SCN: Fw: "Patriot Act"

[emailer1]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GEORGE6210 at aol.com
> Date: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:43 PM
> Subject: "Patriot Act">
>
> >A Creeping Coup D’état
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >The New USA PATRIOT Act
> >Are You A Patriot?
> >
> >Police State
> >by Kelly Patricia O'Meara
> >
> >If the United States is at war against terrorism to preserve freedom, a
new
> >coalition of conservatives and liberals is asking, why is it doing so by
> >wholesale abrogation of civil liberties? They cite the Halloween-week
> passage
> >of the antiterrorism bill - a new law that carries the almost
> preposterously
> >gimmicky title: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate
> >Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT
Act).
> >Critics both left and right are saying it not only strips Americans of
> >fundamental rights but does little or nothing to secure the nation from
> >terrorist attacks.
> >
> >Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck
the
> >House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this
> >legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the
antiterrorism
> >bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents. Paul tells Insight,
> "The
> >insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic
> because
> >I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was
> >undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it - and therefore I'm
> >somehow not a patriot. That's insulting."

> >What is so bad about the new law? "Generally," says Paul, "the worst part
> of
> >this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal
> >government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search
> >warrants." He is referring to Section 213 (Authority for Delaying Notice
of
> >the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the "sneak-and-peak"
provision,
> >which effectively allows police to avoid giving prior warning when
searches
> >of personal property are conducted. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the
> >government had to obtain a warrant and give notice to the person whose
> >property was to be searched. With one vote by Congress and the sweep of
the
> >president's pen, say critics, the right of every American fully to be
> >protected under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and
> >seizures was abrogated.
> >
> >The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in
their
> >persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
> >seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon
> >probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
> describing
> >the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> >
> >According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is joining
> with
> >conservatives as critics of the legislation, the rationale for the Fourth
> >Amendment protection always has been to provide the person targeted for
> >search with the opportunity to "point out irregularities in the warrant,
> such
> >as the fact that the police may be at the wrong address or that the
warrant
> >is limited to a search of a stolen car, so the police have no authority
to
> be
> >looking into dresser drawers." Likely bad scenarios involving the
midnight
> >knock at the door are not hard to imagine.
> >
> >The only independent in the House, Rep. Bernie Sanders from Vermont,
> couldn't
> >support the bill for similar reasons: "I took an oath to support and
defend
> >the Constitution of the United States, and I'm concerned that voting for
> this
> >legislation fundamentally violates that oath. And the contents of the
> >legislation have not been subjected to serious hearings or searching
> >examination."
> >
> >Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU and professor of law at New York
> >University, tells Insight, "The sneak-and-peak provision is just one that
> >will be challenged in the courts. We're not only talking about the
sanctity
> >of the home, but this includes searches of offices and other places. It
is
> a
> >violation of the Fourth Amendment and poses tremendous problems with due
> >process. By not notifying someone about a search, they don't have the
> >opportunity to raise a constitutional challenge to the search."
> >
> >Even before the ink on the president's signature had dried, the FBI began
> to
> >take advantage of the new search-and-seizure provisions. A handful of
> >companies have reported visits from federal agents demanding private
> business
> >records. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho), another of the three GOP lawmakers
> who
> >found the legislation unconstitutional, says he knew this provision would
> be
> >a problem. "Section 215 authorizes the FBI to acquire any business
records
> >whatsoever by order of a secret U.S. court. The recipient of such a
search
> >order is forbidden from telling any person that he has received such a
> >request. This is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech
> and
> >the Fourth Amendment protection of private property."
> >
> >Rep. Otter says the PATRIOT law gives federal agents unconstitutional
> police
> >powers. Otter added that "some of these provisions place more power in
the
> >hands of law enforcement than our Founding Fathers could have dreamt and
> >severely compromises the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. This
> bill,
> >while crafted with good intentions, is rife with constitutional
> infringements
> >I could not support."
> >Like most who actually have read and analyzed the new law, Strossen
> disagrees
> >with several provisions not only because they appear to her to be
> >unconstitutional but also because the sweeping changes it codifies have
> >little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism. "There is no
connection,"
> >insists Strossen, "between the Sept. 11 attacks and what is in this
> >legislation. Most of the provisions relate not just to terrorist crimes
but
> >to criminal activity generally. This happened, too, with the 1996
> >antiterrorism legislation where most of the surveillance laws have been
> used
> >for drug enforcement, gambling and prostitution."
> >

> >The ACLU has posted on its Website, www.aclu.org, a comprehensive list of
> the
> >provisions and summarizes the increased powers for federal spying. The
> >following are a sample of some of the changes as a result of the
so-called
> >USA PATRIOT Act. The legislation:
> >
> >a.. minimizes judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet
> >surveillance by law-enforcement authorities.
> >b.. expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches.
> >c.. gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to
> >designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any
> >noncitizen who belongs to them.
> >d.. grants the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about
> >individuals without having to show evidence of a crime.
> >e.. leads to large-scale investigations of American citizens for
> >"intelligence" purposes.
> >More specifically, Section 203 (Authority to Share Criminal Investigative
> >Information) allows information gathered in criminal proceedings to be
> shared
> >with intelligence agencies, including but not limited to the CIA - in
> effect,
> >say critics, creating a political secret police. No court order is
> necessary
> >for law enforcement to provide untested information gleaned from
otherwise
> >secret grand-jury proceedings, and the information is not limited to the
> >person being investigated.
> >Furthermore, this section allows law enforcement to share intercepted
> >telephone and Internet conversations with intelligence agencies. No court
> >order is necessary to authorize the sharing of this information, and the
> CIA
> >is not prohibited from giving this information to foreign-intelligence
> >operations - in effect, say critics, creating an international political
> >secret police.

> >"Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they
> >revolted in the first place." Says Paul with a laugh, "They revolted
> against
> >much more mild oppression."
> >Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight.
> >Source: http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=
> >detail&storyid=143236


----------------------------------------------------
Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today
Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *