Nat Hentoff
VillageVoice.com

September 4 - September 10, 2002

Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional and public-interest law at George Washington University Law School in D.C. He is also a defense attorney in national security cases and other matters, writes for a number of publications, and is often on television. He and I occasionally exchange leads on civil liberties stories, but I learn much more from him than he does from me.

For example, a Jonathan Turley column in the national edition of the August 14 Los Angeles Times ("Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision") begins:

"Attorney General John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be 'enemy combatants' has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace." Actually, ever since General Ashcroft pushed the U.S. Patriot Act through an overwhelmingly supine Congress soon after September 11, he has subverted more elements of the Bill of Rights than any attorney general in American history.

Under the Justice Department's new definition of "enemy combatant"--which won the enthusiastic approval of the president and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--anyone defined as an "enemy combatant," very much including American citizens, can be held indefinitely by the government, without charges, a hearing, or a lawyer. In short, incommunicado.

Two American citizens--Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla--are currently locked up in military brigs as "enemy combatants." (Hamdi is in solitary in a windowless room.) As Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe said on ABC's Nightline (August 12):

"It bothers me that the executive branch is taking the amazing position that just on the president's say-so, any American citizen can be picked up, not just in Afghanistan, but at O'Hare Airport or on the streets of any city in this country, and locked up without access to a lawyer or court just because the government says he's connected somehow with the Taliban or Al Qaeda. That's not the American way. It's not the constitutional way. . . . And no court can even figure out whether we've got the wrong guy."

In Hamdi's case, the government claims it can hold him for interrogation in a floating navy brig off Norfolk, Virginia, as long as it needs to. When Federal District Judge Robert Doumar asked the man from the Justice Department how long Hamdi is going to be locked up without charges, the government lawyer said he couldn't answer that question. The Bush administration claims the judiciary has no right to even interfere.

Now more Americans are also going to be dispossessed of every fundamental legal right in our system of justice and put into camps. Jonathan Turley reports that Justice Department aides to General Ashcroft "have indicated that a 'high-level committee' will recommend which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to Ashcroft's new camps."

It should be noted that Turley, who tries hard to respect due process, even in unpalatable situations, publicly defended Ashcroft during the latter's turbulent nomination battle, which is more than I did.

Again, in his Los Angeles Times column, Turley tries to be fair: "Of course Ashcroft is not considering camps on the order of the internment camps used to incarcerate Japanese American citizens in World War II. But he can be credited only with thinking smaller; we have learned from painful experience that unchecked authority, once tasted, easily becomes insatiable." (Emphasis added.)

Turley insists that "the proposed camp plan should trigger immediate Congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties." (Emphasis added.)

On August 8, The Wall Street Journal, which much admires Ashcroft on its editorial pages, reported that "the Goose Creek, South Carolina, facility that houses [Jose] Padilla--mostly empty since it was designated in January to hold foreigners captured in the U.S. and facing military tribunals--now has a special wing that could be used to jail about 20 U.S. citizens if the government were to deem them enemy combatants, a senior administration official said." The Justice Department has told Turley that it has not denied this story. And space can be found in military installations for more "enemy combatants."

But once the camps are operating, can General Ashcroft be restrained from detaining--not in these special camps, but in regular lockups--any American investigated under suspicion of domestic terrorism under the new, elastic FBI guidelines for criminal investigations? From page three of these Ashcroft terrorism FBI guidelines:

"The nature of the conduct engaged in by a [terrorist] enterprise will justify an inference that the standard [for opening a criminal justice investigation] is satisfied, even if there are no known statements by participants that advocate or indicate planning for violence or other prohibited acts." (Emphasis added.) That conduct can be simply "intimidating" the government, according to the USA Patriot Act.

The new Steven Spielberg-Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report, shows the government, some years hence, imprisoning "pre-criminals" before they engage in, or even think of, terrorism. That may not be just fiction, folks.

Returning to General Ashcroft's plans for American enemy combatants, an August 8 New York Times editorial--written before those plans were revealed--said: "The Bush administration seems to believe, on no good legal authority, that if it calls citizens combatants in the war on terrorism, it can imprison them indefinitely and deprive them of lawyers. This defiance of the courts repudiates two centuries of constitutional law and undermines the very freedoms that President Bush says he is defending in the struggle against terrorism."

Meanwhile, as the camps are being prepared, the braying Terry McAuliffe and the pack of Democratic presidential aspirants are campaigning on corporate crime, with no reference to the constitutional crimes being committed by Bush and Ashcroft. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis prophesied: "The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people." And an inert Democratic leadership. See you in a month, if I'm not an Ashcroft camper.

Hmmmmmmmmm......

Now this is scarey as hell. It starts with camps like this. Next thing, we will have our own Buchenwalds and Daccau's cropping up troughout AmeriKKKa. You dont think it will happen?

Ask the Germans of 1930 if it would happen in their country. I rest my case.


Heil Bush

SEIG HEIL!!!!!

AmeriKKKa Uber Alles!!!!!!!!!!!

I want to be a guard; now if I can just find my cattle prod.

USA: wake up

Originally posted by hammegk
I want to be a guard; now if I can just find my cattle prod.

Yea..and Ill be the prisoner shankin u

What scares me is that some people support Asscroft in these Gestapo tatics,but you notice even those people [with one ignoble exception] aren't saying what they're thinking about this.

Originally posted by Kareem


Yea..and Ill be the prisoner shankin u



LMAO!!!

Originally posted by Truth Teller
What scares me is that some people support Asscroft in these Gestapo tatics,but you notice even those people [with one ignoble exception] aren't saying what they're thinking about this.



The silence is scary, if these things happened in other countries there would be mass demonstrations in the streets. I guess as long as they introduce these things slowly people will accept them.

Maybe somebody should make a movie about it. "Ashcroft Crushes Silly Commies" or something. Then we could all be on the same page.

Originally posted by RedLine99
Maybe somebody should make a movie about it. "Ashcroft Crushes Silly Commies" or something. Then we could all be on the same page.


Commies??? Get real... These things apply to all of us, does it just not matter any more if we lose all of our Constitutional protections? It doesn't matter if these fascists turn the country into a place just like in the book 1984???

Cringing paranoia from the left. It's a beautiful thing. :D

This thread is a perfect example of why the radical left should never be in charge of things.

Instead of focusing on the dirty bums in nightshirts that want to slit their throats, they try to sell fear and they whine and scream about the people trying to stop it..
How pathetic is that? What backwards priorities they have.

They loathe their country and want to see it knocked down and support everything to that end, even though they wont admit it.
Remember, this country is based on evil capitalism, we had slavery, we screwed the Indians, Christopher Columbus was horrible, we fought and defeated Soviet Communism which after all is just another style of government.....Ha, ha, ha.
ect ect ect.......
What a crew...:rolleyes:

They have no idea of what the stakes are....well maybe they do, and they want to see us get hit again.

Originally posted by Kareem


Yea..and Ill be the prisoner shankin u

LOL.

Originally posted by Powerboss
This thread is a perfect example of why the radical left should never be in charge of things.

Instead of focusing on the dirty bums in nightshirts that want to slit their throats, they try to sell fear and they whine and scream about the people trying to stop it..
How pathetic is that? What backwards priorities they have.

They loathe their country and want to see it knocked down and support everything to that end, even though they wont admit it.
Remember, this country is based on evil capitalism, we had slavery, we screwed the Indians, Christopher Columbus was horrible, we fought and defeated Soviet Communism which after all is just another style of government.....Ha, ha, ha.
ect ect ect.......
What a crew...:rolleyes:

They have no idea of what the stakes are....well maybe they do, and they want to see us get hit again.

PB,what have any of the prisoners [or more to the point potential prisoners] done?

I mean we give accused rapists and murderes due process and not poltical dissents?

All the other stuff is :topic: .

Originally posted by DngrMse
Cringing paranoia from the left. It's a beautiful thing. :D

<cough><cough>:D

Originally posted by Kareem


Yea..and Ill be the prisoner shankin u

Why would a nice young whiteman like yourself be in the "camps"?

I thought there might be a few DA posters who could use a bit of education once someone got their attention. (It would be re-education had there been a partially useful education to start with. :( )

Originally posted by hammegk


Why would a nice young whiteman like yourself be in the "camps"?



Oh my,that sounds awfully racist to me.

You people are so partisan it is really scary. I am not a dem, or a republican and I can still see the freak for SOB he really is. Without the constitution there is nothing, nevertheless, the attorney genital keeps wiping his A$$ with it. No, he is not the first, but he took an oath. I don't care what the crime, a U.S. citizen is entitled to due process, period, there should be no compromise under any circumstances.

Pretty sad that this nation has deteriorated to this level.

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger




The silence is scary, if these things happened in other countries there would be mass demonstrations in the streets. I guess as long as they introduce these things slowly people will accept them.

It's like the frog in the pan of of water.

If you put a frog in a pan of scalding water ,it will jump out.

