posted 04-03-2003 09:14 PM            

As the Justice Department considers how to ram through Congress even more expansive legislation to curtail citizen liberties in the name of security, remember that the next knock on the door might be to haul you off into some dark night where the U.S. Constitution has been marginalized by the very government sworn to protect it against enemies.

Since February, when a draft of the so-called Patriot Act II was leaked, it has been clear but underreported that Attorney General John Ashcroft is not satisfied with the power passed quickly after the Sept. 11 attacks by a frightened Congress on behalf of a frightened people willing to forgo rights in a false tradeoff for "security." The Bush administration apparently wants to, among other horrors, have the power to revoke citizenship — even of native-born Americans — and detain citizens indefinitely.

The draft of this sequel to the USA Patriot Act of 2001 would further erode the rights to privacy, due process and religious liberty, and continue hiding the government's "anti-terror" actions from review by the courts of Congress. By throwing the label "terrorist'' around freely, under the terms of this proposed law, the government could round up protests of almost any sort against its policies, then wiretap the organization behind the protests, seize its property and take citizenship from supporters of the group.

What the administration forgets is that in this democracy the law has a stated bias to protect citizen rights, not to "protect" government from citizens about whom there is no probable cause to suspect them of crimes. Adding to the threat from expansive government powers in this administration is its own furtiveness. A government that demands complete transparency in the dealings of its people while steadfastly refusing to be accountable is a government to be feared, not trusted.

Instead of countless legislative skirmishes around the country to force recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, perhaps time would be well spent in schools by teaching and learning about constitutional rights.

This is an administration that, de facto, has ignored the constitutional checks and balances that force accountability. Trusting it with more authority is not a recipe for enhanced security; it is a recipe for eroding the very democracy the administration purports to be preserving.

It appears that the administration calculation to get more intrusive legislation is aimed at leveraging public fears intensified by the Iraq war — or simply to sneak Patriot Act II through while attention is focused on the war overseas and the host of domestic economic and social problems that have people stewing.

Pay attention. The citizenship at risk may be your own.

BYE BYE CONSTITUTION.

THOSE WHO SACRIFICE LIBERTY FOR "SECURITY" DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY OR SECURITY.

posted 04-03-2003 11:13 PM            

The Second Patriot Act Is Much Worse Than the First...And They Didn't Want You to Know About It...Until After They Had Sprung an Attack

BREAKING NEWS FROM INFOWARS.COM -- Feb 8, 2003

The Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan group, has revealed that it has received a top-secret Justice Department document containing plans for a second and even more draconian Patriot Act which would drastically expand government's police powers.

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

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

This is Caesar-type power, and they plan to legitimize it by launching another terrorist attack.

PDF:

PART 1 http://www.infowars.com/pdfs/patriot2-hi.pdf

PART 2 http://www.infowars.com/pdfs/patriot2-low.pdf

posted 04-05-2003 01:20 PM            

CASHING IN ON THE PATRIOT ACT

Subject: MARVIN BUSH - WHAT'S THE 'UNKNOWN' BROTHER DOING?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RUMORMILLNEWS/message/11

Marvin P. Bush, one of George W. Bush's three younger brothers, is co-founder
and partner in Winston Partners, a private investment firm in Alexandria, Va.
Winston Partners in turn is part of a larger venture capital entity called the
Chatterjee Group, headed by venture capitalist Purnendu Chatterjee........

Inevitably, many companies are aggressively marketing services to make
businesses ``Patriot Act''-compliant: that is, they sell computer systems to
enable banks to argue successfully to Uncle Sam that they're not laundering
money for terrorists. One of the most aggressive is Sybase Inc., which
developed a ``Sybase PATRIOT compliance Solution'' months ago. Sybase, which
said it wanted foreign banks as customers (it already had a deal with the
People's Bank of China), landed Sumitomo Mitsui Bank in time for the October
2002 compliance deadline.

This is where Winston Partners comes in. The Chatterjee Group, including
Winston Partners, owns 5.5 million shares in Sybase (Chatterjee businesses also
have been paid thousands more shares in Sybase). SEC filings show that Winston
Partners LP owns 1,036,075 shares in Sybase; Winston Partners LDC holds
1,317,825 shares; and Winston Partners LLC owns 1,221,837 shares. The shares
owned by the subsidiaries are collectively managed in funds for Winston
Partners by Pernendu Chatterjee. There is also a Chatterjee Charitable
Foundation.
Another interesting point according to Winston Partner's website is Sami F.
Al-Bashir, who "held the positions of Credit Analyst and then Portfolio Manager
(Alternative Asset Management) at National Commercial Bank in Saudi Arabia." http://www.winstonpartners.com/he/he_teamlist.html

The National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia is a defendant in the suit against
the Al Qaeda network, which was filed by the families of the 9-11 victims.

posted 04-06-2003 02:34 AM            

Get Ready for PATRIOT II

By Matt Welch, AlterNet
April 2, 2003

The "fog of war" obscures more than just news from the battlefield. It also provides cover for radical domestic legislation, especially ill-considered liberty-for-security swaps, which have been historically popular at the onset of major conflicts.

The last time allied bombs fell over a foreign capital, the Bush Administration rammed through the USA PATRIOT Act, a clever acronym for maximum with-us-or-against-us leverage (the full name is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism").

