The Continuing Hunt for PATRIOT Act Abuses

Throtex writes "Orin Kerr, Associate Professor of Law at George Washington University writes at The Volokh Conspiracy that the Department of Justice is having trouble finding abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act. This follows from the fact that what the media originally aired as abuses were merely allegations of abuse at the time. Could it be that there has just been a lot of fuss over nothing?"

One place to look

[nizo]

How about Guantanamo Bay, at least if there were some way to actually question the people being detained there? Some 545 people from 40 countries are being held there. Nearly all of the detainees are being held without charges and some have been imprisoned there for more than three years.

Re:One place to look

[mirko]

Guantanamo is outside of the US, so it's not officially under US juridiction. So it's not illegal to detain these people there even if it's indeed a concentration camp for deported war prisoner, except that the Geneva Convention is not respected there.

Re:One place to look

[nizo]

But what if American citizens are being detained there? I can't seem to find any report one way or the other, and since apparently no one is allowed to visit all of those detained there (at least that I have heard of) how can we know who or even how many people are detained there?

Re:One place to look

[Shakrai]

But what if American citizens are being detained there? I can't seem to find any report one way or the other, and since apparently no one is allowed to visit all of those detained there (at least that I have heard of) how can we know who or even how many people are detained there?

Gitmo has absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act unless there is some provision in it that authorizes the Federal Government to declare people enemy combatants and send them down there. Gitmo is an argument best saved for a discussion about international law or the Geneva conventions.

If you really want to talk about the Patriot Act, then let me be so bold as to suggest that even if it isn't being abused now it will eventually be abused and probably not even against terrorists. Recall how the RICO statures were intended to be used against organized crime. Nowadays the Feds will threaten RICO prosecutions against just about anybody to force a favorable plea or seek harsher sentences then the normal laws will provide.

Might I even be so bold as to suggest that I don't really trust the Federal Government and that in most cases the prosecution of terrorism should be left to the State Government(s) of whichever state was targeted using laws already on the books? If we captured the "20th hijacker" from 9/11 why couldn't he be indicted and prosecuted for about 2,800 counts of murder in the first degree and conspiracy under New York State law? Prosecuting terrorists under state law seemed to work just fine for the Washington DC area snipers.

Why does the Federal Government need to step in and take yet more power away from the states? The role of the Federal Government should be to assist the states -- not bypass them. In any case you know that power is going to be abused in the future.... we've already had cases of the Patriot Act being used in drug cases. Hardly what Congress had in mind when they passed it I'd say.

Let's have a discussion along these lines and see what others have to say.

Re:One place to look

[gregorsamsa11]

From what I understand, the Patriot Act consists most of legislation that law enforcement agencies (notably the FBI) have been trying to pass for years. Bascially, they wanted the powers the lost after the excesses of the Vietnam era back again. I don't know much about this personally, but a lawyer who is purportedly an expert on the act told me very little of it was drafted around the time it was introduced. The took all these old, failed bills, slapped them together with some language about terrorism, and rammed it through using some dirty tactics. Not many copies were actually distributed before it was voted on, and it was only distrubuted less than a day before the vote. This is a gigantic legal document, so there was no possibility to know what was in it before the vote. Another lawyer i spoke with, from the ACLU, told me that the day after this passed they received calls from numerous congressman who wanted to know what the hell they'd just voted for. Democracy in action!

Re:One place to look

[Rei]

Yes, because as we all know, would-be suicide bombers and people on "martyrdom operations" don't want a glorious death.(/sarcasm)

Even for normal crime, the death penalty appears, if anything, to be a negative [deathpenaltyinfo.org] deterrent [deathpenaltyinfo.org]. Yes, it might make you feel better - if you believe that the criminal justice system should be about retribution instead of prevention, then you can certainly justify it. But from a prevention standpoint, it's a pretty hard claim to make.

Re:One place to look

[Rei]

If you don't believe that you don't understand middle eastern culture

As an example [islamicity.com]:

"A shaheed, which means martyr, is a person who is killed as a result of the efforts he makes in support of Allah's cause. Whether he is felled by an enemy bullet or assassinated or taken prisoner and executed is immaterial. As long as the prime reason for killing him is the effort he is making in support of Islam, then his death is martyrdom. He is a shaheed and a shaheed is admitted into heaven without having to account for his sins."

the only justice for a murder victim is for the murderer to be put to death

That is known as "retribution", not prevention. I didn't say that believing in retribution instead of/more than prevention is an invalid concept; only that it is quite hard to validate the death penalty in terms of prevention.

Re:One place to look

[timster]

I didn't say that believing in retribution instead of/more than prevention is an invalid concept

You should; it's about time that people did. In any case, I will.

Retribution is completely irrational. Morally speaking, it serves only to degrade the victim as well as the perpetrator. The thirst for barbarism runs deep, and everyone is eager for an excuse, so they suggest that someone else's barbarism gives us the right to be barbaric ourselves.

It does not. Barbarism makes our souls smaller and our lives lesser. It's time to stop.

Re:One place to look

[Shakrai]

Now, you can claim it's not a deterrent all you want, but how does a dead criminal commit crimes?

How does a criminal serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole commit crimes?

Punishment (time in prison, fines, loss of privileges like voting or driving, etc) is meant to pay your debt to society -- not to punish you for future offenses that you may or may not commit.

Re:One place to look

[cluckshot]

I would like to address a reality regards "martyrdom operations." We have seen thousands of suicide bombings in the middle east in recent years. These appear to be some religeous zeolotry and a few of them are. Most are not! What is going on in the middle east is mostly a case of gangsters of the worst type (even worse than the mafia) who will come and hold a family hostage unless they sacrafice one or more of their children to such operations. This has been exposed in Iraq by the Iraqi TV stations of late and it has cut into the support for such dramatically.

These people are nothing but cold blooded gangsters of the very worst sort ever to appear on earth. Any other presentation is a serious mistake. These gangsters use drugs to completely "Zombify" some persons into doing this as well. Their history of doing so is where we in the English Language get the word Assassin. This accounts for most of what we in the west mistakenly think is religious extremism.

Regards using life in prison to deprive these people of "Martyrdom" is another western IDIOTIC MORONIC notion. I have in my past worked as Registered Nurse in the Tennesse State Prison Hospital. (1996-1997 time period) During that time I learned about the internal dynamics operation in a prison. Essentially prisons are run by the inmates. They splinter into 3 groups in order to survive. Whites join the Skinheads or die at the hands of the Black Gangs. (Prison population is about 80% Black) The only alternative is to join Islamic Gangs. Odd man out dies or has a miserable life. Islamic Gangs being the dynamic power brokers they dominate the prison evironment and did so well before 911. Sentancing someone to life in prison who is a genuine Al Qaeda type leader claiming Islamic Status is like giving them a life tenured position in an Al Qaeda College. They train all the short term persons. It is like putting an Al Qaeda recruiter on perminant state payroll.

This is what we saw when the orginal WTC Bombers were organizing and running the 911 coordination from a New York State Prison. Please note that my experience is prior to 911! Our prisons were already inflitrated by Al Qaeda prior to 911 and I saw it then.

I simply do not understand the idiotic notions of people that our prisons punsh or rehabilitate. They do neither. They function mostly as schools for crime. I also do not understand the idiotic notions running round about the death penalty not being a deterrent to crime. Anyone believing this has never worked in a prison. When will people see that the death penalty has nothing to do with corrections it is simply taking out the trash!? Mods get a life if you disagree.

