|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
Patriot Act Condemned-Bush Assults Basic Liberties
 Fri Apr 05, 2002 10:42 pm
|
 |
|
Key quote from this article:
"The watchdogs of the press lack the muscle to lift the curtain of secrecy dropped by the Bush administration,"
What an understatement!
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/epaper/editions/thursday/news_c3badf89f2d560a2004d.html
Panel faults restrictions imposed since Sept. 11
Joe Geshwiler - Staff
Thursday, April 4, 2002
A panel that spanned a range of opinions from U.S. Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) to ACLU President Nadine Strossen --- with authorities on law enforcement and the media in between --- Wednesday condemned legal restrictions adopted by the Bush administration and Congress after Sept. 11.
In a forum at the Richard B. Russell Building sponsored by the Atlanta chapter of the Federal Bar Association, panelists were unanimous in saying steps taken in the name of protecting Americans from terrorists were in fact treading on cherished liberties.
Panelists directed the brunt of their criticism at the USA Patriot Act enthusiastically endorsed by President Bush and passed overwhelmingly by Congress last October. The measure greatly expands the federal law-enforcement powers, including the authority to conduct secret searches, make secret arrests and secretly scan electronic communications without a court order.
Barr said Congress acted in haste without thinking through the consequences of the measure. Many of the act's provisions are overbroad, he said, including giving quasi-federal personnel --- referring to airport security officers --- the authority to deny a person the right to interstate travel simply because "they don't like the color of his eyes."
Barr took no comfort in the fact the measure expires in four years and must be reauthorized by Congress. "Power taken by the government is rarely returned," he warned. He urged a continuing congressional review of the effects of the act to minimize the long-range impact on civil liberties.
Strossen of the American Civil Liberties Union said a broad coalition across the political spectrum is raising a crescendo of criticism against the act, and experts on law enforcement and national security --- like former FBI and CIA head William Webster --- are chiming in.
She said the Bush Justice Department's mass interrogation tactics are bound to fail as long as suspects are targeted on the basis of ethnicity. Al-Qaida, she said, is bound to respond to a miguided U.S. emphasis on screening new arrivals from the Mideast by dispatching its agents of Asian and African origin.
She complimented U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Mallon Faircloth of the Middle Georgia District for disallowing a ban "due to the national emergency" against a peaceful demonstration by protesters at what was known as the School of the Americas at Fort Benning. Faircloth's ruling was eloquent, she said, in pointing out that war neither automatically adds to the government's powers nor subtracts from the people's rights.
Another speaker, Robert Friedman, head of Georgia State University's Department of Criminal Justice, said it is just as important for the U.S. to police its freedoms as police terrorism. As an adviser to Israeli police authorities, he said that besieged country provides a good example for America, especially the recent ruling by its Supreme Court prohibiting the use of "moderate physcial pressure" against terror suspects even in emergency situations.,
Conrad Fink, journalism professor at the University of Georgia, lamented not only that the U.S. government is operating without the slightest regard for the public's right to know the way it is fighting the war on terror, here or abroad, but additionally that the public is all too complacent about being in the dark.
"The watchdogs of the press lack the muscle to lift the curtain of secrecy dropped by the Bush administration," he said. "Journalists can't say in good faith they're reporting accurately or fairly" because they've been kept at bay due to new and restrictive military regulations.
|
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Mon Apr 08, 2002 7:04 am
|
|
|
Proposed terrorism laws stir debate
By Tobin A. Coleman
Staff Writer
March 21, 2002
HARTFORD -- Police and prosecutors yesterday told the General Assembly that the state needs new laws to fight terrorism.
Two bills before the Judiciary Committee would close some loopholes, make terrorism that leads to death a capital crime, and make contaminating drinking water and damaging public transportation criminal acts.
Civil libertarians and a defense lawyers group said the measures are overkill and could lead to people being labeled terrorists who are simply criminals in the traditional sense.
The bills also would create tougher penalties for some computer crimes, making false statements, issuing false identification, and supporting terrorists. They would expand wiretapping authority and require flight schools to conduct background checks.
One bill was proposed by Gov. John G. Rowland and the other by state Rep. Ronald SanAngelo, R-Naugatuck, and state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven.
"We're concerned about security," said Public Safety Commissioner Arthur Spada. "You have to (criminalize) terrorist acts like the ones against New York City and we anticipate will be committed against our own populace. It's serious crime, and we want there to be serious penalties."