Remarkably, this 342-page law was written, passed (by a 98-1 vote in the U.S. Senate) and signed into law within seven weeks of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. As a result, the government gained new power to wiretap phones, confiscate property of suspected terrorists, spy on its own citizens without judicial review, conduct secret searches, snoop on the reading habits of library users, and so General John Ashcroft wants to finish the job. On Jan. 10, 2003, he sent around a draft of PATRIOT II; this time, called "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003." The more than 100 new provisions, Justice Department spokesperson Mark Corallo told the Village Voice recently, "will be filling in the holes" of PATRIOT I, "refining things that will enable us to do our job."

Though Ashcroft and his mouthpieces have issued repeated denials that the draft represents anything like a finished proposal, the Voice reported that: "Corallo confirmed ... that such measures were coming soon."

You can read the entire 87-page draft here. Constitutional watchdog Nat Hentoff has called it "the most radical government plan in our history to remove from Americans their liberties under the Bill of Rights." Some of DSEA's more draconian provisions:

Americans could have their citizenship revoked, if found to have contributed "material support" to organizations deemed by the government, even retroactively, to be "terrorist." As Hentoff wrote in the Feb. 28 Village Voice: "Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But – and read this carefully from the new bill – 'the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.'" (Italics Hentoff's.)

Legal permanent residents (like, say, my French wife), could be deported instantaneously, without a criminal charge or even evidence, if the Attorney General considers them a threat to national security. If they commit minor, non-terrorist offenses, they can still be booted out, without so much as a day in court, because the law would exempt habeas corpus review in some cases. As the American Civil Liberties Union stated in its long brief against the DSEA, "Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus – a protection guaranteed by the Constitution – since the Civil War."

The government would be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at "detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities." Samples could be collected without a court order; one need only be suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement officer. Those refusing the cheek-swab could be fined $200,000 and jailed for a year. "Because no federal genetic privacy law regulates DNA databases, privacy advocates fear that the data they contain could be misused," Wired News reported March 31. "People with 'flawed' DNA have already suffered genetic discrimination at the hands of employers, insurance companies and the government."

Authorities could wiretap anybody for 15 days, and snoop on anyone's Internet usage (including chat and email), all without obtaining a warrant.

The government would be specifically instructed not to release any information about detainees held on suspicion of terrorist activities, until they are actually charged with a crime. Or, as Hentoff put it, "for the first time in U.S. history, secret arrests will be specifically permitted."

Businesses that rat on their customers to the Feds – even if the information violates privacy agreements, or is, in fact, dead wrong – would be granted immunity. "Such immunity," the ACLU contended, "could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft's Operation TIPS."

Police officers carrying out illegal searches would also be granted legal immunity if they were just carrying out orders.

Federal "consent decrees" limiting local law enforcement agencies' abilities to spy on citizens in their jurisdiction would be rolled back. As Howard Simon, executive director of Florida's ACLU, noted in a March 19 column in the Sarasota Herald Tribune: "The restrictions on political surveillance were hard-fought victories for civil liberties during the 1970s."

American citizens could be subject to secret surveillance by their own government on behalf of foreign countries, including dictatorships.

The death penalty would be expanded to cover 15 new offenses.

And many of PATRIOT I's "sunset provisions" – stipulating that the expanded new enforcement powers would be rescinded in 2005 – would be erased from the books, cementing Ashcroft's rushed legislation in the law books. As UPI noted March 10, "These sunset provisions were a concession to critics of the bill in Congress."

I wouldn't be writing this article today had an alarmed Justice Department staffer not leaked the draft to the Center for Public Integrity in early February. Ashcroft, up to that point, had repeatedly refused to even discuss what his lawyers might be cooking up. But if 10,000 residents of Los Angeles had been vaporized by a "suitcase nuke" in late January, it is reasonable to assume that the then-secret proposal would have been speed-delivered for a congressional vote, even though Congress has not so far participated in drafting the legislation (which is, after all, its Constitutional role).

As a result of the leak, and the ensuing bad press, opposition to the measure has had time to gather momentum before the first bomb was dropped on Saddam's bunker. Some of the criticism has originated from the right side of the political spectrum – a March 17 open letter to Congress was signed not only by the ACLU and People for the American Way, but the cultural-conservative think tank Free Congress Foundation, the Gun Owners of America, the American Conservative Union, and more.

One does not have to believe that Ashcroft is a Constitution-shredding ghoul to find these measures alarming, improper and possibly illegal. Glancing over the list above, and at the other DSEA literature, I can see multiple ways in which a Fed with a grudge could legally ruin my life. Removing checks and balances on law enforcement assumes perfect behavior on the part of the police.

Safeguarding civil liberties is an unpopular project in the most placid of times. Since Sept. 11, the Bush Administration has shown that it will push the envelope on nearly every restriction it considers to be impeding its prosecution of the war on terrorism. This single-minded drive requires extreme vigilance, before the fog of war becomes toxic.

Detailed critiques of the Patriot II draft have been prepared by the ACLU and the Center for Public Integrity. The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights also has a useful 98-page report on post-Sept. 11 civil liberties, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center maintains an outstanding PATRIOT-related site.