But if you put a frog in a pan of cold water and gradually turn up the heat ,it won't pay attention and will fry to death wihtout noticing it.

Most people are like the frog [and people like Bush and Asscroft know it] and that is how Hitler did it.

Hitler didn't persecute the Jews or anybody else overnight,he did it gradually,he chopped up liberites a bit at a time,people said "well,if we give him this he might not do any more than this",until the presecuted and everybody got used it.

When some spoke out against the powers he wanted the Gestapo to have,Hitler said "If you ahve nothing to hide,you have nothing to worry about",Bush and his flunkies are saying the same thing today.

Originally posted by hammegk


Why would a nice young whiteman like yourself be in the "camps"?

It doesnt matter what color you are when it comes to your political ideology

NOw I want to be a guard.

If anyone is taken on the field of battle, he is a prisoner of war regardless of his citizenship.

Originally posted by Cosmo
NOw I want to be a guard.

If anyone is taken on the field of battle, he is a prisoner of war regardless of his citizenship.


Were the Jews taken on the field of battle?

Originally posted by DngrMse
Cringing paranoia from the left. It's a beautiful thing. :D


Laugh it up now... You won't be laughing when they come for the gun owners.. And they WILL.. It doesn't matter if you're right or left, the CFR and the Trilateral commision don't give a damn.

Originally posted by 86Dude
You people are so partisan it is really scary. I am not a dem, or a republican and I can still see the freak for SOB he really is. Without the constitution there is nothing, nevertheless, the attorney genital keeps wiping his A$$ with it. No, he is not the first, but he took an oath. I don't care what the crime, a U.S. citizen is entitled to due process, period, there should be no compromise under any circumstances.

Pretty sad that this nation has deteriorated to this level. I'm with 86 on this one.

Originally posted by Powerboss
This thread is a perfect example of why the radical left should never be in charge of things.


No, this is a perfect example why extremists like John Ashcroft should never be allowed to hold a position of any power in this country.


Instead of focusing on the dirty bums in nightshirts that want to slit their throats,


So far no dirty bums have tried to slit my throat, when the time comes i'll deal with it. No dirty bum has tried to take away my freedoms, however... The dirty bums in Washington DC have taken away some of our constitutional protections which you obviously don't care about. All you care about is partisanship like 86dude pointed out. The politicians who have sold us all down the river are the biggest threat to our liberty. If a nuke or a biological agent goes off in this country you have 50 years of American hegemonic foreign policy to thank for it. It takes two to tango. This threat will never be alleviated until the US stops being the global bully. Dropping more bombs on more countries and killing more innocent civilians will only increase anti-American hatred ariound the globe ensuring future acts of terrorism against the United States. yet you continue to support those who turn around and stab us in the back. I just don't understand you..



they try to sell fear and they whine and scream about the people trying to stop it..


Oh yea like the fake Dirty bomber scare campaign led by Ashcroft?
Do you really believe the cluster****s in Washington have been or give a rats ass about our safety? Anybody can still smuggle anything onto a plane and foreigners from terrorist nations are still allowed in the US a year after 9-11!?! Chemical plant safety hasn't been beefed up, nuclear plants are considering reducing security. Yea, they are sooo trying to protect us:rolleyes:


How pathetic is that? What backwards priorities they have.


What's truly pathetic is that we have this evil cabal in DC that is turning this country into Nazi Germany and shredding the Constitution and the Bill of rights and the conservative lemmings go right along with it. And they actually have the nerve to call those who defend our hard fought constutional freedoms "anti-Americans". Now that's pathetic. The neo-cons are the kind that defended England when we fought for our independence, the're like the rat in the movie "the Patriot" with Mel Gibson. They hold their allegiance to the state, no matter how dictatorial or fascistic they become. If anything is "anti-American", you neo-conservatives define the term..


They loathe their country and want to see it knocked down and support everything to that end, even though they wont admit it.


Insanity?? You cheer on the fascists that are destroying the country and shredding our Constitution and Bill of rights. Who is it that loathes this country? It's the John Ashcrofts, the George Bush's, the Dick Cheney's, The Cosmos, the Powerboss's, the Hammegk's. You guys call the most American thing which is dissent "anti-American" and treason. You guys have it all backwards. Just remember there are alot of people willing to fight to keep the ideals this country was founded on that the right wing Nazi's wish to take away.


Remember, this country is based on evil capitalism, we had slavery, we screwed the Indians, Christopher Columbus was horrible, we fought and defeated Soviet Communism which after all is just another style of government.....Ha, ha, ha.
ect ect ect.......
What a crew...:rolleyes:


This country wasn't founded by men who worshipped the international banking establishment, multinational sovereignty destroying corporate behemoths, draconian laws, all the things this place has become. too bad you can't see the difference..


They have no idea of what the stakes are....well maybe they do, and they want to see us get hit again.


No YOU apparently don't and neither do the rest of the neo-cons, you can't seem to get it into your heads that once the Constitution and the Bill of rights are gone, so is this country. It wasn't Muslim terrorists that passed the "Patriot" act or initiated operation "TIPS" or will put American citizens in concentration camps. It's a bunch of mostly old White Christian men in the US government doing these things. No big surprise...

This boils down to one thing: protecting America no matter what the means. You act as if you don't trust your government to correctly deem someone a threat to the security of the U.S. If you don't have plans to attack the country you have nothing to worry about. Typical liberals, always trying to protect the criminals. Hopefully someone will someday rob you of everything. What are you gonna do then? Take them a warm meal, Playboy, and a case of beer every day to their cell?

Protecting us from who? Iraq? We need protection from people like John Ashcroft.


You act as if you don't trust your government to correctly deem someone a threat to the security of the U.S.


Damn right I don't trust the government, have they ever given me reason to trust them? Sorry, but I have a hard time trusting liars and crooks.

Who's protecting the crooks? I'm for imprisoning the crooks that are illegally shredding the constitution.

Does robbing you of your constitutional protections mean anything to you? Why isn't that important? Silly me thinks it's the most important thing we have.

Thankfully I've had few things stolen from me in my life, a few times I've chased off car thieves before they could get into my car. Unfortunately I've been robbed by the government every year, and the crooks keep using my money to fund their death machines without my permission..

No, this is a perfect example why extremists like John Ashcroft should never be allowed to hold a position of any power in this country.

Yes, and the minute we get attacked again, you and your fellow marxists will be the first ones bellyaching about incompetence and they couldnt protect us.


So far no dirty bums have tried to slit my throat, when the time comes i'll deal with it. No dirty bum has tried to take away my freedoms

So far and fortunately thanks to the work of the govt our risk has been reduced...not to the level I would like, but nevertheless, better than when it was.
Unlike the Democrats, they are actually trying to do something about it.


The dirty bums in Washington DC have taken away some of our constitutional protections which you obviously don't care about.

No, he's naming associates of Al Queada as enemy combatents, which is a good thing. They happen to be Americans but that is irrelivant to me...they deserve to be shot on the spot for their acts of treason.


The politicians who have sold us all down the river are the biggest threat to our liberty.

And I suppose Ralph Nader has all the answers, right?:rolleyes:
Defunding the military, which is what he advocates would be an excellent start, right?

If a nuke or a biological agent goes off in this country you have 50 years of American hegemonic foreign policy to thank for it.

No, the fact remains that we have interests in other parts of the world, and we should protect those interests.
Just because some insane religious bum in a dirty nightshirt wants something and blows up airplanes to make his point, it doesnt mean he's right, it definetly doesnt mean we should run away from him because that will only embolden him to do more, it doesnt mean we shouldnt protect our interests there.
If you want us out of Saudi Arabia, then let us drill for oil here!!!!!!
Its the very policys YOU embrace (like not letting us drill in a barren wasteland in Alaska) that force us to have to do business with Saudi Arabia.


This threat will never be alleviated until the US stops being the global bully.

Do you seriously think that if we drop everything, give into all their silly demands, and run that it will stop? That will only embolden them to try for more demands....
Thats what you dont get.....This wont stop as it is a political war, Bin ladin has his political objective (which is power), and we have ours (to protect our interests), one is no more right or wrong than the other.


Dropping more bombs on more countries and killing more innocent civilians will only increase anti-American hatred ariound the globe ensuring future acts of terrorism against the United States.


And the Taliban had a choice in the matter, didnt they?
Saddam has a choice, doesnt he?


yet you continue to support those who turn around and stab us in the back. I just don't understand you..

I support being able to fill up my gas tank and not go broke in the process.

Oh yea like the fake Dirty bomber scare campaign led by Ashcroft?
Do you really believe the cluster****s in Washington have been or give a rats ass about our safety? Anybody can still smuggle anything onto a plane and foreigners from terrorist nations are still allowed in the US a year after 9-11!?! Chemical plant safety hasn't been beefed up, nuclear plants are considering reducing security. Yea, they are sooo trying to protect us

Security has improved, again, not to my standards but is still improving. I am more focused on what is going on under the surface...we now are investigating terror cells here and the muslims here, we are now looking into expired visas and such from muslims....ect ect ect.