A final note on the Patriot Act, what about SECRET don't people understand. Of course abuses are not being found to be documented. Do you think the Government is going to let you read the records? Heck they are not even keeping records at least not public ones anyway.

Re:One place to look

[Shakrai]

National defense is the job of the Federal government, so capturing and punishing terrorists is the job of the Federal government first, before the state governments. Not to mention the Federal government has the death penalty while some candy ass states do not.

I don't know why I'm responding to your flamebait but here goes anyway:

National defense is the job of the Federal Government. That is the prevention of terrorism is a Federal responsibility. Once terrorist acts occur however I still maintain that they could be as easily tried under state laws as they could under Federal laws. There is no reason for the Feds to create laws to punish crimes that are historically the responsibly of the states (murder).

And as for your "candy ass" comment regarding the death penalty: So what? If the people of the state of New York see fit not to impose the death penalty on our criminals then it is not the job of the Federal Government to make us. Likewise if the people of Texas or Virginia seem fit to execute somebody for jaywalking it's not the job of the Federal Government (or New Yorkers) to tell them that they can't do it.

Besides, how long do you really think Osama Bin Ladin would last in Sing Sing or Attica? I'd rather see him made somebody's bitch for the rest of his miserable life then martyred by the state. Remember the mystique hits that Saddam or Khalid Shaikh Mohammed took when they were captured and photographed? Isn't that ten times better then creating a dead hero?

Gitmo detainees should have trials

[Sloppy]

I suspect the only reason the Bush Administration is doing it in Cuba is to quell fires from the extreme left before the start.

You mean, the extreme right, i.e. people like me, who want to go back to the kind of government we had in 1789. ;-)

Think for a second. Forget whether or not the bill of rights applies to their situation, and ask yourself: Why did we pass the bill of rights? What is the value behind it? When a suspect is so obviously caught red-handed doing a bad thing, just what is the point of giving them due process, instead of lynching them on-the-spot?

Those questions shouldn't be hard to answer. If they are hard, then you're a American poseur, comrade.

But assuming you can answer them, you will see that all the reasons for those principles applying to American citizens, apply to everyone else too. The people at Gitmo should have trials, not because it's the law, but because it's how Americans should want their government to behave. Alas, most of us don't really want it anymore, because we lost the cold war with USSR and they assimilated us into their culture. (Am I joking? Is that tongue-in-cheek? I don't even know anymore.)

Re:One place to look

[jallen02]

And a pretty good argument can be made that the terrorists we have down there are outside of the Geneva convention as they aren't members of any regular army backed by a real country. They are terrorists.

Article 4. Section 2.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

• (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
  
  
• (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
  
  
• (c) That of carrying arms openly;
  
  
• (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
  

Jeremy

Re:One place to look

[Shakrai]

And a pretty good argument can be made that the terrorists we have down there are outside of the Geneva convention as they aren't members of any regular army backed by a real country. They are terrorists.

Excuse me mods, but this isn't flamebait. Unpopular no doubt, but it's hardly flamebait. Can't we leave the politics out of the moderation process for one intelligent conversation?

Mod abuse

[rumblin'rabbit]

I have increasingly noticed the use of mod points to voice disagreement with a post rather than critiquing the quality of the post. One would think that meta-modding would help, but apparently this is not enough.

Perhaps the administrators of /. could emphasize the purpose of modding more than they do now.

Re:One place to look

[Jurph]

Article 5. Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

(HOWEVER)

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power as case may be.

(emphasis mine)

It appears that the State gets to decide when to give them rights, but is obligated to give them their Geneva Convention rights, regardless of whether they're lawful soliders of a signatory nation.

Re:One place to look

[suitepotato]

It's a good thing to point out that a couple centuries ago, these people would have been summarily executed as soon as captured. I'd say the fortune of unattached guerilla fighters who don't comply with the above mentioned article and section has actually improved somewhat.

Re:well Jeremy

[Qzukk]

How can we possibly make everyone happy?

In the US, we call them trials. You know, where the government gets some smart people together, and they come up with this totally incredible thing called "proof" and convince this group of people who do nothing but sit all day and stare at the theatrics that they are, in fact, correct.

Or yeah, we could just throw random people into jails and claim they are obviously terrorists because otherwise they wouldn't have been thrown in jail. That works too.

Re:MOD DOWN USA Basher

[BasharTeg]

First, you have been trolled by the parent post.

Second, a world government is bad because it is SO distant from the common man. In the United States, according to the Constitution, I have the right to elect those who rule me, on a state and federal level (lets leave the electoral college out of this one for simplicity's sake). However, my life is impacted by globalization organizations like the WTO, which passes laws or rules or resolutions or judgements which by treaty force my elected federal government to change our laws or enact new laws to stay in compliance and avoid punitive action. What say do I have in the WTO, and how exactly did I agree to be ruled by them. I understand how we got here and I understand how some people see a need for such, but I believe that supernational governments like the WTO or the EU or even the UN, disenfranchises citizens like me who are members of a democracy, who have established the federal laws and system by which we agreed to be ruled, and suddenly have found a new layer of government on top of us which is far far out of our reach. All the anti-globalization protesters who show up at WTO meetings and shout outside may have the right to protest if they live in a nation like the US, but they don't have the right to actually vote against actions on that organization.

Supernational organizations with binding authority disenfranchise the common voter in any nation that allows voting, in my opinion. That's one of the reasons I pity my European cousins now living under the EU. I'm just waiting for the American Union to be created so that my national represented officials will have to share an equal vote with not only Canadian and Mexican officials, but officials from the Dominican Republic can also make decisions and vote to affect my life. Thanks but no thanks.

Re:One place to look

[eyegone]

Guantanamo is outside of the US, so it's not officially under US juridiction.

That is certainly the position of the Bush administration. I'm pretty sure, however, that it has been rejected by the courts. (Thus the ruling that the detainees at Gitmo must have some form of access to the U.S. court system to determine whether they really are "enemy combatants.")

Re:One place to look

[rossifer]

First, bush doing this isn't the fist time it has ever been done. Second so what.

You are part of the problem.

If someone is a terrorist and holding them indefinatly allows them to further pursue other objectives without harmign inteligence or person obtaining it then who cares?

Me.

These are human beings. People. If we know they're a "terrorist", then we have evidence that they've committed crimes heinous enough to be called "terrorist acts". Charge them with the crime, try them in a court of law where the evidence can be presented, lock them up, and throw away the key.

By approving of their detention without due process, you approve of your detention without due process if someone fitting your description robs a liquor store down the street with a stick of dynamite (you terrorist you).

The fact that you don't care about those human beings or their loss of due process in the slightest demonstrates to me that our education system truly has failed as it has produced a nation of voting age adults who have no idea what the words "freedom", "liberty", "rights", or "critical thinking" mean. The government said it, you believed it.

It frustrates me so much that sometimes I just want to cry about where this country is going. In your eyes, that probably makes me an "America hater".

Fucking pathetic.

Ross

"You're a terrorist. You have no rights."

[Lead Butthead]

Just imagine how prosecutors will try to get people classified as terrorist.

Re:One place to look

[kjamez]

The fact that you don't care about those human beings or their loss of due process in the slightest demonstrates to me that our education system truly has failed as it has produced a nation of voting age adults who have no idea what the words "freedom", "liberty", "rights", or "critical thinking" mean. The government said it, you believed it.

It frustrates me so much that sometimes I just want to cry about where this country is going. In your eyes, that probably makes me an "America hater".


in a recent 'the Week' (theweekmagazine.com, a wonderful 'get the world news at a glance' publication), a survey of american highschool students said: (and i'm close, but not accurate, i cannot find the origional wording)

39% of high school americans believe the first ammendment is too vague, and the government should provide more regulation.

i will continue to try to find the article, but it's absurd. what kind of propoganda do they show the kids in highschool these days that makes (some/most of) them spineless apathetic boobs? is this really the future of america?