Matt Welch is the Los Angeles correspondent for the National Post, and an editor of the L.A. Examiner. He also maintains a weblog about current events.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15541

posted 04-07-2003 12:36 AM            

You mean THIS one?

posted 04-07-2003 10:00 PM            

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/07/national/07LIBR.html?ex=1050292800&en=cac12896888c9943&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

SANTA CRUZ, Calif., April 4 — The humming noise from a back room of the central library here today was the sound of Barbara Gail Snider, a librarian, at work. Her hands stuffed with wads of paper, Ms. Snider was feeding a small shredding machine mounted on a plastic wastebasket.

First to be sliced by the electronic teeth were several pink sheets with handwritten requests to the reference desk. One asked for the origin of the expression "to cost an arm and a leg." Another sought the address of a collection agency.

Next to go were the logs of people who had signed up to use the library's Internet computer stations. Bill L., Mike B., Rolando, Steve and Patrick were all shredded into white paper spaghetti.

"It used to be a librarian would be pictured with a book," said Ms. Snider, the branch manager, slightly exasperated as she hunched over the wastebasket. "Now it is a librarian with a shredder."

Actually, the shredder here is not new, but the rush to use it is. In the old days, staff members in the nine-branch Santa Cruz Public Library System would destroy discarded paperwork as time allowed, typically once a week.

But at a meeting of library officials last week, it was decided the materials should be shredded daily.

"The basic strategy now is to keep as little historical information as possible," said Anne M. Turner, director of the library system.

The move was part of a campaign by the Santa Cruz libraries to demonstrate their opposition to the Patriot Act, the law passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that broadened the federal authorities' powers in fighting terrorism.

Among provisions that have angered librarians nationwide is one that allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation to review certain business records of people under suspicion, which has been interpreted to include the borrowing or purchase of books and the use of the Internet at libraries, bookstores and cafes.

In a survey sent to 1,500 libraries last fall by the Library Research Center at the University of Illinois, the staffs at 219 libraries said they had cooperated with law enforcement requests for information about patrons; staffs at 225 libraries said they had not.

Ms. Turner said the authorities had made no inquiries about patrons in Santa Cruz. But the librarians here and the library board, which sets policies for the 10 branches, felt strongly about the matter nonetheless. Last month, Santa Cruz became one of the first library systems in the country to post warning signs about the Patriot Act at all of its checkout counters.

Today, the libraries went further and began distributing a handout to visitors that outlines objections to the enhanced F.B.I. powers and explains that the libraries were reviewing all records "to make sure that we really need every piece of data" about borrowers and Internet users.

Maurice J. Freedman, president of the American Library Association and director of the library system in Westchester, N.Y., said only a handful of libraries had posted signs or handed out literature about the Patriot Act. Warning signs are posted in the computer room at a library in Killington, Vt., and the library board in Skokie, Ill., recently voted to post signs, Mr. Freedman said.

Many other libraries, he said, including those in Westchester, decided that warnings might unnecessarily alarm patrons.

"There are people, especially older people who lived through the McCarthy era, who might be intimidated by this," he said. "As of right now, the odds are very great that there will be no search made of a person's records at public libraries, so I don't want to scare people away."

At the same time, though, thousands of libraries have joined the rush to destroy records.

A spokesman for the Justice Department said libraries were not breaking the law by destroying records, even at a faster pace. The spokesman, Mark Corallo, said it would be illegal only if a library destroyed records that had been subpoenaed by the F.B.I.

Ms. Turner, the library director here, said librarians did not want to help terrorists, but she said other values were at stake as well.

"I am more terrified of having my First Amendment rights to information and free speech infringed than I am by the kind of terrorist acts that have come down so far," Ms. Turner said.

Library officials here said the response to the warning signs had been overwhelmingly positive, and visitors interviewed today had nothing but praise. Several of them noted, however, that Santa Cruz was not necessarily a microcosm of America.

Santa Cruz is a community well known for its leftward leanings and progressive politics. Last fall, city officials allowed marijuana for medicinal purposes to be distributed from the steps of City Hall. The City Council also passed a resolution condemning the Patriot Act.

posted 04-07-2003 10:31 PM            

THE "SECRET" PATRIOT ACT THE BUSH ADMIN. DIDN'T WANT YOU TO FIND OUT ABOUT.

USE REAL PLAYER

http://rense1.soundwaves2000.com:8080/ramgen/sw_archives/rense/rense02-14-03.rm

posted 04-11-2003 11:48 AM            

http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/16012/view

posted 04-12-2003 02:33 PM            

Friday, April 11, 2003
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/117060_patriot11.html

GOP calls for wider powers to track citizens
Critics rip bid to make Patriot Act permanent

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- With the war on terrorism lagging behind the war in Iraq, Republicans in Congress and the White House are pushing legislation that would give federal authorities sweeping new powers to monitor, track, profile, and even revoke citizenship of U.S. citizens.

The effort is being directed along two controversial fronts, involving current law as well as new proposals. Both have generated fierce resistance on Capitol Hill and from civil liberties groups.

On one track, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, with the backing of the White House, wants to make permanent the provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the sprawling 2001 law hastily passed only weeks after the Sept. 11 attack.

The law greatly expanded the government's ability to search records and monitor people and their property.