Spada and other proponents acknowledged the laws would duplicate some federal anti-terror laws. But state Rep. Robert Farr, R-West Hartford, said the duplication only gives law enforcement another tool.
"If there is terror the federal government steps in," Farr said. "But if there are widespread acts of terror, the state will have to step in also, so these are necessary."
Spada said "the state should not be denuded, it should be able to step in when there are acts of terrorism."
Some police and legislators who favored the bill wanted to make sure language didn't allow a school yard prank to lead to a youth being marked as a terrorist.
"We're concerned about a kid who throws a cherry bomb into a school yard," said Farr. "It's an explosive device. It's meant to intimidate. But we don't want that to be defined as terror."
Cromwell police Chief Anthony Salvatore, one of two legislative liaisons from the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, agreed.
"We don't want any legislation that turns a wayward child into a terrorist," he said.
Opponents were concerned about the rights of those who might be wrongly labeled as terrorists.
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Teresa Younger, a Stamford resident, told the committee the new definition of terrorism goes too far.
"This broad definition of terrorism would include activities that no reasonable person would consider to be terrorist activities and applies that definition to almost every criminal act," Younger said. "It could be used in destructive ways to apply to many innocent people who may hold unpopular ideas or fit an unpopular profile and could go so far as to be used against trade unionists or other activists."
Michael Fitzpatrick, a Milford lawyer speaking for the Connecticut Criminal Defense Attorneys' Association, said the group believes the crimes outlined in the bills are also duplicated elsewhere in state law.
"At the end of the day, is it going to add any crimes that aren't covered by the state or give the public a false sense of security?" Fitzpatrick asked the committee.
The committee has a Monday deadline to send the bills to the House for further action.
http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/scn-gt-terrorism2mar21.story
|
| |
|
|
BOB B
Joined: 19 Jan 2002
Posts: 307
Location: LINDEN ,TEXAS,CASS |
|
Mon Apr 08, 2002 3:16 pm
|
|
|
I'm wondering if these "terrorism" laws apply to government agencies, such as the CIA and the Airforce.If they do, lets move for prosecution as soon as possible.What they are doing is terrorizing significant portions of our population.Maybe we can get the devil to chase his own tail, as it were. |
| |
|
|
mark sky
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 3616
Location: SW coast of Oregon |
|
Tue Apr 09, 2002 5:42 am
|
|
|
Bob B you are being logical here
congress never read the "paT riot" bill before they voted for it
it was not in their interest
one of the parts of the Pat Riot bill I find of interest at this time
was the illeagality of suppling funds to those who are proven to have supported terrorist organizations
I find this of interest now ~ just prior to the last minute to pay taxes to the IRS
(whoever they are)
when the United States Government gave millions to the Tailiban
just this last spring
oh but the alluminum in the air just made me forget that? |
| |
|
|
Anne
Joined: 04 Feb 2001
Posts: 123
Location: Napa, CA USA |
|
Tue Apr 09, 2002 8:16 am
|
|
|
Yes, I was thinking tonight too about paying our taxes out and what we are getting in return. It sure ain't security. The Mideast is having increased hatred for the USA and here we are paying money out for who knows what. Collin Powell is off to the middle east, but is waiting to go to Israel until they get done what they think is needed. The USA is not being looked upon with happy faces. |
| |
|
|
BOB B
Joined: 19 Jan 2002
Posts: 307
Location: LINDEN ,TEXAS,CASS |
|
Mon Apr 15, 2002 6:02 am
|
|
|
Funny, I was thinking about NOT paying my taxes, I do not believe in my heart any of us should |
| |
|
|
FLKook
Joined: 28 Apr 2001
Posts: 710
Location: East Central Florida |
|
Mon Apr 15, 2002 2:35 pm
|
|
|
This is the first year that I also don't feel we should support the system with our tax dollars anymore. At the insistance of my husband I'm sending the check. Next year? Who knows? |
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Tue Apr 16, 2002 4:16 am
|
|
|
Income Tax is illegal
if we are to make a unified statement that we are pissed royally off then we need to ALL not pay taxes
sheeple to the back of the line |
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Fri Apr 26, 2002 12:08 am
|
|
|
'Living in a police state'
By JOHN WISELY and STEPHEN W. HUBER, Of The Oakland Press April 24, 2002
April 24, 2002
The state Legislature has given police power to search your home without telling you why.