Re:One place to look

[TGK]

Rights to lease the Guantanimo Base facility were granted to the United States in the treaty that ended the Spanish American War (if memory serves). The base is a US military outpost wherein US troops are subject to the Code of Military Justice, a US Law.

As US Law applies on the base, it is fair and reasonable to assume that the US Constitution, the supreme law of the United States of American, also applies on the base.

Moreover, there exists no provision in the US Constitution limiting the geographic scope of the document. Further, the Constitution make little or no distinction between US Citizens and other random individuals under the power of the US Government (save for some very specific liberties like voting and holding office).

Therefore if any actions of the US Government which are in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, even if those actions take place outside the territorial boundaries of the United States (which Guantanimo Bay may or may not be within), reamain Unconstitutional and illegal.

This is EXACTLY, why the government was ordered by the Supreme Court of the United States to allow detainees in camp X-ray access to lawyers and a proper hearing.

Re:One place to look

[Bun]

Guantanamo is outside of the US, so it's not officially under US juridiction.

Let me get this straight: you're saying a US naval base is out of US jurisdiction?

Re:One place to look

[Tassach]

Guantanamo is outside of the US, so it's not officially under US juridiction. So it's not illegal to detain these people there

Guantanimo is a United States military base, operated by the United States Government. The Constitution applies to the GOVERNMENT, not the people -- it's a list of what the GOVERNMENT can do and can't do.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It says ANY PERSON. That means anyone, anywhere, at any time. It's not limited to apply only within the US borders nor only to US citizens. It's an injuction prohibiting the US GOVERNMENT from depriving ANY person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Re:One place to look

[Tassach]

The point is that the entire concept of holding people without charges and torturing them is antithetical to the concepts on which the Constitution is based. It is, explicitly and implicitly, an unconstitutional abuse of power by the government.

Re: One place to look

[bluprint]

The topic is about the PATRIOT act. Maybe we should talk about how conversation should have a topic, and that people must be on the same topic to have a conversation...

Re:Actually, that is part of this topic.

[JabberWokky]

Shall we go into discussions about credit card companies and genetically modified food? How about abortion and gay marriage?

They are all hot topics, just like Gitmo... and all have nothing whatsoever to do with the PATRIOT Act... just like Gitmo.

So... how do you feel about late term abortions?

--
Evan

Re: One place to look

[Shakrai]

Just out of interest, I wonder what would happen if, say, Japan had imprisoned a bunch of innocent US citizens at an offshore location, held them there for several years, and tortured them, without even charging them, let alone any other due process

You mean, what would happen if the Japanese captured American citizens on a foreign battlefield operating outside of the control of the US Government fighting for a regime that supported the terrorists who had just murdered 3,000 Japanese civilians? I'm sure we'd have words with them in the diplomatic arena but I highly doubt that nukes would be landing on Tokyo over it....

Mind you, I'm not the biggest fan of Gitmo either. I don't see why our criminal justice system can't handle these people -- or why they couldn't just be killed on the battlefield in the first place (nowhere in Geneva does it obligate you to accept your enemies surrender -- it only states what you can do after you accept said surrender). I am merely playing devil's advocate and pointing out the rather obvious fact that the majority of the people at Gitmo are hardly innocent citizens of friendly foreign nations.

Re: One place to look

[wealthychef]

I am merely playing devil's advocate and pointing out the rather obvious fact that the majority of the people at Gitmo are hardly innocent citizens of friendly foreign nations.

Are you sure about that? My understanding is that the identities of those imprisoned there is secret. The problem I have with all of this is the secrecy. The question really boils down to how great a threat you think terrorism really poses to U.S. If it threatens our very existence, then yes, we have to sacrifice freedoms for survival. But short of that, I am very hesitant to allow government to secretly abduct citizens without a trial, no matter what they claim they were doing at the time. The whole point of due process is to prevent arbitrary punishment, including "detention," by our government without a PROVEN cause on an INDIVIDUAL basis. .

Re: Defensible

[gidds]

A documentary shown here recently (Channel 4, UK) followed the stories of a few former Guantanamo detainees. IIRC, there was strong evidence for the innocence of a few, and no evidence of terrorist or other crimes for any.

Besides which, how on earth could you know that any of the detainees were guilty of crimes? They haven't been charged with any, let alone had their cases heard in any form of court. Or are people now guilty of crimes simply because the US military thinks they are?

Re:Defensible

[lga]

there may be a few hundred who are hell bent on inflicting as much violence as possible on innocent people.

I agree. And they work for the US government.

Re: One place to look

[gidds]

The USofA is not torturing people there... these people are not innocent

Again, I refer you to the Channel 4 programmes. (If you Google for 'guantanamo channel.4', the first several links mention the series, including Channel 4's own set of pages.)

One programme, 'The Guantanamo Guidebook', attempted to reproduce some of the interrogation methods used there. These include sleep deprivation, extremes of heat and cold (hypothermia), verbal abuse, enforced nudity, shaving and sexual humiliation, bombardment with bright lights and loud music, sensory deprivation, and being forced to hold stressful positions for hours, &c. In combination. While carefully crafted to fall short of the legal definition of 'torture', it certainly sounds like torture to me. (See some of those sites for reports by the programme's volunteers who submitted to it. They're shocking.)

Another, 'Is Torture A Good Idea?' was made by a lawyer who represented some of the Guantanamo detainees. Among other things, he looks at how the methods used there led to confessions that were completely and demonstrably false. I don't expect that all the detainees are innocent, but some certainly are. And without due process, how can you tell?

Re:One place to look

[Karma Farmer]

Hmm, aren't the prisoners held in Guitmo in US war prisons and as such on US "soil." Sort of like our embassys in other countries considered on US soil.

Let me correct a couple of facts for you:

We're not at war. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not.

Guantanamo does not fall under US jurisdiction.

The prisoners held in Guantanamo are mostly "enemy combantants", and no "prisoners of war."

Re:One place to look

[rossifer]

We're not at war. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not.

So we've captured "enemy combatants" without a war.

Check.

Guantanamo does not fall under US jurisdiction.

But we've got a military base there and we'd be upset if someone else claimed it as their jurisdiction.

Check.

The prisoners held in Guantanamo are mostly "enemy combantants", and no "prisoners of war."

You've swallowed the government line so deeply you can just about taste the reel can't you? I sincerely hope that whatever it is you think you've bought with the ashes of the constitution turns out to be worth it.

Regards,
Ross

Re:One place to look

[WombatControl]

Except the detentions at Camp X-Ray, regardless of one's opinion about them, have nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act has to do with domestic anti-terrorism, not the treatment of detainees obtained in military operations.

That being said, there have been some questionable uses of PATRIOT Act provisions for non-terrorism cases that should be investigated. The PATRIOT Act is an anti-terrorism act, and if the Justice Department wishes such powers for conventional cases they should go through the legislative process to get them. The PATRIOT Act should be limited to use only in anti-terrorism prosecutions.

Re:One place to look

[Kainaw]

How about Guantanamo Bay

The American Citizens in Guantanamo Bay are having their civil rights abused by the Patriot Act!? I thought the only American Citizens there were military - which have a whole different set of rights as specified by military law - so the Patriot Act doesn't really apply. Unless, you are referring to the news reporters that run down there every now and then to try and get a juicy 'prisoner abuse' story to promote and further their career.

Re:One place to look

[Ubergrendle]

Although I agree with your argument that the Patriot Act is not relevant in this case, I think the spin you put on news reporters looking to find a juicy story disengenuous.

These prisoners are either prisoners of war (hence subject to Hague and Geneva conventions) or prisoners of domestic terrorism (hence subject to US civil rights and the Patiot Act). Inventing a new category of classification is typically the behaviour of 3rd world despots and dictators, not of a nation proclaming itself to be the bastion of human rights, freedom, and democracy.

Maybe the prisoners are being treated well...maybe not, but the story itself is worthy of merit.

PS Please note that I suspect many of the prisoners are guilty of numerous crimes, but are deserving of resolution of their fates.

Re:One place to look

[TGK]

I think that a big part of the problem is that the PATRIOT act allows abuses that we, by definition, will never hear about.

If you can detain someone outside of the country, do so under a warrant that is classified, and deny them access to legal representation, outside contact, and the US court system.... how will anyone ever know?

We're talking about the kind of stuff that used to go on in the Soviet Union (seriously, no "in Soviet Russia jokes").

Sure, right now these laws might be used against the "bad guys" as it were, but administrations change, circumstances change, governements change. Even if you're ok trusting the Bush administration with these kind of powers (and I'm not) would you be ok trusting... say... Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, or Sen. Feingold with those powers?

Before the PATRIOT Act...

[Mad Man]

One place to look (Score:4, Interesting)
by nizo (81281) * Alter Relationship on Monday March 14, @12:02PM (#11933488 [slashdot.org]) ...Nearly all of the detainees are being held without charges and some have been imprisoned there for more than three years.

Wen Ho Lee [wenholee.org], Mazen Al-Najjar [cnn.com], and Allah knows who else, happened during the Clinton/Reno era, so they don't count (since we can't blame their cases on Bush, Ashcroft, and the PATRIOT Act).

Palestinian professor to stay in U.S. jail

December 8, 2000
Web posted at: 2:54 AM EST (0754 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A Palestinian university professor in Florida, who has been jailed without charge since 1997 on secret evidence, will remain held in a federal facility, U.S. officials said Thursday....

"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[Anita Coney]

It does not matter if the government has actually abused citizens via the Patriot Act. The only thing that matters is that it can.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[yodaj007]

Right on. All the gov't needs to do is pass some big law that hurts everybody in some way, then never use it. The fuss dies down, people go on about their lives. Then you start using it. If anyone fussed over it, you just point out that the law has been in place for years with no problems. "For years there has never been an abuse. Why would this invokation of the law be any different?" Then everyone is divided on both sides of the issue while the gov't goes on and continues using the law to its benefit.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[homer_ca]

Exactly, the issue isn't that these powers are already being abused by the feds. The issue is that they've reserved the right to use these powers. Think of it as filling up your plate at the all-you-can-eat buffet only it's a powergrab instead of food. The Justice Dept. asked for and received their wishlist of most every police power they wanted. It doesn't matter if they had immediate plans to use them all.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[CosmeticLobotamy]

I know you understand that he meant "can and can get away with it." No one is dumb enough to not. Stop pretending to be.

Closing gaping security holes in a law does not mean you hate government. The power to arrest criminal suspects is good. The power to arrest whoever you feel like is bad.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[pudge]

The government also has many rules by which it is supposed to adhere when using its powers: the principle example in the United Statesis the Bill of Rights.

Of course. And if the PATRIOT Act violates the Bill of Rights, it should be modified so that it does not. That's different from saying it is a problem because it can be used to abuse citizens, which is true of almost all government powers.

If your argument is to be taken at face value, you might as well say, "The government has many powers with which it can abuse citizens. It sometimes even does abuse those powers. Since the alternative is anarchy, the obvious solution is to cede the government whatever powers it chooses to grant itself."

Not remotely. I never implied any such thing. My argument was purely in the negative, saying that a given argument was illogical; it was not assertive in the way you describe.

To put more flesh on the bones, I have questions about the Constitutionality of some of the changes to FISA embodied in the PATRIOT Act. But I would not oppose those provisions merely because they *can be used* to violate the rights of citizens, I would oppose them because they *are* a violation of the rights of citizens (if indeed they are ... I still haven't come to a conclusion).

The problem is that we are getting little if any actual arguments of how the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional or otherwise violative of civil liberties. Instead, we get handwaving at the Bill of Rights, and claims that well, government CAN tap my phone without justification, as if it could not do so before the PATRIOT Act, which still requires a court-issued warrant, which in essence means that such provision does not violate the Bill of Rights (although I know it is more complex than that, and there are additional arguments, but none of them have convinced me; I don't want to get that detailed into this, but am just pointing out that it is on this level that the discussion should take place).

And further, as to government ceding powers to itself, that pretty much represents the precise opposite of my views, especially in regard to the federal government. I think that for most of the powers the federal government exercises, it does so unconstitutionally, as the powers are neither enumerated nor implied. And as a republican, I believe strongly in the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution as it was originally intended.

Again, I did not imply in any way that it is OK to violate the Bill of Rights. The argument I was reponding did not imply that the PATRIOT Act is a violation of the Bill of Rights, only that it could be used to violate rights, which is true of most government powers.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[pudge]

I'd encourage you to look over the ACLU's (admitedly biased, but generally accurate) page on the expanded surviellance powers available to law enforcement under the PATRIOT act.

I have. As I noted, they are deceptive. I asked you to give an example, not to link to propaganda. I maintain the fact that, contrary to your implication, courts are required for warrants under the PATRIOT Act, just as before. If you disagree, you can point to some fact that shows me to be wrong, such as a quote from the bill itself.

I'll humor you with an example: They write, "The requirements for getting a PR/TT warrant are essentially non-existent: the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge - without having to prove it - that such a warrant would be 'relevant' to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application." This is, perhaps, what you were referring to when you implied that a judge's approval was not needed for a warrant.

But it is actually incorrect. They are simply lying when they say a judge does not have the authority to reject it. It is not true. What *is* true is that the scope of the warrant is increased, so that if one judge says no, that another judge elsewhere might say yes. They are lying by stating that the judge cannot reject the warrant. What is true is that the judge cannot by himself prevent another judge from approving it, but that is a very different thing from what is said and implied.

As you can see, I have done my homework on this, so simply showing me a link to a bunch of biased claims is not sufficient.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[DunbarTheInept]

If you'd done your homework you'd realize that judge's ability to refuse the warrant doesn't mean diddly becuase the judge no longer has to be shown the information that justifies the warrant, and so has nothing to go on to determine if the warrant is justified or not.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[provolt]

Note: If you believe that you are a "Citizen of the United States" you are probably misinformed. "The United States" refers only to DC and territories held by the federal government. If you live in one of the 50 States, you are a "Citizen of The State of ___________" and since your State has agreements with the other 49 you are, by extention a "Citizen of the united States of America" (note the lowercase u).

I recommend you do some research on the country you live in, and exactly how its supposed to work.

I think you need to do some research. Let's start with Article 1, Section 2:
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

How about Article 1, Section 3:
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Or maybe Article 2, Section 1:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

I don't know about you, but it almost seems to me like the founding father thought that we would be citizens of the United States.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[Jhon]

Actually, if the federal government followed the initial plans of the founding fathers and held to a truly libretarian view

You can stop right there. You've no idea of what the "true" ideals of the founding fathers were. It's evident in your broad stroke claim that they were "libertarian".