It gave the government new authority to conduct telephone and Internet surveillance with minimal judicial oversight and created a broad new definition of "domestic terrorism" that could lead to the investigation and prosecution of people engaged in acts of political protest.

It also gave federal agents the power to survey all book and computer records at libraries, and permitted non-citizens to be jailed without formal charges for up to six months.

Because of concerns that the law might go too far and harbor unintended consequences, Congress stipulated that the Patriot Act dissolve in 2005.

But Hatch, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said this week that he wants to make the law permanent.

At the same time, the Bush administration is drafting new legislation, dubbed Patriot II, that would provide federal agents even more authority to issue wiretaps, conduct "data mining" and monitor people presumed or known to have terrorist connections.

Although the bill is still being drafted, those with knowledge of it say it would, among other things, allow federal authorities to make secret arrests and to "infiltrate and monitor" worship services.

Critics say the proposals are troubling.

"We know the government has used some of these laws incorrectly, and we know that this has been the least cooperative Justice Department in anyone's memory," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in response to Hatch's plan to strip the "sunset provision" from the Patriot Act.

"History shows that a government that doesn't want oversight often is a government that has something to hide."

The Illinois chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union wrote a letter to the state's two senators Wednesday urging them to oppose Hatch.

Other groups also are mobilizing to fight the proposal.

"After a mere 18 months since the enactment of the legislation, it is simply too soon to measure the impact of these provisions and move to make them permanent," said the letter to Sens. Dick Durbin and Peter Fitzgerald.

Hatch declined to comment, but Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said the law has been crucial in the fight against terrorism. "It has been an invaluable tool in our efforts to prevent terrorist activity," Corallo said.

"The Patriot Act gives us the tools we need to better protect the American public while also protecting civil liberties."

Corallo declined to comment on Hatch's proposal, but a Justice Department official who asked to remain nameless said Hatch has the support of the department. Republican aides believe Hatch's amendment could pass the Senate. It could run into trouble in the House, however, where Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., has stressed the importance of congressional oversight. Sensenbrenner was instrumental in inserting the sunset provisions in the Patriot Act.

Opposition also is coming from a more surprising direction -- mainstream conservative organizations that usually count Attorney General John Ashcroft among their heroes.

"Already, government investigative powers have been dramatically expanded," said former Rep. Bob Barr, a well-known conservative who once was a close ally of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "Already, intelligence is working under the flawed premise that to get the bad guys you need to spy unmercifully on the good guys."

Barr appeared at a forum yesterday with three other influential conservatives, who have banded together with, improbably, the American Civil Liberties Union to try to defeat the initiatives.

"We hope that the White House will take notice from the shared concern expressed today that Americans of all political stripes want leaders who strive to make us all both safe and free," said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington office. She joined Barr and David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; and Lori Waters, executive director of the Eagle Forum.

Murphy said the draft bill would, if passed in its current form, represent a big shift away from America's long-standing commitment to the right 'to be left alone,' " she said.

Among other powers, Murphy said the bill would "give the government the unprecedented authority to revoke Americans' citizenship and open the door to government suppression of lawful protest activities."

Waters said passage of the two measures would edge the country closer to a philosophy "where there are two types of people: the caught and the uncaught. .... We see a growing effort of the government to tag and track everything we do," she said. "We don't think these are the most effective way of preventing terrorists from getting on planes and blowing them up."

A Justice Department official who didn't want his name used said the initial criticisms would be moot because many of the objectionable provisions will not be included in the final bill. Some of the ideas, the official said, were proposed only to get discussions started within the department and were never intended for inclusion. He wouldn't say which provisions fit in that category.

Civil libertarians and conservatives alike are still unnerved by an earlier proposal by the Justice Department called Operation TIPS that would encourage citizens to watch and report strange behavior. That proposal died last year in Congress.

posted 04-15-2003 01:42 PM            

Web posted Tuesday, April 15, 2003

Panel OKs Patriot Act resolution
Resolution encourages city employees to consult with attorney on divulging information

By JOANNA MARKELL
JUNEAU EMPIRE © 2003

The Juneau Assembly's Human Resources Committee on Monday approved a resolution that asks Congress to review the USA Patriot Act and related counterterrorism legislation for consistency with fundamental civil liberties.

The resolution, requested by Juneau Citizens for the Defense of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, will go to the full Assembly on April 28.

Group members have argued the USA Patriot Act gives the federal government expanded powers to wiretap phones and secretly search homes. It also gives the government more access to business, educational, medical and library records, they said.

The resolution affirms the city's opposition to terrorism, but also encourages city employees to consult with the city attorney's office if they have doubts about divulging information to federal investigators. It directs the city attorney to train city employees about their rights and responsibilities under the Constitution, the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act.

Additionally, it asks the U.S. attorney for Alaska to give the city manager a summary of the number of investigations, warrants, subpoenas and arrests carried out in Juneau under the Patriot Act and related orders. The city manager would release the information to the public.

Tim Burgess, U.S. attorney for Alaska, told Assembly members and community members Monday he was concerned about turning over names and specific information about ongoing investigations and grand jury proceedings. He said the procedures outlined in the Patriot Act have helped the federal government catch al-Qaida terrorist cells in Portland and Buffalo and members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Florida.

"I'm not in a position to advocate whether you pass or don't pass the resolution, but I think there are some misconceptions about the Patriot Act out there," he said.

Burgess said the Patriot Act doesn't diminish judicial oversight of federal investigations and doesn't give federal agents unilateral power to access business records. The act doesn't specifically mention library records, he said.

Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union, said the law doesn't need to mention library records because it is broad enough to allow access.

Jim Powell said the city isn't asking for names or specific information about investigations, just a general summary of activity.

"This puts other communities and the federal government on notice that we care about our rights," he said.

The committee voted 3-1 in favor of the resolution. Powell, Marc Wheeler and Stan Ridgeway voted yes; Randy Wanamaker voted no.

posted 04-15-2003 04:13 PM            

The Bush Administration's draft Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 would radically expand law enforcement and intelligence gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive "suspicion," create new death penalties, and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups. Here are a few highlights:

1. Secret Arrests. Section 201 would authorize secret arrests, overturning a federal court decision requiring the government to disclose the identity of persons it has detained in the September 11 investigation. This provision would mandate that all arrests in connection with "international terrorism" investigations be secret until an indictment is filed. Never before in our history have we permitted secret arrests.

2. Ending Consent Decrees Against Illegal Police Spying. Section 312 would automatically terminate any consent decree governing police spying abuse that was entered before September 11, 2001, no matter what the basis of that decree. It would essentially eliminate consent decrees for the future with respect to police spying, and place substantial restrictions on judicial injunctions.

3. Unchecked Deportation Authority. Section 503 would give the Attorney General unchecked power to deport foreign nationals, including lawful permanent resident aliens, whenever he determines that their presence is inconsistent with our "national security," which is defined to include "economic interests" or "foreign policy." The D.C. Circuit has already held that courts cannot review what actions violate our "foreign policy," and therefore this would give the Attorney General license to deport any foreign national of his choosing.

4. Stripping Citizenship for Political Associations. Section 501 would seek to strip citizenship from persons for their political associations. It would provide that even activity that is currently legal to engage in - such as belonging to or supporting the lawful activities of a group designated "terrorist" by the Attorney General - would be presumptive grounds for losing one's citizenship.

5. Bypassing Judicial Oversight. Section 103 would authorize the Attorney General to bypass the courts altogether for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act searches and wiretaps whenever Congress has authorized the use of force. Section 128 would allow government to bypass grand juries for subpoenas in terrorism investigations. Section 126 allows government to bypass courts or grand juries in seeking access to credit reports.

6. DNA Database for "Suspected" Terrorists. Section 301-306 would authorize creation of a DNA database on "suspected terrorists," expansively defined to include mere association with suspected terrorist groups, and noncitizens suspected of everyday crimes or of having supported any group designated as terrorist.

7. Eliminating Privacy Protections for U.S. Citizens. Section 107 would eliminate protections in the current FISA law for U.S. persons (citizens and lawful permanent residents). It would allow the government to get pen registers on U.S. persons for any foreign intelligence investigation, without regard to any criminal or terrorist nexus.

8. Collapsing Distinction Between Domestic and International Terrorism Investigations. Section 121 eliminates the distinction between international terrorism and domestic terrorism. The reason for that distinction has been that domestic terrorism is a crime, and should be treated as a criminal matter, while international terrorism is both a crime and a matter of foreign intelligence. As a result, international terrorism investigations have used broader surveillance under looser restrictions than domestic terrorism investigations, which are subject to the traditional restrictions that apply to all criminal investigations.. This bill would eliminate that distinction, treating wholly domestic criminal acts and conspiracies as subject to the same authorities that extend to foreign intelligence gathering.

9. Access to Credit Reports Section 126 would give federal law enforcement authorities access to credit reports on the same basis as private companies. Historically, law enforcement access has been more limited, because of concerns that law enforcement is more susceptible to serious abuse than private companies. This provision would eliminate that distinction.

10. Secrecy. Section 128 and 206 impose gag orders on persons subjected to terrorism investigations. Section 204 would presumptively give the government authority to make secret presentations to courts in criminal cases related to the Classified Information Procedures Act.

11. New Death Penalties. Section 411 creates new death penalties for certain terrorist offenses.

12. Extradition Without Treaty. Section 322 authorizes extradition even where there is no treaty authorizing and setting criteria for extradition.

13. Expedited Removal for "Criminal Aliens." Section 504 has nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever. It creates an "expedited removal" process, radically limiting judicial review, for any foreign national convicted of a wide range of minor and major crimes, irrespective of when the crime was committed. This simply exacerbates the already harsh immigration laws governing those who have committed a crime, and seeks to deprive them of any meaningful judicial review, without any connection to terrorism or national security.