Two new laws, which took effect Monday as part of anti-terror efforts, also shield from public scrutiny the reasons for police searches.
Defense lawyers and civil libertarians are outraged at the laws, which make search warrants and supporting documents such as affidavits non-public records.
"If you think the police did secretive work before, just wait," defense attorney William Cataldo said. "It gives more power to the ignorant and more power to those who would take your rights."
Defense lawyer Walter Piszczatowski said: "This is nuts, this is beyond nuts.
"What happened to the Fourth Amendment? We're living in a police state."
That means the public, the press, and in some cases even the person accused of the crime, can't know why the police entered a home without permission.
Under previous laws, the records were public, unless a judge ordered them sealed for a specific reason. In federal courts, that remains the case. But now, search warrants in state courts are automatically closed to public view.
"I think this is absolutely unconstitutional," said Dawn Phillips, a First Amendment lawyer with the Michigan Press Association. "We objected to it at the time. This thing passed like greased lightning."
The House portion of the bill passed unanimously and the Senate version passed 27-8. The chief sponsor of the bill in the state senate was Shirley Johnson (R-Royal Oak) while Bill Bullard (R-Highland Township) was a cosponsor. In the state House, Nancy Cassis (R-Novi) was among 20 sponsors.
The American Civil Liberties Union also objected to the law's change. ACLU spokeswoman Wendy Wagenheim said the group is reviewing the law.
Law enforcement supported the changes. Oakland County Prosecutor David Gorcyca said the laws protect victims, witnesses and confidential informants.
Gorcyca said the procedure for obtaining a search warrant didn't change, nor did the rights of the defendant to challenge a bad warrant or the ill-gotten gains of an illegal search.
"When affidavits are filed, previously they divulged a large portion of the investigation and where it was heading and that could hamper the investigation and the direction of the investigation," Gorcyca said.
"It doesn't mean you can circumvent the judicial process. All we're doing is suppressing the contents of the affidavit. It does prevent the public and the media from obtaining information during the investigation but it doesn't prevent the defendant and the defense attorney from challenging the search warrant."
Gorcyca cited drug conspiracy cases as those where witnesses are frequently in danger unless their identity is kept private during the investigation.
"In the drug world, witnesses are fearful all the time," he said. "Those are reluctant witnesses who are afraid to come forward and testify. In those cases, fear and intimidation is real. That's why grand juries are so vital. And this provides the same secrecy as a grand jury and does not impugn anyone's rights."
Civil libertarians say those goals can be met with a much narrower approach, like the one used in federal court.
"A judicial finding needs to be made on a case-by-case basis," said David Moran, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit.
When police are investigating a crime and they believe evidence is stored in someone's home, car or other private place, they must submit a sworn affidavit to the court spelling out their case.
A judge reviews the document, then decides if there is enough evidence to search without the owner's permission.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires "probable cause" to issue a warrant and notes they must be written "particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."
The changes are contained in two new laws - public acts 112 and 128.
State Court administrator John Ferry Jr. spelled out the changes to courts across the state in a memo last Friday. Public act 112 makes "all search warrants, affidavits and tabulations in any court file or record retention system nonpublic," according to Ferry's memo.
The memo goes on to say that public act 128 "provides for suppression of a search warrant affidavit upon a showing that it is necessary to protect an ongoing investigation or the privacy or the safety of a victim or witness."
When contacted Tuesday for clarification on the memo, a spokeswoman for the state court administrator's office declined comment. Marcia McBrien said the laws could appear before the Supreme Court for interpretation and it would be improper for her to offer one in advance.
The new laws could also create headaches for court recordkeepers. In many courts, search warrants are filed along with the case file. It's unclear how clerks will keep the two separate.
The new law also affects the rights of people who are searched. According to a analysis of the law done in the House of Representatives, the state Court of Appeals ruled that affidavits be given along with a warrant at the time of a search.
The new law changes that.
"An officer executing a search is not required to give a copy of the affidavit to the person or leave a copy at the place from which the property was taken," according to Ferry's memo. http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=3936063&BRD=982&PAG=461& dept_id=467992&rfi=6
|
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Fri Apr 26, 2002 12:12 am
|
|
|
Not a good thing is it?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 04-25-2002] |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 3:43 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