"ACTUALLY", the framers were quite varied in their views. From Hamilton's Jay's, and Madison's strong central government to Gerry's, Monroe's and S. Adams's ideals of a weaker one (in favor of stronger states). If there was ONE lesson we could ALL learn that seems to have been forgotten by the right AND the left is that COMPROMISE is was what built this nation and has held it together for the past 200+ years. Longer than ANY other democratic type of government in the past.

The rest of your post is so full of actual ignorance of the facts as to defy comprehension. Unless you are intentially trying to decieve people. Are you?

I recommend you do some research on the country you live in, and exactly how its supposed to work

I suggest you re-take your high-school US history class. It's obvious that you've slept through quite a bit the first time.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[TGK]

The argument goes like this.

I have a gun. I can shoot you in the head. It's illegal, but I can still do it.

Then Congress passes a law saying that it's prefectly legal for me to shoot you in the head.

Should you have a problem with the law?

Substitute a plethora of anti-terror, law enforcement, and security agencies for "me" and substitute the ability to detain you, search your home, tap your phone, and interogate you all without public awareness, scrutiny, or even (in some cases) a real warrant for "shoot you in the head" and you've got the PATRIOT act.

Why Am I Not Surprised?

[Master of Transhuman]

"Department of Justice is having trouble finding abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act"

These assholes covered up the murder of a Federal inmate at the Oklahoma City Transit Center, among numerous other situations.

Re:Why Am I Not Surprised?

[Kick the Donkey]

In other news: Micorsoft announced difficulties finding evidence of a monopoly within the walls of Redmond.

Re:Why Am I Not Surprised?

[poot_rootbeer]

These assholes covered up the murder of a Federal inmate at the Oklahoma City Transit Center, among numerous other situations.

They must not have done a very good job of it, if YOU know about it.

PPOR: it's the Official Acronym of the Internet.

O.J. is still looking for the 'real killer', too!

[javaxman]

How seriously can anyone take the current Justice Department looking for abuses of the Patriot Act ?

If the administration didn't let Rumsfield resign over Abu Gharib, why should we think it's going to let the Justice Department give it's favorite roll-back of civil liberties a bad mark? It's just not going to happen.

We're producing propaganda pieces and selling them to TV stations as news stories [sfgate.com], and we're going to come clean about Patriot Act abuses? Not a chance.

I mean, what do you think the Chinese government is going to conclude if they set up a task force to look into their possible human rights abuses??

So what?

[garcia]

Personally? I don't care if there was a single abuse of the Patriot Act or not. It should not have been passed in the first place. The simple fact of the matter is that the government should not have passed an act that allows for civil rights violations.

Re:So what?

[Phisbut]

Personally? I don't care if there was a single abuse of the Patriot Act or not. It should not have been passed in the first place.

From an outsider point of view, I must say I find this whole discussion about the USAPATRIOT ACT (and someday, people will understand that it's never been called the PATRIOT act, it's the USAPATRIOT ACT [epic.org], because it means Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, but you all know that right? I mean... you wouldn't dare argue against something if you don't know what it means, right?)

On the night of the 2004 election, when I heard that you re-elected George W. Bush to be your leader, after four years of what he had done, I thought to myself "The american citizens deserve everything that happens to them."

The 2000 election can be excused, because you didn't know the guy and he made all sorts of crazy promises to get your vote. In 2004 though, you knew who you were voting for, and still, you wanted more of it.

In the 2000-2004 period, American people were telling me "You're not anti-american, you're anti-Bush, we hate him too". Now that you've given him four more years, no one can say that anti-Bush and anti-american aren't the same.

And don't go telling me that the Americans also hate Bush as much as the rest of the world. Don't tell me that the Americans didn't elect Bush and that he stole the election. I mean, he might have stolen a state, but he got 62 million votes! The majority of Americans elected Bush, therefore the majority of Americans agree to his politics, and the majority of Americans agree to the USAPATRIOT ACT.

Quit your whining, you voted for it in a democratic way.

Now go ahead and mod me as troll, but keep in mind that it won't change the facts.

Hopefully

[nate nice]

"Could it be that there has just been a lot of fuss over nothing?"

Hopefully that is the case but it also shows why it is important to "fuss". You cannot just mindlessly accept things and hope for the best. If you don't agree, and many people do not (although only 1 senator doesn't) then it is important to raise a fuss to let them know you're watching.

What is an abuse?

[Capt'n Hector]

If a government action that would otherwise be illegal becomes legal under the patriot act, is that an abuse? Or does it have to be blantently obvious and clearly wrong? What about the patriot act being used for non-terrorism related purposes? Isn't that an abuse?

Constitution is Supreme Law

[gmcraff]

What do you do when the government breaks its own laws?

The US Constitution specifies some things that the federal government shall do and specifies particular procedures for doing those. Much of the rest of the Constitution is a list of things the federal government cannot do.

This stands to reason. If there is no limit to what the federal government can do, or no limit to what can be accomplished with a majority vote, why bother to have a constitution? Without the long list of limits, you could have written it on a 18th century Post-It note: "We the people of the United States of America empower the government to do whatever a majority of our elected representatives vote for and the elected president signs. The supreme judiciary shall verify that whatever is done is done according the letter of the laws we pass." This, of course, is a recipe for an elected tyrany.

So, no, it is not possible for something under the Patriot act, or any other law, to make legal a government activity that would otherwise be forbidden by the Constitution. If any offending part of the Patriot act is used to bring someone to court, it will immediately be struck down.

This does not, however, prevent Patriot act powers to be used to pursue someone, then find other offenses under other laws (tax evasion, for example, Mr Capone?) to charge them with, thus shielding the Patriot act powers from court scrutiny. Remember, you have to have standing in order to challenge a law, i.e. you personally must be charged or restrained under the law in order to challenge it.

I think that Congress should review the prosecution history of the Patriot Act powers. If someone has not been successfully prosecuted under a particular section, or the agencies involved cannot positively indicate when they will begin court proceedings under that section of law, then obviously, that power is not valuable for the purpose it was passed, and should be repealed. You don't leave matches in the hands of babies, firearms in the hands of violent felons, sportscar keys in the hands of teenagers, you shouldn't leave unneeded powers in the hands of government.

</obvious>?

[Neophytus]

Of course he won't find them, if he's only relying on publically disclosed information.

(not read TFA)

it's hard to prove anything without evidence

[capoccia]

it will be very difficult to prove wrongdoing as long as all the evidence is kept classified. any incriminating evidence can just be hidden.

WHAT?!? "Fuss"?!?

[Concern]

Whether or not there have been abuses (and whether or not the public at large is aware of them yet - no small matter considering the fine print of the Act), has absolutely nothing to do with whether we are "fussing over nothing." We are discussing the unraveling of hundreds of years of sacred American values and traditions.

Consider the meaning of these traditions. The fact that someone working for our president can point his finger at you and say, "you, come with me," and then you spend years in a cage without a lawyer, due process, a phone call, etc, is bad. The only time it is not bad is in the theoretical and impossible perfect world where we all have perfect, omniscient knowledge and only, ever, use this power for good.

The rules we have to regulate our law enforcement activities are not there to make law enforcement easier or harder. They are there to protect us against ourselves - they inscribe a well-known and ancient protection against human nature, and our ancestors had to bleed into the earth for many, many generations to secure these freedoms, after wearying, inconceivable repitition of abuses, time, after time, after time.

We made our constitution difficult to change to protect our children from cowards. Cowards who run crying, begging for protection from terrorists at any price - even though they kill fewer people than slipping and falling, even though they are selling freedoms that sufficed for us through many, many crises before. I'm sure there are many here who are scared enough of Osama to sell out their civil rights on the chance it will make them a little safer. It's the price we all pay for the general ignorance of history.

The PATRIOT act itself stirs up a lot of confusing debate because it is a beast of many parts; I hope we can stay on topic and remember that we are not objecting to interdepartmental communications and red-tape reductions in law enforcement, but rather the rolling back of safeguards that were established very recently - and in response to abuse of power by American law enforcement so systematic and staggering that even Congress and the President were frightened into enacting them.

Hoover's FBI is not ancient history, it is recent history. And we are Americans - it is shameful to forget our past so conspicuously as to suggest complaints over the PATRIOT act are trifles and fuss. These are matters of principle, of black-letter constitutional law. We do not need to wait for abuses to "fuss." The abuses have already happened, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again... This is why we had safeguards for PATRIOT to remove in the first place. How many times does it have to happen for us to really get it? How thick is America's collective skull?

Simply misreading me

[Concern]

You are simply, and rather blatantly, misreading me. Your misreading makes me out to be "making too much fuss." But I am not suggesting by any means this is the end of everything. "Merely," the unraveling of hundreds of years of sacred American values and traditions.

Very trivially:

"unraveling of hundreds of years of sacred American values and traditions" != "the end of American civilization", "the end of everything"

Living like slaves didn't end civilization in China (yet). I suspect there are people not able to make distinctions this fine, but I hope you are not one of them.

Re:Take a deep breath...

[Idarubicin]

However, during the civil war (and, arguably, during WWII w.r.t. Japanese internment) Habeas Corpus was suspended outright. Was this a problem? Yes. Was it the end of everything? No.

I imagine if you asked a Japanese-American citizen during WWII--or an Arab-American now--you might have a somewhat less lackadaisical attitude.

Being arrested on secret charges and secret evidence and held indefinitely without trial has a way of affecting one's job, social status, and entire life. For some people so arrested, it might well be the end of everything.

As long as you're still free to decry the PATRIOT act, I don't think we have a major problem.

Quite right. As long as the First Amendment is preserved, why worry about spirit of the Fifth or Sixth Amendments? I'm sure that any detained individuals will be pleased to know that the rest of us are free to protest outside their cells--assuming we're told where they're being held. Hm.

USA PATRIOT act abuses not found?

[disposable60]

This follows from the fact that what the media originally aired as abuses were merely allegations of abuse at the time.

Although the fact that publicly reporting you've been charged under the act is itself a crime doesn't help.

Re:USA PATRIOT act abuses not found?

[M$ Mole]

Mod parent up!

The Patriot Act prohibits those who have been charged under many of its passages from publicly stating or discussing their case. So, exactly how are formal complaints supposed to be lodged if it's illegal to discuss the issue in the first place?

This is kind of like shutting down your Help Desk phones and then reporting the technical support issues are way down.

Government agency finds they are doing just fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the Department of Justice, like many government agencies, are so biased for themselves, they can't see their own failings. That combined with a total lack of accountability leads to the inefficient operation and complete inability to change seen across the government.

Why worry?

[Deep Fried Geekboy]

Because no abuses are being found. That is a danger sign.

I was an investigative journalist ten years ago. I investigated a psychiatric hospital, where there were continual 'rumours' of patient abuse at the hands of staff. The management told me that there had been no complaints. What it turned out that mean was that there had been 600 complaints, but none of them had been upheld. The investigation consisted of the management asking patients and staff what happened. The staff denied the abuse and their word was taken as truth, because the inmates were mental patients and therefore could not be believed.

After my piece aired, there was a year-long public inquiry into conditions at the hospital and wholescale reform.

Whenever someone tells you 'there is no abuse', worry. If there is scope for abuse, it WILL happen.

Re:Why worry?

[poot_rootbeer]

Because no abuses are being found. That is a danger sign.

Exactly.

This is like the FBI's report last week that it had no evidence of al Qaeda sleeper cells operating in the United States currently. Only a fool would believe that this means we have defeated terrorism on our own soil. Much more likely is the possibility that terrorists continue to plot against us in our midst, but the FBI is clueless about who and where they are.

If something sounds to good to be true...

Re:Why worry?

[Deep Fried Geekboy]

I'm saying that if you don't find abuses, it is bad news, because it almost certainly means that you are missing something.

I'm also saying, yes, that in any sufficient large and loosely controlled human organization, if there is scope for abuse, it will happen. Can you think of a counter-example?

Which is more likely?

a) in every instance, reported and unreported, of the use of PATRIOT act powers, even those where the person involved was forbidden from revealing the act had been invoked, all governmental agencies and operatives behaved precisely within the rubric of their powers under the act; or

b) they missed something?

Or maybe those who have been abused...

[mobiux]

haven't been able to talk to thier lawyer or any outside contact.

Can you find 'em?

[lukewarmfusion]

You receive a National Security Letter demanding that you turn over information. You consider it an abuse, but you can't argue with them and you can't tell anyone about it (or you're in violation). So it's a big secret, nobody has to know, and they don't have to report it to Congress.

So there could be hundreds of abuses that we'll never know about...all because it's written into the law as a big fat secret.

Redux

[daveschroeder]

The PATRIOT provisions requires the Deparment of Justice Office of the Inspector General to collect and respond to complaints, when appropriate, and issue a report on its findings twice a year.

The March 11, 2005 report is here [usdoj.gov].

And from TFA [volokh.com]:

Consider the stats from the latest report, released on Friday. DOJ received 1,943 complaints about alleged civil liberties abuses. Of these, 1,748 either did not warrant an investigation or were outside DOJ's jurisdiction:

Approximately three-quarters of the 1,748 complaints made allegations that did not warrant an investigation. For example, some of the complaints alleged that government agents were broadcasting signals that interfere with a person's thoughts or dreams or that prison officials had laced the prison food with hallucinogenic drugs. The remaining one-quarter of the 1,748 complaints in this category involved allegations against agencies or entities outside of the DOJ, including other federal agencies, local governments, or private businesses. We referred those complaints to the appropriate entity or advised complainants of the entity with jurisdiction over their allegations.

Of the 195 complaints that did warrant investigation, 170 involved what the report describes as "management issues" rather than civil liberties abuses, such as reports by "inmates [who] complained about the general conditions at federal prisons, such as the poor quality of the food or the lack of hygiene products."

The bottom line is that PATRIOT, while not itself a "law", merely modified existing statutes, mostly to bring them up to date (e.g., dealing with cell phones, wireless devices, email, etc. in the context of "wiretaps") and expand definitions in others. The result is imperfect, like all laws, and should be watched for abuse. But there is nothing inherently evil about it. Interested persons would do well, at a minimum, to at least read the text of the act [loc.gov].

Re:Redux

[badmammajamma]

Here's specific for you: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =12263&c=206

It's a rather lovely summary of surveillance issues in the Patriot Act.

Everything is ok! Shhh, now go back to sleep...

[Hoi Polloi]

Government investigates itself and doesn't find any problems. News at 11.

I smell a rat

[Radical Rad]

Could it be that there has just been a lot of fuss over nothing?

No. Because the fact that there is now a potential for abuse means that someday it will happen even if it hasn't already. The lid on Pandora's box is wedged open and the tyranny that Jefferson and Adams and the rest of the founding fathers fought to protect us from is slowly escaping to menace us once again.

Sorta like Fight Club

[X86Daddy]

First rule of being abused by the Patriot Act:

You don't talk about being abused by the Patriot Act.

That's some catch, that catch-22

[Tackhead]

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

> This follows from the fact that what the media originally aired as abuses were merely allegations of abuse at the time. Could it be that there has just been a lot of fuss over nothing?"

The fact that we're able to ask questions and write articles about the PATRIOT Act indicates that the PATRIOT Act is not being abused. If the PATROIT Act really were being abused, we wouldn't know about it -- because the victims (and anyone foolish enough to write about them) would be disappeared.

Likewise, you'll know that PATRIOT is being abused - if and only if you stop finding evidence that it's being abused, because all the evidence will be private. Except for this evidence, which (because it's public) is evidence that it's not being abused.

The logic sounds complicated, but it's really quite simple:

"What right did they have?" said Capt. Yossarian

"Catch-22." said the old woman.

"What?" Yossarian froze in his tracks with fear and alarm and felt his whole body begin to tingle. "What did you say?"

"Catch-22," the old woman repeated, rocking her head up and down. "Catch-22. Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."

"What the hell are you talking about?" Capt. Yossarian shouted at her in bewildered, furious protest.

"Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. "Didn't you even make them read it?"

They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."

"What law says they don't have to?"

"Catch-22." The old woman said.

- From Catch 22, Joseph Heller, 1961

5 W's

[Doc Ruby]

Could it be that the corporate media reported only flimsy allegations of Patriot Act abuse, because it was cheaper, and more convenient for the Justice Department to deny? And never investigated more serious abuses, covered up by the Justice Department, because it was cheaper, and the Justice Department is investigating only those reported in the media - not the more serious abuse? Could it be that the Justice Department is investigating only those abuses easily dismissed as mere allegations? Could it be that the corporate media is reporting only the Justice Department press releases, without investigating whether these investigations are serious?

Once the Justice Department is being run by partisan bureaucrats (including Ahscroft and Gonzales) who will create and defend an anticonstitutional Act, authorize torture and rendition and other abuses, what would make them investigate their own abuse? Why would a media corporation that missed the story when it was "news" ever cover it again, when we're supposed to be "over it"?

Doesn't matter

[jalefkowit]

It doesn't matter if there have been any abuses or not.

What matters is whether the potential is there for abuse or not.

America has stayed free for 200+ years because her people learned a lesson earlier than most others: you don't wait for the secret police to show up at your door to start demanding your rights. Because by then it's too late.

Take a look at Newsweek

[michaelmalak]

Dec. 1, 2003 Newsweek article Show Me the Money: Patriot Act helps the Feds in cases with no tie to terror [msn.com]:

Feds are using their new powers in cases that have nothing to do with terrorism--something most members of Congress never anticipated.

Plus, the GWU professor is only looking at reports to the DOJ. Recall for the most maligned provision of the Patriot Act, that of peeking at library records, librarians are sworn to secrecy and so the victims do not currently know of their loss of privacy. (They may find out after the next terrorist attack and they get rounded up into the baseball stadium with concertina wire.)

How about the expansion of the Patriot act?

[illumin8]

What about all of the abuses that are taking place in the name of the Patriot act? I'm specifically talking about the DOJ taking the Patriot act on a road show in 2003 and giving state and local law enforcement lessons on how to apply the Patriot act to local drug offenders. I couldn't find a link to an article talking about this, but I did find this that was similar:

http://www.bushpresident2004.com/ashcroft.htm [slashdot.org]

From the article:

In the Spring of 2003, Ashcroft's PROTECT Act was signed into law limiting judges' discretion in sentencing criminal offenders below the Justice Department's sentencing guidelines. While each individual case carries with it countless unique circumstances that a judge uses to form a fair and appropriate sentence, John Ashcroft acted bravely to prohibit judges from considering the individuality of cases for fear of being black-listed by the Justice Department.

This caused uproar among judges across the nation including conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Members of Congress inspired by Ashcroft's success are proposing the VICTORY Act to employ tactics similar to the Patriot Act on suspected drug offenders.

The Bill of Rights Amendments specifically affected by the Patriot Act and other Bush Administration efforts are the following:

The First Amendment: The Patriot Act allows the search of libraries' and religious organizations' records without cause. This might infringe upon the First Amendment's declaration that the government may not abridge freedom of speech nor prohibit the "free exercise" of religion.

The Fourth Amendment: The Patriot Act allows searches and seizures of U.S. citizen's property without probable cause and without a specific warrant. This is expressly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment: The Bush Administration claims it may designate Americans as "enemy combatants" and detain them without conviction in court. This is in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment stating that persons may not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Supreme Court has regularly upheld the "due process" requirement even in national security crises.

The Sixth Amendment: With the claim to designate Americans "enemy combatants", the Bush Administration also states that it may imprison persons indefinitely without trial, without access to an attorney, and without any means to challenge their detention. The entire Sixth Amendment is essentially shredded in this case.

[End of quoted article]

I don't think that's a lot of fuss about nothing. I can think of several abuses already, including Jose Padilla, who has been held for years now and has never been charged with anything. He's a goddamn US citizen for chrissakes. If you don't think that's scary that the Feds can come lock you up in a military brig indefinitely without charging you with any crime, then you need to pull your head out of the sand and take a look at what's going on around you.

The continuing hunt for terrorist threats

[I'm Spartacus!]

Defenders of the USA Patriot Act love to defend it by asking its critics how the Patriot Act has personally affected them. Well, I love to turn this argument against them by asking how terrorism has personally affected them, because for the vast majority of the public, terrorism has not affected their lives in any way. The government's response to terrorism, OTOH, has made life much more difficult though for law-abiding citizens.

The reality is that the 9/11 attacks resulted in very few people being killed compared to the number of people that die in, say, auto accidents. The potential for abuse by government officials is simply too great, and even if no abuses have yet been found, the track record of the government is pretty poor in this regard.

The Continuing Hunt for PATRIOT Act *Successes*

[mojoNYC]

the question should be 'show us the successes of the PATRIOT Act!'

there have been exactly *zero* successful prosecutions of terrorists in the USA under this act--so, was it really worth it, or even necessary to pass this bill? what *good* has it done? this is just a classic example of 'lowering expectations'...

and of course, the Bush disinformation machine continues cranking at high speed--even the network news is delivered prepacked and 'on message': Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News [nytimes.com]

so forgive me if i don't breathe a sigh of relief about this 'news'...

as Harry Browne always says..

[hitchhacker]

The problem isn't the abuse of power, it's the power to abuse.

-metric

No, its not just a fuss over nothing....

[The Great Stormrider]

Its NEVER a fuss about nothing when it comes to my freedoms, even if it "seems" harmless! Freedom isn't something to be taken and given at will, depending on the threat of the week. Even if this hastn't been abused yet, it will be, mark my words. If you want to sacrifice a little liberty here and there for a supposed sense of safety, I'm sure Aus or England would love to have you.

Known abuses invoving the Patriot Act

[Animats]

• "National Security Letters" - the FBI sends these to ISPs, demanding access to account data or e-mail. There's no judicial oversight; the FBI does this all by themselves. The ISP can't talk about it. One ISP is sueing the Justice Department, and until recently, they were under a gag order so strong they couldn't say they were in litigation. Since there's a threat of a five year prison sentence for disclosing that you received a National Security Letter, these tend not to get publicity. But hundreds of them have been sent.
• The "no fly list" mess. On at least two occasions, the "no fly list" has been used to keep opponents of Adminstration policy from travelling. The "no fly list" is a secret, too. And there's no way to get off it.
• "Guilt by association". Vague involvement with some group vaguely associated with terrorism can be punished as a terrorist act. This is getting a few terrorist wannabees, like the Virgina Jihad [findarticles.com], a bunch of guys into paintball and Islamic rhetoric.
• Jose Padilla. Padilla is apparently a small-time Chicago crook [cnn.com] who hooked up with some al-Queda people as if they were a gang. He's being held without trial, only because Ashcroft made a big deal about him building a "dirty bomb". He never accomplished enough that he could be convicted of much, which is probably why he hasn't been charged.