What's truly pathetic is that we have this evil cabal in DC that is turning this country into Nazi Germany and shredding the Constitution and the Bill of rights and the conservative lemmings go right along with it.

There you go again.......FEAR MONGERING



And they actually have the nerve to call those who defend our hard fought constutional freedoms "anti-Americans". Now that's pathetic.

You arent defending squat. You never have defended squat. Your main concern here, as it always has been, is to try to attack and discredit Bush, Ashcroft and any other Republican.
in the 3+ years Ive known you, you havent published ONE, thats 1, derogatory article on Clinton and his gang and their crimes such as filegate or CUSA or anything else.
Defending freedom, my a$$. You might be a little more credible if you would even publish one critical article on Democrats.
I dont know who you thing you are trying to fool.



The neo-cons are the kind that defended England when we fought for our independence, the're like the rat in the movie "the Patriot" with Mel Gibson. They hold their allegiance to the state, no matter how dictatorial or fascistic they become. If anything is "anti-American", you neo-conservatives define the term..

Neo-Con? Im no neo con, Im the traditional conservative defending her country from sedicious citizens who only want to take down and destroy her.


You cheer on the fascists that are destroying the country and shredding our Constitution and Bill of rights.

Again, your constant use of the word "Fascist" has really made the word very "impactless".
More fear mongering. You are a good leftist.



Who is it that loathes this country? It's the John Ashcrofts, the George Bush's, the Dick Cheney's, The Cosmos, the Powerboss's, the Hammegk's.

Funny, I thought I loved this country and have provided many articles at this website in favor of, and defending, her good name.

I voted America is the best country in that thread in the Big Debates, how did you vote?

You guys have it all backwards.

How did you vote in that thread again?

Just remember there are alot of people willing to fight to keep the ideals this country was founded on that the right wing Nazi's wish to take away.

I would love to see us return to our basic ideals....but again, you are the one that knocks the founding fathers and the early history, not me.
You say you want to return to the early ideals but I think that is the farthest thing from your agenda as you embrace a Marxist candidate.....Having read some biographies of the founders, I've yet to read where any of them embraced any form of marxism.



This country wasn't founded by men who worshipped the international banking establishment, multinational sovereignty destroying corporate behemoths, draconian laws, all the things this place has become. too bad you can't see the difference..

I agree, it was founded by evil slaveowners who didnt let women or blacks vote...in fact blacks were only 3/5ths of a citizen, right?
That is what you would be telling us if this thread was about the founding fathers isnt it?


No YOU apparently don't and neither do the rest of the neo-cons, you can't seem to get it into your heads that once the Constitution and the Bill of rights are gone, so is this country.

Yes, adn while another peace loving muslim sets off a dirty bomb in LA, you'll still be whining about John Ashcroft shredding the constitution.....oh my!
I have defended the constitution on many occaisions here.
Tell me, where do you stand on campaign finance reform? Are you all for it?
I see you've discovered a new word today....Neo-con.


It wasn't Muslim terrorists that passed the "Patriot" act or initiated operation "TIPS" or will put American citizens in concentration camps.

It was muslim terrorists that flew jetliners into the WTC and Pentagon and have issued many proclimations to kill Americans.....but who cares right? As long as you get to sit on your computer for the time being and attack Bush and Ashcroft for trying to fight and win this war you're a happy fellow.
The patriot act was passed by congress, and signed by Bush....have you challeneged it in court yet?
TIPS???? Hopefully they'll be watching Muslims.

It's a bunch of mostly old White Christian men in the US government doing these things.

Just like the founders, trying to protect the American people from enemies.



You people are so partisan it is really scary. I am not a dem, or a republican and I can still see the freak for SOB he really is.

Actually, this has nothing to do with being partisan...it has to do with exposing certain people who have an agenda.
If you will notice, the main perpetrator of this has never, ever, posted an article critical of Democrats...what does that tell you about his agenda?

Im certain I have more knowledge of John Ashcroft that most here. Throughout his career he has fought for conservative principles and been a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment.
He has stood up to liberal activists and is now paying a price as the foaming mouthed left wing vermin are and have attacked him on every front since his nomination as AG and that has had an affect on public perception.
Its the same thing that happened to Newt Gingrich....it was a continual attack, filled with propoganda, fear mongering, and outright lies that the press willfully engaged in and it worked.



Without the constitution there is nothing, nevertheless, the attorney genital keeps wiping his A$$ with it.

I agree about the constitution, but disagree about your interpretation. He is doing his job and in doing that is approaching the line of consititutionality, which the courts should hash out in due time. His past record indicates no affiliation with the Nazi, Fascist, or A$$ wiping party.

No, he is not the first, but he took an oath.

Indeed.

[quote]I don't care what the crime, a U.S. citizen is entitled to due process, period, there should be no compromise under any circumstances. [/quote**

Actually, they are allowed to go before a judge and the govt has to prove why they should be able to hold these folks as enemy combatents. If the evidence is sufficient, they get to hold them, if not they have to a) release him or b)arrest him and charge him with a crime.

I must confess I'm a little proud that CA loathes me so. But once again he is guilty of an untruth (what is it people who engage in untruths are called?) in saying I loathe this country, I LOVE it, and took an oth to protect it, from enemies foreign and domestic. I also actually lived my oath, he is just hot air. Teh most he has ever done is demontstrated, put himself in danger of being photographed or something, maybe late for school. Funny how no onw has ever tried to shut him up in spite of all the "danger" he poses.

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger



Were the Jews taken on the field of battle?

NOt that I'm aware. What jews are you referring to? The jews in Europes death camps? How does that apply? They weren't POWs were they? Isn't this discussion about POWs? Taht was what my statement referred to isn't it? Wasn't it clear? |Damm for the smartest boy in the world you sure can be challenged some can't you?

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger
It's a bunch of mostly old White Christian men in the US government doing these things. No big surprise...

ONce again racial and religious bigotry rears its ugly head.

Let me get this straight: It's OK to let the government wipe its A$$ with the constitution some of the time?

I know I am wasting my time saying this, but I will say it just one more time and then shut up. If treason is the crime for some these people, and I am not saying it is not, then it shouldn't be hard to prove that assertion, and subsequently have them executed. The court in D.C. has something like an 80% conviction rate so why not do it by the numbers, give the our wonderful (not really) justice sytem a chance? Most importantly, what is so hard about allowing an American citizen to exercise the rights that our great government is sworn to protect?

When Bush and Asscroft are long since worm food, history is going to judge them, lumping them into the same category as slime like Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Clinton. Hope they still have enough room left in hell.

I hate to say it, but ashcroft is making me a bit nervous too..

Originally posted by Cosmo


NOt that I'm aware. What jews are you referring to? The jews in Europes death camps? How does that apply? They weren't POWs were they?



According to the Nazi's they were,so were all political disssdents,homosexuals and people who hid Jews form the Nazi's.

Do you get it now?

Originally posted by LogicalConservative
This boils down to one thing: protecting America no matter what the means. You act as if you don't trust your government to correctly deem someone a threat to the security of the U.S. If you don't have plans to attack the country you have nothing to worry about. Typical liberals, always trying to protect the criminals. Hopefully someone will someday rob you of everything. What are you gonna do then? Take them a warm meal, Playboy, and a case of beer every day to their cell?
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Truth Teller


According to the Nazi's they were,so were all political disssdents,homosexuals and people who hid Jews form the Nazi's.

Do you get it now?

According to the Nazis the JEWs were POWs? ARE you serious? They were never referred to by any Nazi I ever heard of. AT the war crimesw trials in Nuremburg, they were never accused of executing jewish POWs, tehy were accused of executing civilians who were jewish and otherwise, crimes against humanity. |Try a little factual information.

GET IT NOW?

Originally posted by RightWingZealot
I hate to say it, but ashcroft is making me a bit nervous too.. You are not alone, but I am more nervous about the people who have declared war on us, and I think diverting our attention away from that is not good. Wheneevr we view the gov't it is neccessary and healthy to keep a skeptical attitude so that we can deal with a situation as provided by law.

But that is different than claimeing Bush planned and executed the 9-11 attacks, or that Ashcroft is palnning to put us in camps because I disagree wtih him.

I don't care if a guy is a US citizen or not, if he is taken on the field of battle he is a PRISONER OF WAR, first and foremost, and should be treated no differently as any other POW. If the gov't wants to try him for treason, let them do so in a court of law, but as long as he is in a POW camp, I see no reason to do that.

Originally posted by Kareem
Yea..and Ill be the prisoner shankin u
Please refrain from advocation of violence like this. Posting something like this in reply to hammegk's post, could be seen as a threat.

Well it is a threat, but no surprise when advocated by a supporter of black muslims, who advocate racial hatred and violence.

There is so much love in here.

Originally posted by 86Dude
There is so much love in here.

But through the power of love I will change your mind about hating police and federal workers.