For more complete information on this bill and for a download of the text goto http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3 =0&L4=0&L5=0

(WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2003) --

The Bush Administration is preparing a bold, comprehensive sequel to the USA Patriot Act passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, which will give the government broad, sweeping new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and law enforcement prerogatives, and simultaneously decrease judicial review and public access to information. The Center for Public Integrity has obtained a draft, dated January 9, 2003, of this previously undisclosed legislation and is making it available in full text The bill, drafted by the staff of Attorney General John Ashcroft and entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, has not been officially released by the Department of Justice, although rumors of its development have circulated around the Capitol for the last few months under the name of "the Patriot Act II" in legislative parlance. "We haven't heard anything from the Justice Department on updating the Patriot Act," House Judiciary Committee spokesman Jeff Lungren told the Center. "They haven't shared their thoughts on that. Obviously, we'd be interested, but we haven't heard anything at this point." Senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff have inquired about Patriot II for months and have been told as recently as this week that there is no such legislation being planned. Mark Corallo, deputy director of Justice's Office of Public Affairs, told the Center his office was unaware of the draft. "I have heard people talking about revising the Patriot Act, we are looking to work on things the way we would do with any law," he said. "We may work to make modifications to protect Americans," he added. When told that the Center had a copy of the draft legislation, he said, "This is all news to me. I have never heard of this." After the Center posted this story, Barbara Comstock, director of public affairs for the Justice Dept.,released a statement saying that, "Department staff have not presented any final proposals to either the Attorney General or the White House. It would be premature to speculate on any future decisions, particularly ideas or proposals that are still being discussed at staff levels." that was obtained by the PBS program "Now With Bill Moyers"

It also changed provisions of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was passed in 1978 during the Cold War. FISA established a different standard of government oversight and judicial review for "foreign intelligence" surveillance than that applied to traditional domestic law enforcement surveillance.

The USA Patriot Act allowed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to share information gathered in terrorism investigations under the "foreign intelligence" standard with local law enforcement agencies, in essence nullifying the higher standard of oversight that applied to domestic investigations. The USA Patriot Act also amended FISA to permit surveillance under the less rigorous standard whenever "foreign intelligence" was a "significant purpose" rather than the "primary purpose" of an investigation.

The draft legislation goes further in that direction. "In the [USA Patriot Act] we have to break down the wall of foreign intelligence and law enforcement," Cole said. "Now they want to break down the wall between international terrorism and domestic terrorism."

In an Oct. 9, 2002, hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher testified that Justice had been, "looking at potential proposals on following up on the PATRIOT Act for new tools and we have also been working with different agencies within the government and they are still studying that and hopefully we will continue to work with this committee in the future on new tools that we believe are necessary in the war on terrorism."

Asked by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) whether she could inform the committee of what specific areas Justice was looking at, Fisher replied, "At this point I can't, I'm sorry. They're studying a lot of different ideas and a lot of different tools that follow up on information sharing and other aspects."

Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy Viet Dinh, who was the principal author of the first Patriot Act, told last October that there was "an ongoing process to continue evaluating and re-evaluating authorities we have with respect to counterterrorism," but declined to say whether a new bill was forthcoming.

Former FBI Director William Sessions, who urged caution while Congress considered the USA Patriot Act, did not want to enter the fray concerning a possible successor bill.

"I hate to jump into it, because it's a very delicate thing," Sessions told the Center, without acknowledging whether he knew of any proposed additions or revisions to the additional Patriot bill.

When the first bill was nearing passage in the Congress in late 2001, however, Sessions told Internet site NewsMax.Com that the balance between civil liberties and sufficient intelligence gathering was a difficult one. "First of all, the Attorney General has to justify fully what he's asking for," Sessions, who served presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush as FBI Director from 1987 until 1993, said at the time. "We need to be sure that we provide an effective means to deal with criminality." At the same time, he said, "we need to be sure that we are mindful of the Constitution, mindful of privacy considerations, but also meet the technological needs we have" to gather intelligence.

Cole found it disturbing that there have been no consultations with Congress on the draft legislation. "It raises a lot of serious concerns and is troubling as a generic matter that they have gotten this far along and tell people that there is nothing in the works. What that suggests is that they're waiting for a propitious time to introduce it, which might well be when a war is begun. At that time there would be less opportunity for discussion and they'll have a much stronger hand in saying that they need these right away."

Patriot Act's Big Brother
by David Cole, The Nation

In early February, the Center for Public Integrity disclosed a leaked draft of the Bush Administration's next round in the war on terrorism--the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (DSEA).

The draft legislation, stamped Confidential and dated January 9, 2003, appears to be in final form but has not yet been introduced in Congress. Presumably the Administration had determined that the timing would be more propitious for passage--meaning less propitious for reasoned debate--after we go to war with Iraq. But it is one thing to play politics with the timing of a farm bill; it is another matter to do so with a bill that would radically alter our rights and freedoms. If the Patriot Act was so named to imply that those who question its sweeping new powers of surveillance, detention and prosecution are traitors, the DSEA takes that theme one giant step further.

It provides that any citizen, even native-born, who supports even the lawful activities of an organization the executive branch deems "terrorist" is presumptively stripped of his or her citizenship. To date, the "war on terrorism" has largely been directed at noncitizens, especially Arabs and Muslims. But the DSEA would actually turn citizens associated with "terrorist" groups into aliens. They would then be subject to the deportation power, which the DSEA would expand to give the Attorney General the authority to deport any noncitizen whose presence he deems a threat to our "national defense, foreign policy or economic interests." One federal court of appeals has already ruled that this standard is not susceptible to judicial review.

