — or his henchmen — ever demand that his political adversaries, in order to receive a benefit from the government, reveal the content of their prayers or the names of their members?

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/05/21...-were-reading/

[Jolie Rouge]

Remember how everyone was so wooried about "W" overstepping his authority ?? Why no concern now ??

Obama admits that his drone strikes killed four Americans since 2009. No charges - no arrests - no trials ....

Since he can't seem to admit to anything, I wonder if this number is even accurate or if it's higher.

Are you OUTRAGED yet????

http://bit.ly/14SqMvq

[Jolie Rouge]

'Fascism!' : Bob Beckel Explodes At Obama Administration Over NSA Phone Records Grab

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWcz8...layer_embedded

There was a bit of a role reversal on Fox News' The Five Thursday afternoon with liberal host Bob Beckel tearing into the Obama administration for allowing the NSA to obtain phone records from millions of American Verizon customers and the more conservative hosts defending the agency's right to do everything it can to protect the country from terrorism.

http://www.fiscalconservatives.com/v...wJQD0RXKlTv.99

comment

If they want to stop the terrorists then...why pass a bill to let them board planes easier? Why let them over the borders by the millions? Why pass laws to soothe their feelings and put them above Americans? This makes no sense, if you want to stop terrorists stop inviting them into our lives and then taking our freedoms in the pretense of stopping them.

..

And in the end it comes down to trading liberties for security. And no one seems to be aware of history. He who would trade freedom for security is entitled to and will receive neither. Ben Franklin said something to that effect. Probably why the US Constitution is so restrictive on government. The only true security is that of a free people who see the preservation of those freedoms as their primary responsibility in life. Or as JFK said a nation of minutemen. I am responsible for my own safety. I need no one in government to protect me from radical Islam, the criminal element, or should I travel to NYC, an extra large soda.

..

Who does our government think a terrorist is? Is it the American citizens that oppose them? The Christians, catholics, people who believe the in the word of God in the bible, people who believe in the 2nd amendment, people who believe in the constitution and bill of rights, people who believe in America and people who believe in patriotism to our country. THEY HAVE ACTUALLY LABELED US AS HOMEGROWN TERRORISTS!!! Legal, law-abiding citizens who believe in any of the above have been labeled, by this administration, as terrorists and a threat to the security of the US

..

After 9/11 not closing the border was so baffling to me. Instead the Liberals joined in the Pro immigration rallies, that could have been extinguished if the Republicans said the border need to be walled and monitored to prevent terrorism. Here we are 12 years later and they even set up water stations for illegals to quench their thirst!

..

What about the over 15,000 expired Student Visas from Saudi students?! Why isn't THAT the focus instead of all innocent AMERICANS?!