Originally posted by Cosmo


According to the Nazis the Jews were POWs? ARE you serious? They were never referred to by any Nazi I ever heard of. AT the war crimesw trials in Nuremburg, they were never accused of executing jewish POWs, tehy were accused of executing civilians who were jewish and otherwise, crimes against humanity. |Try a little factual information.

GET IT NOW?

Last night I saw a movie [based on a true story] called The Hidning Place about a Chrsitian family in Holland who hid Jews and were sent to the camps for it.

According to the Nazi's Jews [and others] were enemies in the war,so they were prisoners ,that's why they were sent to concentration camps and used as slave labor before being murdered,the showed the Nazi's themseleves refering to the Jews as "prisoners".

Do you get it now Cosmo?

No they weren't POW's by Geneva Convention terms,but the they were POW's to the Nazi's ,just as Bush and Asscroft want to make poltical dissdents POW'S here.

Again,why shouldn't everybody have the same due process that accused rapists and murderes have?

Do you get it now?

When someone crosses the boundary of being a common criminal and has focus on terrorist acts, they should automatically lose their citizenship and the Constitution should not apply to them at all. Just like when someone sneaks into this country illegally - why should we demonstrate Constitutional rights for someone who hasn't earned those rights, and especially someone who wants to kill us and destroy this country.

Do YOU get it now?

Originally posted by Corporate Avenger



Laugh it up now... You won't be laughing when they come for the gun owners.. And they WILL.. It doesn't matter if you're right or left, the CFR and the Trilateral commision don't give a damn.

Those of us who are members of the Tri-lat have granted ourselves special dispensation to own firearms.

Originally posted by Truth Teller


Last night I saw a movie [based on a true story] called The Hidning Place about a Chrsitian family in Holland who hid Jews and were sent to the camps for it.

According to the Nazi's Jews [and others] were enemies in the war,so they were prisoners ,that's why they were sent to concentration camps and used as slave labor before being murdered,the showed the Nazi's themseleves refering to the Jews as "prisoners".

Do you get it now Cosmo?

No they weren't POW's by Geneva Convention terms,but the they were POW's to the Nazi's ,just as Bush and Asscroft want to make poltical dissdents POW'S here.

Again,why shouldn't everybody have the same due process that accused rapists and murderes have?

Do you get it now?

YOu are completely incorrect, yes the jews were prisoners, yes they were locked up, yes they were killed, yes they were called enemies by the Nazis. They were not POW's however. Period. Not even to the Nazis. Read a little, it will do you some good.

Everyone who is a US citizen should be given a fair trial when acccused of a crime. When they are cpatured in battle, they are POW's and should be treated acccording to int'l law as laid out in the Geneva conventions. POW's are PRISONORS OF WAR.

GET IT NOW?

(arent' you embarrassed by the name TT or is that irony?)

Originally posted by Cosmo


But through the power of love I will change your mind about hating police and federal workers.

I don't hate all police, just those who act like pigs. I don't hate all federal workers, just those that abuse that power that they have been entrusted with.

Then we agree. My love is changing you already. Ahh, the power of love. I mean cheese.:o

Originally posted by Cosmo


ONce again racial and religious bigotry rears its ugly head.

Or the Truth...whichever you prefer

Originally posted by Redfield

Please refrain from advocation of violence like this. Posting something like this in reply to hammegk's post, could be seen as a threat.

bla bla...its a fictional scenrio...sorry u cant take the joke...hes the one that wants to cattle prod all the damn prisonerz... :p

Originally posted by Kareem


bla bla...its a fictional scenrio...sorry u cant take the joke...hes the one that wants to cattle prod all the damn prisonerz... :p

Didn't hammeegk start it by making a joke about taking a cattle prod to people?

Originally posted by Cosmo


YOu are completely incorrect, yes the jews were prisoners, yes they were locked up, yes they were killed, yes they were called enemies by the Nazis. They were not POW's however. Period. Not even to the Nazis. Read a little, it will do you some good.

Everyone who is a US citizen should be given a fair trial when acccused of a crime. When they are cpatured in battle, they are POW's and should be treated acccording to int'l law as laid out in the Geneva conventions. POW's are PRISONORS OF WAR.

GET IT NOW?



I've probably read more about it and talked to people who were there than you have.


(arent' you embarrassed by the name TT or is that irony?)



First CA,now me,Cosmo why do you have to hate people only because of ideologial differences?

I don't hate people, I do despise liars and hipocrites.

If you talked to peopleel who were there, then you know jews were not POW's. You said a dumb thing and now you dont' know how to back out.

Originally posted by Cosmo
I must confess I'm a little proud that CA loathes me so.


I don't hate you I dislike your ideas and your politics. You have no power to imprison me like John Ashcroft does, I hate people like him.


But once again he is guilty of an untruth (what is it people who engage in untruths are called?) in saying I loathe this country, I LOVE it, and took an oth to protect it, from enemies foreign and domestic.


I highlighted "domestic". How far does the government or a politician with too much power have to go for you to consider him an enemy? Does curtailing our Constitutional rights not go far enough? What is left to protect then?


I also actually lived my oath, he is just hot air.


Have you? Who did you defend us from? Did those peasants in Central America try to take away my freedoms? NO!

Are John Asscroft and the Bush admistration taking away my freedoms? YES!

So by suporting the regime and trying to silence dissent you aren't serving your oath at all. Of course there isn't much the average citizen can do anymore to stop the tyrants considering their might. I do everything I can do in my power to stop them without ending up in the John ashcroft summer camp. Which brings me to a point I'll address below..



Teh most he has ever done is demontstrated, put himself in danger of being photographed or something, maybe late for school.

LOL... You act like what you've done is better than anything. Please tell me how I can stop this turn towards totalitarianism? How about joining the military? Maybe then I can gun down protesters at Bush's orders. But wait... That's the opposite of what we're trying to do here. What else do you suggest? Tell me with your infinite wisdom..


Funny how no onw has ever tried to shut him up in spite of all the "danger" he poses.


I'd hope I'm not considered a "danger", if supporting our freedoms and the Constitution makes me a "danger" then so be it. Wouldn't surprise me though after the handbooks the FBI handed out designating gun owners and supporters of the Constitution as National security threats. Hitler would be proud..

Now about shutting people up, no, I haven't been actively silenced by physical force but I have been relatively "quiet" due what can now happen in this country and by intimidation by the LAPD. To turn the tide against these enemies of the American people we need more people to wake up from their apathetic sleep. I don't see that happening though.


A. Silencing Political Dissent

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act creates a federal crime of "domestic terrorism" that broadly extends to "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws" if they "appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," and if they "occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."10 Because this crime is couched in such vague and expansive terms, it may well be read by federal law enforcement agencies as licensing the investigation and surveillance of political activists and organizations based on their opposition to government policies. It also may be read by prosecutors as licensing the criminalization of legitimate political dissent. Vigorous protest activities, by their very nature, could be construed as acts that "appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Further, clashes between demonstrators and police officers and acts of civil disobedience-even those that do not result in injuries and are entirely non-violent-could be construed as "dangerous to human life" and in "violation of the criminal laws." Environmental activists, anti-globalization activists, and anti-abortion activists who use direct action to further their political agendas are particularly vulnerable to prosecution as "domestic terrorists."


So now the average citizen can become a "terrorist" and be labeled an "enemy combatant" by Asscroft and be sent to one of these camps indefinitely with no Constitutional rights. I'd think he qualifies as an enemy of the country. You know that "domestic" part? Yea..

In addition, political activists and the organizations with which they associate may unwittingly find themselves the subject of unwanted government attention in the form of surveillance and other intelligence-gathering operations. The manner in which the government implements the Act must be carefully monitored to ascertain whether activists and organizations are being targeted selectively for surveillance and prosecution based on their opposition to government policies. The First Amendment does not tolerate viewpoint-based discrimination.11

Furthermore, Section 411 of the Act poses an ideological test for entry into the United States that takes into consideration core political speech. Representatives of a political or social group "whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities" can no longer gain entry into the United States.12 Entry is also barred to non-citizens who have used their "position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity," if the Secretary of State determines that their speech "undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities."13

13 USA PATRIOT Act § 411(a), amending 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VI).

There are eyes of hungry wolves in the shadow of the camp fire.

Just waiting for the wrong book to be burned. Have faith,CA.

A. Silencing Political Dissent

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act creates a federal crime of "domestic terrorism" that broadly extends to "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws" if they "appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," and if they "occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."10 Because this crime is couched in such vague and expansive terms, it may well be read by federal law enforcement agencies as licensing the investigation and surveillance of political activists and organizations based on their opposition to government policies. It also may be read by prosecutors as licensing the criminalization of legitimate political dissent. Vigorous protest activities, by their very nature, could be construed as acts that "appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Further, clashes between demonstrators and police officers and acts of civil disobedience-even those that do not result in injuries and are entirely non-violent-could be construed as "dangerous to human life" and in "violation of the criminal laws." Environmental activists, anti-globalization activists, and anti-abortion activists who use direct action to further their political agendas are particularly vulnerable to prosecution as "domestic terrorists."


That is nothing more than somebodys interpretation...

Here is Sec 802, straight from the bill, with no editorializing.


SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.


Now, according to fear mongers this is a pass to round up the flag burners and Nader supporters for simply marching down the street.
That is a stretch to the largest degree. Typical leftist fear mongering once again.
Will you please site the source for your editorial?



Furthermore, Section 411 of the Act poses an ideological test for entry into the United States that takes into consideration core political speech. Representatives of a political or social group "whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities" can no longer gain entry into the United States.12 Entry is also barred to non-citizens who have used their "position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity," if the Secretary of State determines that their speech "undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities."13

This sounds like basic common sense....Why on earth would we want to let terrorists, or proponents of terrorists in the country?

Here is 411 straight from the bill.

SEC. 411. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.

(a) GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY- Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (B)--

(A) in clause (i)--

(i) by amending subclause (IV) to read as follows:

`(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of--
`(aa) a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the Secretary of State under section 219, or

`(bb) a political, social or other similar group whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities,';


(ii) in subclause (V), by inserting `or' after `section 219,'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following new subclauses:

`(VI) has used the alien's position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization, in a way that the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities, or

`(VII) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this section, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,';

(B) by redesignating clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) as clauses (iii), (iv), and (v), respectively;

(C) in clause (i)(II), by striking `clause (iii)' and inserting `clause (iv)';

(D) by inserting after clause (i) the following:

`(ii) EXCEPTION- Subclause (VII) of clause (i) does not apply to a spouse or child--

`(I) who did not know or should not reasonably have known of the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section; or

`(II) whom the consular officer or Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe has renounced the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section.';

(E) in clause (iii) (as redesignated by subparagraph (B))--

(i) by inserting `it had been' before `committed in the United States'; and

(ii) in subclause (V)(b), by striking `or firearm' and inserting `, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device';

(F) by amending clause (iv) (as redesignated by subparagraph (B)) to read as follows:

`(iv) ENGAGE IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED- As used in this chapter, the term `engage in terrorist activity' means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization--

`(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;

`(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;

`(III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;

`(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for--
`(aa) a terrorist activity;

`(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

`(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization's terrorist activity;


`(V) to solicit any individual--
`(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this clause;

`(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

`(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization's terrorist activity; or


`(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training--
`(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;

`(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;

`(cc) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

`(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization's terrorist activity.


This clause shall not apply to any material support the alien afforded to an organization or individual that has committed terrorist activity, if the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, concludes in his sole unreviewable discretion, that this clause should not apply.'; and

(G) by adding at the end the following new clause:

`(vi) TERRORIST ORGANIZATION DEFINED- As used in clause (i)(VI) and clause (iv), the term `terrorist organization' means an organization--

`(I) designated under section 219;

`(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv), or that the organization provides material support to further terrorist activity; or

`(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in the activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv).'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(F) ASSOCIATION WITH TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS- Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-

(1) Section 237(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)) is amended by striking `section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii)' and inserting `section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)'.

(2) Section 208(b)(2)(A)(v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(v)) is amended by striking `or (IV)' and inserting `(IV), or (VI)'.

(c) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to--

(A) actions taken by an alien before, on, or after such date; and

(B) all aliens, without regard to the date of entry or attempted entry into the United States--

(i) in removal proceedings on or after such date (except for proceedings in which there has been a final administrative decision before such date); or

(ii) seeking admission to the United States on or after such date.

(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR ALIENS IN EXCLUSION OR DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, sections 212(a)(3)(B) and 237(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by this Act, shall apply to all aliens in exclusion or deportation proceedings on or after the date of the enactment of this Act (except for proceedings in which there has been a final administrative decision before such date) as if such proceedings were removal proceedings.

(3) SPECIAL RULE FOR SECTION 219 ORGANIZATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS DESIGNATED UNDER SECTION 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II)-

(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), no alien shall be considered inadmissible under section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)), or deportable under section 237(a)(4)(B) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)), by reason of the amendments made by subsection (a), on the ground that the alien engaged in a terrorist activity described in subclause (IV)(bb), (V)(bb), or (VI)(cc) of section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act (as so amended) with respect to a group at any time when the group was not a terrorist organization designated by the Secretary of State under section 219 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) or otherwise designated under section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of such Act (as so amended).

(B) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to prevent an alien from being considered inadmissible or deportable for having engaged in a terrorist activity--

(i) described in subclause (IV)(bb), (V)(bb), or (VI)(cc) of section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act (as so amended) with respect to a terrorist organization at any time when such organization was designated by the Secretary of State under section 219 of such Act or otherwise designated under section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of such Act (as so amended); or

(ii) described in subclause (IV)(cc), (V)(cc), or (VI)(dd) of section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act (as so amended) with respect to a terrorist organization described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of such Act (as so amended).

(4) EXCEPTION- The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, may determine that the amendments made by this section shall not apply with respect to actions by an alien taken outside the United States before the date of the enactment of this Act upon the recommendation of a consular officer who has concluded that there is not reasonable ground to believe that the alien knew or reasonably should have known that the actions would further a terrorist activity.

(c) DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS- Section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting `or terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism' after `212(a)(3)(B)';

(2) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting `or terrorism' after `terrorist activity';

(3) by amending paragraph (2)(A) to read as follows:

`(A) NOTICE-

`(i) TO CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS- Seven days before making a designation under this subsection, the Secretary shall, by classified communication, notify the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader of the Senate, and the members of the relevant committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, in writing, of the intent to designate an organization under this subsection, together with the findings made under paragraph (1) with respect to that organization, and the factual basis therefor.

`(ii) PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER- The Secretary shall publish the designation in the Federal Register seven days after providing the notification under clause (i).';

(4) in paragraph (2)(B)(i), by striking `subparagraph (A)' and inserting `subparagraph (A)(ii)';

(5) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking `paragraph (2)' and inserting `paragraph (2)(A)(i)';

(6) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking `subsection (c)' and inserting `subsection (b)';

(7) in paragraph (4)(B), by inserting after the first sentence the following: `The Secretary also may redesignate such organization at the end of any 2-year redesignation period (but not sooner than 60 days prior to the termination of such period) for an additional 2-year period upon a finding that the relevant circumstances described in paragraph (1) still exist. Any redesignation shall be effective immediately following the end of the prior 2-year designation or redesignation period unless a different effective date is provided in such redesignation.';

(8) in paragraph (6)(A)--

(A) by inserting `or a redesignation made under paragraph (4)(B)' after `paragraph (1)';

(B) in clause (i)--

(i) by inserting `or redesignation' after `designation' the first place it appears; and

(ii) by striking `of the designation'; and

(C) in clause (ii), by striking `of the designation';

(9) in paragraph (6)(B)--

(A) by striking `through (4)' and inserting `and (3)'; and

(B) by inserting at the end the following new sentence: `Any revocation shall take effect on the date specified in the revocation or upon publication in the Federal Register if no effective date is specified.';

(10) in paragraph (7), by inserting `, or the revocation of a redesignation under paragraph (6),' after `paragraph (5) or (6)'; and

(11) in paragraph (8)--

(A) by striking `paragraph (1)(B)' and inserting `paragraph (2)(B), or if a redesignation under this subsection has become effective under paragraph (4)(B)';

(B) by inserting `or an alien in a removal proceeding' after `criminal action'; and

(C) by inserting `or redesignation' before `as a defense'.

Makes sense to me....


As I have repeatedly stated that some of this approaches the line, and some of this needs to be hashed out in the courts.
Do I like the idea of any freedom restricting measures? No, not really. But, I do like the idea of giving law enforcement the tools being to be able to root out the terrrorists that have infiltrated our country and hiding among us....some being Americans who want nothing more than us to die.
Its a fine line and its unfortunate that any of this has to happen, but the stakes are too great.

Originally posted by Powerboss



That is nothing more than somebodys interpretation...


That is exactly what they can now do, it's straight out of the bill which you posted..

Here is Sec 802, straight from the bill, with no editorializing.


SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`[b](i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.


Now, according to fear mongers this is a pass to round up the flag burners and Nader supporters for simply marching down the street.
That is a stretch to the largest degree. Typical leftist fear mongering once again.
Will you please site the source for your editorial?

I highlighted the important parts in RED...

Dirty bomber!!!! Dirty bomber!!! Run for the hills!!! Give up your rights!! Threat level Tellow!!! Threat level Red!!!! Be very afraid!!! More attacks are coming!!! They aren't a possibility... They are CERTAIN!!!!!

This is the crap we've been hearing for months from the Bush administration. You need to stop using the term fear mongering unless it's for the Bush admin.. This government is doing it the same way the Nazi's did it. It's Sad there's so many suckers out there..


Here is where I got that from http://www.ccr-ny.org/whatsnew/usa_patriot_act.asp ... You'd be wise to read that site instead of buying into government propaganda...





This sounds like basic common sense....Why on earth would we want to let terrorists, or proponents of terrorists in the country?

Here is 411 straight from the bill.

SEC. 411. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.

(a) GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY- Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (B)--

(A) in clause (i)--

(i) by amending subclause (IV) to read as follows:

`(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of--
`(aa) a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the Secretary of State under section 219, or

`(bb) a political, social or other similar group whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities,';


(ii) in subclause (V), by inserting `or' after `section 219,'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following new subclauses:

`(VI) has used the alien's position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization, in a way that the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities, or

`(VII) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this section, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,';

(B) by redesignating clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) as clauses (iii), (iv), and (v), respectively;

(C) in clause (i)(II), by striking `clause (iii)' and inserting `clause (iv)';

(D) by inserting after clause (i) the following:

`(ii) EXCEPTION- Subclause (VII) of clause (i) does not apply to a spouse or child--

`(I) who did not know or should not reasonably have known of the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section; or

`(II) whom the consular officer or Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe has renounced the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section.';

(E) in clause (iii) (as redesignated by subparagraph (B))--

(i) by inserting `it had been' before `committed in the United States'; and

(ii) in subclause (V)(b), by striking `or firearm' and inserting `, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device';

(F) by amending clause (iv) (as redesignated by subparagraph (B)) to read as follows:

`(iv) ENGAGE IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED- As used in this chapter, the term `engage in terrorist activity' means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization--

`(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;

`(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;

`(III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;

`(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for--
`(aa) a terrorist activity;

`(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

`(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization's terrorist activity;


`(V) to solicit any individual--
`(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this clause;

`(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

`(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization's terrorist activity; or


`(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training--
`(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;

`(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;

`(cc) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

`(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization's terrorist activity.


This clause shall not apply to any material support the alien afforded to an organization or individual that has committed terrorist activity, if the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, concludes in his sole unreviewable discretion, that this clause should not apply.'; and

(G) by adding at the end the following new clause:

`(vi) TERRORIST ORGANIZATION DEFINED- As used in clause (i)(VI) and clause (iv), the term `terrorist organization' means an organization--

`(I) designated under section 219;

`(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv), or that the organization provides material support to further terrorist activity; or

`(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in the activities described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iv).'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(F) ASSOCIATION WITH TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS- Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-

(1) Section 237(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)) is amended by striking `section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii)' and inserting `section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)'.

(2) Section 208(b)(2)(A)(v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(v)) is amended by striking `or (IV)' and inserting `(IV), or (VI)'.

(c) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to--

(A) actions taken by an alien before, on, or after such date; and

(B) all aliens, without regard to the date of entry or attempted entry into the United States--

(i) in removal proceedings on or after such date (except for proceedings in which there has been a final administrative decision before such date); or

(ii) seeking admission to the United States on or after such date.

(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR ALIENS IN EXCLUSION OR DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, sections 212(a)(3)(B) and 237(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by this Act, shall apply to all aliens in exclusion or deportation proceedings on or after the date of the enactment of this Act (except for proceedings in which there has been a final administrative decision before such date) as if such proceedings were removal proceedings.

(3) SPECIAL RULE FOR SECTION 219 ORGANIZATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS DESIGNATED UNDER SECTION 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II)-

(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), no alien shall be considered inadmissible under section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)), or deportable under section 237(a)(4)(B) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)), by reason of the amendments made by subsection (a), on the ground that the alien engaged in a terrorist activity described in subclause (IV)(bb), (V)(bb), or (VI)(cc) of section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act (as so amended) with respect to a group at any time when the group was not a terrorist organization designated by the Secretary of State under section 219 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) or otherwise designated under section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of such Act (as so amended).

(B) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to prevent an alien from being considered inadmissible or deportable for having engaged in a terrorist activity--

(i) described in subclause (IV)(bb), (V)(bb), or (VI)(cc) of section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act (as so amended) with respect to a terrorist organization at any time when such organization was designated by the Secretary of State under section 219 of such Act or otherwise designated under section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of such Act (as so amended); or

(ii) described in subclause (IV)(cc), (V)(cc), or (VI)(dd) of section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of such Act (as so amended) with respect to a terrorist organization described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of such Act (as so amended).

(4) EXCEPTION- The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, may determine that the amendments made by this section shall not apply with respect to actions by an alien taken outside the United States before the date of the enactment of this Act upon the recommendation of a consular officer who has concluded that there is not reasonable ground to believe that the alien knew or reasonably should have known that the actions would further a terrorist activity.

(c) DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS- Section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting `or terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism' after `212(a)(3)(B)';

(2) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting `or terrorism' after `terrorist activity';

(3) by amending paragraph (2)(A) to read as follows:

`(A) NOTICE-

`(i) TO CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS- Seven days before making a designation under this subsection, the Secretary shall, by classified communication, notify the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader of the Senate, and the members of the relevant committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, in writing, of the intent to designate an organization under this subsection, together with the findings made under paragraph (1) with respect to that organization, and the factual basis therefor.

`(ii) PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER- The Secretary shall publish the designation in the Federal Register seven days after providing the notification under clause (i).';

(4) in paragraph (2)(B)(i), by striking `subparagraph (A)' and inserting `subparagraph (A)(ii)';

(5) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking `paragraph (2)' and inserting `paragraph (2)(A)(i)';

(6) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking `subsection (c)' and inserting `subsection (b)';

(7) in paragraph (4)(B), by inserting after the first sentence the following: `The Secretary also may redesignate such organization at the end of any 2-year redesignation period (but not sooner than 60 days prior to the termination of such period) for an additional 2-year period upon a finding that the relevant circumstances described in paragraph (1) still exist. Any redesignation shall be effective immediately following the end of the prior 2-year designation or redesignation period unless a different effective date is provided in such redesignation.';

(8) in paragraph (6)(A)--

(A) by inserting `or a redesignation made under paragraph (4)(B)' after `paragraph (1)';

(B) in clause (i)--

(i) by inserting `or redesignation' after `designation' the first place it appears; and

(ii) by striking `of the designation'; and

(C) in clause (ii), by striking `of the designation';

(9) in paragraph (6)(B)--

(A) by striking `through (4)' and inserting `and (3)'; and

(B) by inserting at the end the following new sentence: `Any revocation shall take effect on the date specified in the revocation or upon publication in the Federal Register if no effective date is specified.';

(10) in paragraph (7), by inserting `, or the revocation of a redesignation under paragraph (6),' after `paragraph (5) or (6)'; and

(11) in paragraph (8)--

(A) by striking `paragraph (1)(B)' and inserting `paragraph (2)(B), or if a redesignation under this subsection has become effective under paragraph (4)(B)';

(B) by inserting `or an alien in a removal proceeding' after `criminal action'; and

(C) by inserting `or redesignation' before `as a defense'.

Makes sense to me....


This bill can be translated in any way the government wishes, with there careless regard to the Constitution any logical person should be concerned with the "Patriot" act.


As I have repeatedly stated that some of this approaches the line, and some of this needs to be hashed out in the courts.
Do I like the idea of any freedom restricting measures? No, not really.


That's a step in the right direction...


But, I do like the idea of giving law enforcement the tools being to be able to root out the terrrorists that have infiltrated our country and hiding among us

They already had the tools but they weren't interested in protecting us or the ones who were like John O'Neill (http://www.rememberjohn.com/) were blocked from investigating terrorists...



some being Americans who want nothing more than us to die.



Oh you mean the ChickenHawks who support foreign policies that create anti-American hatred around the world endangering our lives?? Well they are doing a good job so far..


Its a fine line and its unfortunate that any of this has to happen, but the stakes are too great.


Yes it is, America has to control the energy reserves in Central Asia, at any cost apparently...

The USA PATRIOT Act:
What's So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights?1



Nancy Chang, Senior Litigation Attorney
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10012
November 2001


Just six weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a jittery Congress-exiled from its anthrax-contaminated offices and confronted with warnings that more terrorist assaults were soon to come-capitulated to the Bush Administration's demands for a new arsenal of anti-terrorism weapons. Over vigorous objections from civil liberties organizations on both ends of the political spectrum, Congress overwhelmingly approved the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, better known by its acronym, the USA PATRIOT Act.2 The House vote was 356-to-66, and the Senate vote was 98-to-1. Along the way, the Republican House leadership, in a raw display of force, jettisoned an anti-terrorism bill that the House Judiciary Committee had unanimously approved and that would have addressed a number of civil liberties concerns.3 The hastily-drafted, complex, and far-reaching legislation spans 342 pages. Yet it was passed with virtually no public hearing or debate, and it was accompanied by neither a conference nor a committee report. On October 26, the Act was signed into law by a triumphant President George W. Bush.4

I. THE USA PATRIOT ACT CONFERS VAST AND UNCHECKED POWERS TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Although a number of its provisions are not controversial, the USA PATRIOT Act nevertheless stands out as radical in its design. To an unprecedented degree, the Act sacrifices our political freedoms in the name of national security and upsets the democratic values that define our nation by consolidating vast new powers in the executive branch of government. The Act enhances the executive's ability to conduct surveillance and gather intelligence, places an array of new tools at the disposal of the prosecution, including new crimes, enhanced penalties, and longer statutes of limitations, and grants the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) the authority to detain immigrants suspected of terrorism for lengthy, and in some cases indefinite, periods of time. And at the same time that the Act inflates the powers of the executive, it insulates the exercise of these powers from meaningful judicial and Congressional oversight.

Although a number of its provisions are not controversial, the USA PATRIOT Act nevertheless stands out as radical in its design. To an unprecedented degree, the Act sacrifices our political freedoms in the name of national security and upsets the democratic values that define our nation by consolidating vast new powers in the executive branch of government. The Act enhances the executive's ability to conduct surveillance and gather intelligence, places an array of new tools at the disposal of the prosecution, including new crimes, enhanced penalties, and longer statutes of limitations, and grants the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) the authority to detain immigrants suspected of terrorism for lengthy, and in some cases indefinite, periods of time. And at the same time that the Act inflates the powers of the executive, it insulates the exercise of these powers from meaningful judicial and Congressional oversight.

It remains to be seen how the executive will wield its new authority. However, if the two months that have elapsed since September 11 serve as a guide, we should brace ourselves for a flagrant disregard of the rule of law by those charged with its enforcement. Already, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has admitted to detaining more than 1,100 immigrants, not one of whom has been charged with committing a terrorist act and only a handful of whom are being held as material witnesses to the September 11 hijackings.5 Many in this group appear to have been held for extended time periods under an extraordinary interim regulation announced by Attorney General John Ashcroft on September 17 and published in Federal Register on September 20.6 This regulation sets aside the strictures of due process by permitting the INS to detain aliens without charge for 48 hours or an uncapped "additional reasonable period of time" in the event of an "emergency or other extraordinary circumstance." Also, many in this group are being held without bond under the pretext of unrelated criminal charges or minor immigration violations, in a modern-day form of preventive detention. Chillingly, the Attorney General's response to the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act was not a pledge to use his new powers responsibly and guard against their abuse, but instead was a vow to step up his detention efforts. Conflating immigrant status with terrorist status, he declared: "Let the terrorists among us be warned, if you overstay your visas even by one day, we will arrest you."7

Furthermore, the Administration has made no secret of its hope that the judiciary will accede to its broad reading of the USA PATRIOT Act just as pliantly as Congress acceded to its broad legislative agenda. In a letter sent to key Senators while Congress was considering this legislation, Assistant Attorney General Daniel J. Bryant, of DOJ's Office of Legislative Affairs, openly advocated for a suspension of the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in the government's investigation of foreign national security threats.8 The Bryant letter brazenly declares:

As Commander-in-Chief, the President must be able to use whatever means necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States; this power, by implication, includes the authority to collect information necessary to its effective exercise. . . The government's interest has changed from merely conducting foreign intelligence surveillance to counter intelligence operations by other nations, to one of preventing terrorist attacks against American citizens and property within the continental United States itself. The courts have observed that even the use of deadly force is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if used in self-defense or to protect others. . . Here, for Fourth Amendment purposes, the right to self-defense is not that of an individual, but that of the nation and its citizens. . . If the government's heightened interest in self-defense justifies the use of deadly force, then it certainly would also justify warrantless searches.9



II. SUSPENSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES


The Administration's blatant power grab, coupled with the wide array of anti-terrorism tools that the USA PATRIOT Act puts at its disposal, portends a wholesale suspension of civil liberties that will reach far beyond those who are involved in terrorist activities. First, the Act places our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and political association in jeopardy by creating a broad new crime of "domestic terrorism," and by denying entry to non-citizens on the basis of ideology. Second, the Act will reduce our already lowered expectations of privacy under the Fourth Amendment by granting the government enhanced surveillance powers. Third, non-citizens will see a further erosion of their due process rights as they are placed in mandatory detention and removed from the United States under the Act. Political activists who are critical of our government or who maintain ties with international political movements, in addition to immigrants, are likely to bear the brunt of these attacks on our civil liberties.

A. Silencing Political Dissent

Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act creates a federal crime of "domestic terrorism" that broadly extends to "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws" if they "appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," and if they "occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."10 Because this crime is couched in such vague and expansive terms, it may well be read by federal law enforcement agencies as licensing the investigation and surveillance of political activists and organizations based on their opposition to government policies. It also may be read by prosecutors as licensing the criminalization of legitimate political dissent. Vigorous protest activities, by their very nature, could be construed as acts that "appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Further, clashes between demonstrators and police officers and acts of civil disobedience-even those that do not result in injuries and are entirely non-violent-could be construed as "dangerous to human life" and in "violation of the criminal laws." Environmental activists, anti-globalization activists, and anti-abortion activists who use direct action to further their political agendas are particularly vulnerable to prosecution as "domestic terrorists."

In addition, political activists and the organizations with which they associate may unwittingly find themselves the subject of unwanted government attention in the form of surveillance and other intelligence-gathering operations. The manner in which the government implements the Act must be carefully monitored to ascertain whether activists and organizations are being targeted selectively for surveillance and prosecution based on their opposition to government policies. The First Amendment does not tolerate viewpoint-based discrimination.11

Furthermore, Section 411 of the Act poses an ideological test for entry into the United States that takes into consideration core political speech. Representatives of a political or social group "whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities" can no longer gain entry into the United States.12 Entry is also barred to non-citizens who have used their "position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity," if the Secretary of State determines that their speech "undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities."13

B. Tolling the Death-Knell on Privacy

The USA PATRIOT Act14 launches a three-pronged assault on our privacy. First, the Act grants the executive branch unprecedented, and largely unchecked, surveillance powers, including the enhanced ability to track email and Internet usage, conduct sneak-and-peek searches, obtain sensitive personal records, monitor financial transactions, and conduct nationwide roving wiretaps. Second, the Act permits law enforcement agencies to circumvent the Fourth Amendment's requirement of probable cause when conducting wiretaps and searches that have, as "a significant purpose," the gathering of foreign intelligence. Third, the Act allows for the sharing of information between criminal and intelligence operations and thereby opens the door to a resurgence of domestic spying by the Central Intelligence Agency.

1. Enhanced Surveillance Powers

By and large, Congress granted the Administration its longstanding wish list of enhanced surveillance tools, coupled with the ability to use these tools with only minimal judicial and Congressional oversight. In its rush to pass an anti-terrorism bill, Congress failed to exact in exchange a showing that these highly intrusive new tools are actually needed to combat terrorism and that the Administration can be trusted not to abuse them.

The recent decision in Kyllo v. United States15 serves as a pointed reminder that once a Fourth Amendment protection has been eroded, the resulting loss to our privacy is likely to be permanent. In Kyllo, the Supreme Court concluded that the use of an advanced thermal detection device that allowed the police to detect heat emanating from marijuana plants growing inside the defendant's home constituted a "search" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment and was presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. The Court placed great weight on the fact that the device was new, "not in general public use," and had been used to "explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion."16 Implicit in the Court's holding is the principle that once a technology is in general public use and its capabilities are known, a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment may no longer attach.

Several of the Act's enhanced surveillance tools, and the civil liberties concerns they raise, are examined below.



a. Sneak and Peek Searches

Section 213 of the Act authorizes federal agents to conduct "sneak and peek searches," or covert searches of a person's home or office that are conducted without notifying the person of the execution of the search warrant until after the search has been completed. Section 213 authorizes delayed notice of the execution of a search warrant upon a showing of "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification… may have an adverse result."17 Section 213 also authorizes the delay of notice of the execution of a warrant to conduct a seizure of items where the court finds a "reasonable necessity" for the seizure.

Section 213 contravenes the "common law 'knock and announce' principle," which forms an essential part of the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness inquiry.18 When notice of a search is delayed, one is foreclosed from pointing out deficiencies in the warrant to the officer executing it, and from monitoring whether the search is being conducted in accordance with the warrant. In addition, Section 213, by authorizing delayed notice of the execution of a warrant to conduct a seizure of items, contravenes Rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that, "The officer taking property under the warrant shall give to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken or shall leave the copy and receipt at the place from which the property was taken."

Under Section 213, notice may be delayed for a "reasonable period." Already, DOJ has staked out its position that a "reasonable period" can be considerably longer than the seven days authorized by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Villegas,19 and by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Freitas.20 DOJ states in its Field Guidance on New Authorities (Redacted) Enacted in the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Legislation21 that "[a]nalogy to other statutes suggest [sic] that the period of delay could be substantial if circumstances warrant," and cites in support of this proposition a case that found a 90-day delay in providing notice of a wiretap warrant to constitute "a reasonable time." Notably, Section 213 is not limited to terrorism investigations, but extends to all criminal investigations, and is not scheduled to expire.

b. Access to Records in International Investigations

Section 21522 is one of several provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act that relaxes the requirements, and extends the reach, of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).23 Under Section 215, the Director of the FBI or a designee as low in rank as an Assistant Special Agent in Charge may apply for a court order requiring the production of "any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)" upon his written statement that these items are being sought for an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."24 A judge presented with an application under Section 215 is required to enter an order if he "finds that the application meets the requirements of this section."25

Notably absent from Section 215 is the restriction in the FISA provision it amends that had required the government to specify in its application for a court order that "there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."26 Now, under Section 215, the FBI may obtain sensitive personal records by simply certifying that they are sought for an investigation "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." The FBI need not suspect the person whose records are being sought of any wrongdoing. Furthermore, the class of persons whose records are obtainable under Section 215 is no longer limited to foreign powers and their agents, but may include United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, or "United States persons" in the parlance of the FISA.27 While Section 215 bars investigations of United States persons "solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution," it does nothing to bar investigations based on other activities that tie them, no matter how loosely, to an international terrorism investigation.28

The FISA provision that was amended by Section 215 had been limited in scope to "records" in the possession of "a common carrier, public accommodation facility, physical storage facility, or vehicle rental facility."29 Section 215 extends beyond "records" to "tangible things" and is no longer limited in terms of the entities from whom the production of tangible things can be required.30 A Congressional oversight provision will require the Attorney General to submit semi-annual reports on its activities under Section 215.31 Section 215 is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005.

c. Tracking Internet Usage

Under Section 216 of the Act, courts are required to order the installation of a pen register and a trap and trace device31 to track both telephone and Internet "dialing, routing, addressing and signaling information"32 anywhere within the United States when a government attorney has certified that the information to be obtained is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."33 Section 216 states that orders issued under its authority cannot be permit the tracking of the "contents of any wire or electronic communications." However, in the case of email messages and Internet usage, the Act does not address the complex question of where the line should be drawn between "dialing, routing, addressing and signaling information" and "content." Unlike telephone communications, where the provision of dialing information does not run the risk of revealing content,35 email messages move together in packets that include both address and content information. Also, the question of whether a list of web sites and web pages that have been visited constitutes "dialing, routing, addressing and signaling information" or "content" has yet to be resolved.

By providing no guidance on this question, Section 216 gives the government wide latitude to decide what constitutes "content." Of special concern is the fact that Section 216 authorizes the government to install its new Carnivore or DCS1000 system, a formidable tracking device that is capable of intercepting all forms of Internet activity, including email messages, web page activity, and Internet telephone communications.36 Once installed on an Internet Service Provider (ISP), Carnivore devours all of the communications flowing through the ISP's network-not just those of the target of surveillance but those of all users-and not just tracking information but content as well. The FBI claims that through the use of filters, Carnivore "limits the messages viewable by human eyes to those which are strictly included within the court order."37 However, neither the accuracy of Carnivore's filtering system, nor the infallibility of its human programers, has been demonstrated. While Section 216 requires the government to maintain a record when it utilizes Carnivore, this record need not be provided to the court until 30 days after the termination of the order, including any extensions of time.38 Section 216 is not scheduled to expire.

2. Allowing Law Enforcement Agencies to Evade the Fourth Amendment's Probable Cause Requirement

Perhaps the most radical provision of the USA PATRIOT Act is Section 218, which amends FISA's wiretap and physical search provisions. Under FISA, court orders permitting the executive to conduct surreptitious foreign intelligence wiretaps and physical searches may be obtained without the showing of probable cause required for wiretaps and physical searches in criminal investigations. Until the enactment of the Act, orders issued under FISA's lax standards were restricted to situations where the gathering of foreign intelligence information was "the purpose" of the surveillance.39

Under Section 218, however, orders may be issued under FISA's lax standards where the primary purpose of the surveillance is criminal investigation, and the gathering of foreign intelligence information constitutes only "a significant purpose"of the surveillance.40 As a result, Section 218 allows law enforcement agencies conducting a criminal investigation to circumvent the Fourth Amendment whenever they are able to claim that the gathering of foreign intelligence constitutes "a significant purpose." In doing so, Section 218 gives the FBI a green light to resume domestic spying on government "enemies"-a program that reached an ugly apex under J. Edgar Hoover's directorship.

In the seminal case of United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Keith),41 the Supreme Court rejected President Richard Nixon's ambitious bid for the unchecked executive power to conduct warrantless wiretaps when investigating national security threats posed by domestic groups with no foreign ties. The Court recognized that national security cases reflect "a convergence of First and Fourth Amendment values not present in cases of 'ordinary' crime."42 With respect to the First Amendment, the Court wisely observed that "[o]fficial surveillance, whether its purpose be criminal investigation or ongoing intelligence gathering, risks infringement of constitutionally protected privacy of speech" because of "the inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept… and the temptation to utilize such surveillances to oversee political dissent."43



With respect to the Fourth Amendment, the Court acknowledged the constitutional basis for the President's domestic security role, but refused to exempt the President from the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.44 The Court explained that the oversight function assumed by the judiciary in its review of applications for warrants "accords with our basic constitutional doctrine that individual freedoms will best be preserved through a separation of powers and division of functions among the different branches and levels of Government."45

Notably, the Keith Court declined to examine "the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."46 To fill the vacuum left in the wake of the Keith decision, in 1978 Congress enacted FISA, which is premised on the assumption that Fourth Amendment safeguards are not as critical in foreign intelligence investigations as they are in criminal investigations. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on FISA's constitutionality. However, both the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have cautioned that applying FISA's lax standards to criminal investigations raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns. In United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, the Fourth Circuit held that "the executive should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons," because "once surveillance becomes primarily a criminal investigation, the courts are entirely competent to make the usual probable cause determination, and because, importantly, individual privacy interests come to the fore and government foreign policy concerns recede when the government is primarily attempting to form the basis for a criminal prosecution."47 In a similar vein, the Ninth Circuit held in United States v. Johnson that "the investigation of criminal activity cannot be the primary purpose of [FISA] surveillance" and that "[FISA] is not to be used as an end-run around the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of warrantless searches."48

The constitutionality of Section 218 is in considerable doubt. The extremist position staked out by DOJ in the Bryant Letter, which argues that "[i]f the government's heightened interest in self-defense justifies the use of deadly force, then it certainly would also justify warrantless searches," would undermine the separation of powers doctrine.49 Until the Supreme Court weighs in on this matter, the government will find itself in a quandary each time it seeks to prosecute a criminal defendant based on evidence that, although properly obtained under the lesser showing required by Section 218, does not meet the probable cause showing required by the Fourth Amendment. Should the government decide to base prosecutions on such evidence, it will run the risk that the evidence will be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.50 Section 218 is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005.

3. Sharing of Sensitive Criminal and Foreign Intelligence Information

Section 203 of the USA PATRIOT Act authorizes the disclosure, without judicial supervision, of certain criminal and foreign intelligence information to officials of the FBI, CIA, and INS, as well as other federal agencies, where receipt of the information will "assist the official… in the performance of his official duties."51 Section 203(a) permits the disclosure of matters occurring before a grand jury-a category that is as boundless in scope as the powers of a grand jury to subpoena records and witnesses.52 Section 203(b) permits the disclosure of recordings of intercepted telephone and Internet conversations.53 And Section 203(d) permits the disclosure of foreign intelligence obtained as part of a criminal investigation.54

While some additional sharing of information between agencies is undoubtedly appropriate given the nature of the terrorist threats we face, the Act fails to protect us from the dangers posed to our political freedoms and our privacy when sensitive personal information is widely shared without court supervision. A cautionary tale can be found in the 1976 report of the Senate's Church Committee, which revealed that the FBI and CIA had spied on thousands of law-abiding citizens, from civil rights workers to anti-Vietnam War protestors, who had been targeted solely because they were believed to harbor politically dissident views.55 Section 203(a) is not scheduled to expire. Subsections (b) and (d) of Section 203, however, are scheduled to expire.

C. Stripping Immigrants of Constitutional Protections

The USA PATRIOT Act deprives immigrants of their due process and First Amendment rights through two mechanisms that operate in tandem. First, Section 411 vastly expands the class of immigrants who are subject to removal on terrorism grounds through its broad definitions of the terms "terrorist activity," "engage in terrorist activity," and "terrorist organization." Second, Section 412 vastly expands the authority of the Attorney General to place immigrants he suspects are engaged in terrorist activities in detention while their removal proceedings are pending.

1. Expanding The Class of Immigrants Subject to Removal

Section 411 vastly expands the class of immigrants that can be removed on terrorism grounds.56 The term "terrorist activity" is commonly understood to be limited to pre-meditated and politically-motivated violence targeted against a civilian population.57 Section 411, however, stretches the term beyond recognitio