The Patriot Act is overkill for the losers the Administration is catching with it.

hebeas corpus

[prgrmr]

The Act should be challenged from a Constitutional standpoint with regard to the suspension of hebeas corpus [lectlaw.com].

Lincoln explicitly suspended hebeas corpus during the Civil War; to the best of my recollection, Bush has done no such thing and the PATRIOT ACT does not explicitly do so either. Whether or not it implicitly does so, however, is another question.

Forget the PATRIOT Act

[NetCynicism]

Forget the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is virtually harmless; even the ACLU admits that they approve of almost all of it. There are a handful of questionable provisions, dealing mostly with library records and informing you of a warrant AFTER your house has been searched (law enforcement still has to get the warrant BEFORE the house is searched, they just don't have to inform you). The former I don't like; the latter, frankly, I don't see a problem with.

There is nothing in the Patriot Act about Guantanamo Bay. There is nothing about torture, or deporting people to countries where it is practiced. Nothing about depriving anyone of the right to counsel. Nothing about secret trials. Nothing about the way people who aren't subject to the Geneva Conventions are treated.

Do these things happen, and should we be concerned about them? Absolutely. Do they have anything to do with the PATRIOT Act? Nothing whatsoever. Do people who complain about the PATRIOT Act being responsible for these things spread FUD and cloud the real issues? Yes. Is that a real problem? I think so.

A moderate list:

[gg3po]

Please note that the identical AC post in this story was me, but I accidentally posted it as AC the first time.

Here's a basic list of just a handful of abuses I came up:

• The PATRIOT act is being used in regular non-terrorism criminal cases [lasvegassun.com]. Anything beyond simple misdemenors is being passed off as terrorism [sfgate.com], now.
• A webmaster was jailed under PATRIOT because someone had posted bomb making info on his server [sfbayview.com]. Keep in mind that he didn't put the info there, he was basically a web host, and one of his clients was using his account this way. This is a particularly damning case of abuse where "Innocuous objects such as iced tea bottles and a toy car were described as terrorist devices by the FBI and a joint task force of police officers."
• A disturbing article about using the PATRIOT act to obtain warrants against doctors and scientists [americandaily.com]. Not because they've done anything wrong, but because they happen to do research with hazardous materials. Guilty before proven innocent.
• Story about someone killed by the PATRIOT act [unknownnews.net]
• Several artists were charged with bioterrorism under PATRIOT for creating artwork [gnutellanews.com] meant to educate viewers in the dangers of the biotech industry.
• Story about a veteran being arrested for complaining too much due to the heightened terror alert. [qctimes.com]
• Shining a pocket laser into an airplane is terrorism falling under the PATRIOT act [tbo.com]
• Article republished fromt the Washington post about American citizens held without trial [prisonplanet.com]
• A man being harrassed by a "joint terrorism task force" (the kind that has authority under the PATRIOT act) because of investigating Area 51 [lasvegasmercury.com]
• Another "joint terrorism task force" investigating a 12 year old for doing a school paper on the Cesapeake Bay Bridge [prisonplanet.com]
• A photographer arrested and threatened with being charged under the PATRIOT act for taking pictures of Dick Cheney [harvard.edu]

And finally, maybe there haven't been as many abuses as there will be once all 2nd legal track the preparations are in place [prisonplanet.com].

Why there are no abuses

[lostwanderer147]

The reason that the Department of Justice has not found any abuses of rights caused by the USA PATRIOT Act is because of the nature of the Act. It allows the government to detain anyone, anytime, without providing a reason, without allowing a trial, and without ever having to let them go. We don't know about any abuses because the abuse is also in the covering up. There may be thousands of prisoners held somewhere, not knowing why they are held, or how long they will be held for, but we will never know, because they are held, and the USA PATRIOT Act allows this to happen. They can't tell us that they're being abused because they have lost all of their rights. For those of you who are skimming, here it is in one sentence: There are no reported abuses by the USA PATRIOT Act because the Act itself suppresses reports of abuse.

Re:The PATRIOT Act Is Not Unprecedented

[argent]

and the right was later reinstated at the end of the war

Haven't you been paying attention to Bush? There isn't going to be an end to this war. No, I'm not being flip here, he's said that multiple times and he really means it no matter what the spin doctors say.

Re:The PATRIOT Act Is Not Unprecedented

[cpeikert]

President Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus entirely ... and the right was later reinstated at the end of the war.

Oh good. Then it's just a matter of waiting for the government to declare an official end to the War on Terror. Should be any moment now...

Certainly those who protest the PATRIOT Act now must recognize the horrendous erosions of civil liberties that occurred in the previous Administration under the guise of the "war on drugs" including no-knock warrants and other practices.

Yes, we do. Your point?

Oh, I think I see your point: previous administrations have trashed the Constitution, so it's OK for this one to as well.

Re:The PATRIOT Act Is Not Unprecedented

[tom's a-cold]

There's a strong precedent in US history for the institution of slavery as well. This country has been fallible, and if you go far enough back in history, you can find a preedent for every abuse. That's not a convincing argument.

And when you talk about not being able to afford to give protections to , I disagree. We give protection to everyone. Then the courts decide who the bad guys are, not the DOJ. I've lived in countries where the executive can do as it pleases. I found some of the goings-on there quite disturbing. But maybe you would like it better if the US became more like Saudi Arabia?

And no, you're wrong. Proponents of the PATRIOT Act should justify why these intrusions on our rights are so necessary. The benefit of the doubt has to be on the side of liberty, not more unaccountable state power. Or do you believe that we only have rights that are granted us by our wise and all-knowing leaders?

Re:The Headline is Disingenuous

[Voytek]

Head meet sand.

Nothing is presupposed here, I'm not for the patriot act, but I'm not for knee-jerk reactions either.

Re:The Headline is Disingenuous

[Voytek]

Having lived in a police state, I find that offensive.

And yes, knee-jerk. Your original post, which is what I was critiquing was a poorly thought-out, knee-jerk reaction to the article.

Re:ACLU Approves Of Overwhelming Majority of Patri

[badmammajamma]

The ACLU has NEVER stated that the entire Patriot Act was wrong or bad. There's so much crap in there that it would be near impossible for them to not agree with at least some of it. The problem is that the 10% of it they don't like, THEY REALLY REALLY don't like. So arguing that they are ok with 90% of it is really no argument at all.

The ACLU even has a video where they say they don't disagree with the entire patriot act (this video is typically given free to new members of the ACLU). The same video also documents abuses of the patriot act that the government, surprise surprise, can't seem to find.

Re:ACLU Approves Of Overwhelming Majority of Patri

[argent]

One of the odd things about debates over the Patriot Act is that even its harshest informed critics actually only oppose a very small part of the Act;

Why is that odd?

No, really, I don't get it. It would be utterly astonishing if that wasn't true. Treating that as news is like treating it as news that only a small number of incidents of speeding or drunk driving actually lead to accidents, or that the majority of suicide attempts don't lead to death.

Do you have a point, or are you just trying to muddy the waters?

Re:ACLU Approves Of Overwhelming Majority of Patri

[Duhavid]

Here is something you have to eat.

Only 1% of it is poisonous.

It is 99% good! See, you should eat it!
What are you fussing about?

Oh, that that 1% may kill you? What kind
of a whiny left wing socialist are you?
Eat!

David