So this provision would give the Attorney General unreviewable authority to deport any noncitizen he chooses, with no need to prove that the person has engaged in any criminal or harmful conduct. A US citizen stripped of his citizenship and ordered deported would presumably have nowhere to go. But another provision authorizes the Attorney General to deport persons "to any country or region regardless of whether the country or region has a government." And failing deportation to Somalia (or a similar place), the Justice Department has issued a regulation empowering it to detain indefinitely suspected terrorists who are ordered deported but cannot be removed because they are stateless or their country of origin refuses to take them back.

Other provisions are designed to further insulate the war on terrorism from public and judicial scrutiny. The bill would authorize secret arrests, a practice common in totalitarian regimes but never before authorized in the United States. It would terminate court orders barring illegal police spying entered before September 11, 2001, without regard to the need for judicial supervision. It would allow secret government wiretaps and searches without even a warrant from the supersecret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when Congress has authorized the use of force. And it would give the government the same access to credit reports as private companies, without judicial supervision.

Historically, we have imposed a higher threshold, and judicial oversight, on government access to such private information, because government has the motive and the wherewithal to abuse the information in ways private companies generally do not. But the trajectory of the war on terrorism is probably best illustrated by an obscure provision that would eliminate the distinction between domestic terrorism and international terrorism for a host of investigatory purposes. The Administration's argument sounds reasonable enough--terrorism is terrorism, whether it's within the United States or has an international component.

But in the Patriot Act debates, the Administration argued that it should be afforded broader surveillance powers over "international terrorism" because such acts are simultaneously a matter of domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence. Because foreign intelligence gathering has traditionally been subject to looser standards than criminal law enforcement, the government argued, the looser standards should extend to domestic investigations of "international terrorism." But now it proposes to extend the same loose standards to investigations of wholly domestic crimes. The DSEA's treatment of expatriation and domestic terrorism are harbingers of things to come. Thus far, much of the war on terrorism has been targeted at foreign nationals and sold to the American people on that ground.

Americans' rights are not at stake, the argument goes, because we're concerned with "international" crime committed mostly by "aliens." With the DSEA, however, the Administration seeks to transgress both the alien-citizen line, by turning citizens into aliens for their political ties, and the domestic-international line, extending to wholly domestic criminal-law-enforcement tools that were previously reserved for international terrorism investigations. How will Congress respond? Thus far, when citizens' rights have been directly threatened, Congress has taken civil liberties seriously. Most recently, it blocked the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness data-mining program.

But it blocked it only as applied to US citizens. As long as the Pentagon violates only foreign nationals' privacy, Congress in effect said, Go ahead. But that tactic--protecting citizens' rights while ignoring those of foreign nationals--is untenable, not only on moral grounds but because if the Administration gets its way, we are all potentially "aliens."

posted 04-17-2003 05:39 PM            

Hatch Leading Charge to '1984,' Critics Warn

Orrin Hatch (R)

By Christopher Smith
The Salt Lake Tribune

posted 04-19-2003 05:40 PM            

Brave New World' GOP seeks to create looks nothing like America
Statesman Columnist

http://www.indianastatesman.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/04/18/3ea0023c2b838

By Levi Harris
April 18, 2003

So I was thinking about the late, great United States. Like the picture of Dorian Gray, our future gets uglier with every sin this country sins and seemingly gets by with.

First item up for bid is the USA Patriot Act, which the White House is seeking to enlarge over two dimensions: breadth and length. George W. Bush, Attorney General John Ashcroft and some Senate Republicans want to make the act bigger and give it a longer life. The current law is supposed to expire in Oct. 2005 because it was so in-your-face evil it wouldn't pass without a sunset provision. Die-hard Republicans want to see the law made permanent.

To draw information from my column Nov. 2, 2001, the Patriot act "allows the FBI to intercept our e-mails and use parts of them in criminal investigations; obtain wiretaps more easily than ever before...; detain non-U.S. citizens for up to a week without charging them with a crime (or allowing them access to attorneys); get a search warrant from a court in any jurisdiction that will be valid nationwide; and get warrants to search our homes ... without ever having to show us those warrants, without ever having to tell us its agents were even there."

Most people said the government would never really use those powers; those people were wrong. These things are going on every single day, and thousands of people have been jailed without their Fifth Amendment rights.

According to the Associated Press, the proposed new additions to the bill were leaked to the press last fall and included "creating a DNA database of 'suspected terrorists' (and) forcing suspects to prove why they should be released on bail rather than having the prosecution prove why they should be held."

Fans of the act say the fact that it's working is evidence that it is a good idea. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, recently told the Associated Press, "It seems ... ridiculous to take away the best law enforcement tool against terrorism before we get rid of terrorism."

News flash: law enforcement could be VERY effective if we didn't have the Constitution at all. Think of it. The cops could search any house, any time they suspected illegal activity was going on there. Meth use and domestic abuse would be nearly wiped out. If the FBI could monitor every single e-mail sent, none of these sleeper cells would be able to plan terrorist attacks.

If we had a database of suspects' DNA -- what the hell? Why stop there? If we had every American's DNA on file with his or her Social Security number and fingerprints, we would be able to solve rapes, child molestations and murders like nobody's business.

If we didn't have that silly rule about habeas corpus, we could hold anyone in jail for any amount of time until we made certain that either they were innocent or we had enough evidence to convict them in a court of law. Getting off on technicalities would practically be a thing of the past.

If we didn't have the freedom of religion, we could literally make this country one nation under God. We could deport Muslims just in case any of them are fundamentalist terrorists. We could have crosses and manger scenes on every courthouse lawn. We could pray in our schools again.

If we would do away with the freedom of speech, we could stop flag burning. Anyone who spoke against America, the war or the Bush administration could be jailed. Now, not every one of those people is dangerous, but we could catch the ones who are if we could jail them.

If we could do away with the freedom of the press, we could make sure that all editorial pages supported the government, which would convince people we needed to shut up and toe the line so we can all be safe. If we could take away guns from private citizens, we could all but end gun accidents in homes and the gun violence flooding our streets. If we could keep the criminals we know are guilty from having lawyers, we could convict more of them.

We could end crime as we know it and protect ourselves from every form of terrorism. But you know what? That's not America. The Soviet Union maybe, or China. Cuba. Not America. And if that's the America the Bush administration wants -- if that's the America that men and women are dying for in Iraq -- I don't want it. That's not what this country was ever supposed to be: a nation run by oligarchs who impose their will on people that they brainwash into believing oppression is essential for safety.

posted 04-26-2003 08:34 AM            

Thursday, April 24, 2003
http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?
template=story_full&id=E5AFE4DD-C944-40C5-8693-4AE666BDCE71

UKIAH -- Mendocino County supervisors have approved a resolution opposing the U.S. Patriot Act.

On a 4-1 vote, the Board of Supervisors Tuesday passed a resolution that condemns the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act and executive orders intended to bolster the federal government's fight against terrorism.

Supervisor Michael Delbar, the lone dissenting vote, said the resolution's supporters have little regard for the law unless it suits them.

"The same advocates who ask us to uphold the Constitution are asking us to pick and choose which laws to uphold," Delbar said.

The county joins 89 other local governments across the country that have formally opposed to oppose the Patriot Act, which was passed a month after the Sept. 11 attacks./AP

posted 04-27-2003 11:47 AM            

posted 04/26, by Adam
Khan
http://www.khanreport.com/content/042203.html

We all know the famous Bush doctrine, now codified by the infamous USA Patriot Act: Feed or harbor a terrorist and you are a terrorist.

But what if you trade with a terrorist nation state?

Take the very real example of Halliburton. With Gulf War 1 Defense Secretary Cheney in the CEO's seat, Halliburton helped Iraq reconstruct its war-torn oil industry with $73 million worth of equipment and services -- becoming Iraq's biggest such supplier. During this time, Baghdad was squarely on the list of "rogue nations" that sponsor terrorism against the US and Israel.

Saddam had not only launched another slaughter against both the Shiites and Kurds, but he had also sent American soldiers home from Desert Home in body bags.

Is Cheney a terrorist? Is Halliburton a terrorist organization? Who decides?

The Bush administration does, that's who. And it is a rather arbitrary process.

You see, the USA Patriot Act pulls together and redefines several different existing laws, including 8 USC 2339b, none of which really define, what constitutes a "terrorist organization."

The Patriot Act does not spare American citizens or organizations. Not unless you happen to be well connected to the administration, that is.

Although the State Department hails several nations as "states of concern" (formerly "rogue states")--the list includes Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea--the White House continues to allow US corporations to do business with these and other nations that it has accused of supporting, sponsoring, or directly engaging in terrorist acts against the US and Israel.

* Leading up to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" US companies were buying nearly 90% of Iraq's oil. Iraq shipped 909,000 bpd of oil to the United States in February, up from 600,000 bpd the month before, making the country the fourth biggest U.S. oil supplier. Saddam was accused of paying off Palestinian militants and actively participating in the September 11 attacks.

* US companies, with the tacit knowledge of the Bush administration, were siphoning off oil from Syria too, importing an average 48,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil to the United States in February 2003. That, incidentally, was up 167 percent from the 18,000 bpd the United States imported from Syria the month before.

* The US defense complex sold $66 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia between 1991-2000. Saudi Arabia hasn't officially being declared a sponsor of terrorism, although right-wing media outlets, even those that sometimes serve as mouthpieces for the Bush agenda, have railed against the White House for its cozy relations with the Saudis.

* US trade with some of "states of concern" in 2002 (Source: US Census Bureau):

Syria: $1.48 billion, up from $46 million in 1998

Iran: $15.6 million, up from $27,000 in 1998

Iraq: $3.6 billion, up from $1.18 billion in 1998

That's right. Even as some GOP legislators distracted the American public by re-branding French fries and toast and launching the ridiculous anti-French boycott, their corporate sponsors continued to profit by trading with "terrorist" states.What's more, thanks to the Bush tax-cut, these corporations now have the luxury of increasing this volume of trade.

As I said last week, follow the money and you will understand that profits trump patriotism--and the Patriot Act.

posted 04-27-2003 12:25 PM            

quote:

---

Yep...if "patriotic" means..snitching on your neighbor

---

Pointing out potential terrorists...you mean. Violating the constitution?

What violations?

quote:

---

making criminals out of ordinary people, punishing dissent

---

This is Mech speak for enforcing the law...such as illegal immigration. In Mech-speak, "ordinary people" are illegal Islamic radical affiliated with