Torture?

The US government has spoken (now if you believe them or not...is another thing):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36293-2003Mar3.html

 

On October 26, 2001, the U.S. Bill of Rights became effectively void and prohibited by a new law – the USA PATRIOT Act. USA PATRIOT is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The word “patriot” was used to coerce most members of Congress to vote for the bill in the fearful aftermath of September 11.

Only 66 members of Congress mustered the courage to vote against this freedom-eroding bill, including Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio, who said on the House floor October 12, 2001, “This is not the way to defend liberty and fight terrorism. I fear that this bill, since I do not know what is in it, could be the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution for civil liberties, rather than the tools our law enforcement agencies really need.”

DeFazio refers to the Gulf of Tonkin, which was a government lie, perpetrated to convince the Congress to vote for increased military action in Vietnam. We all know how that war turned out. Hundreds of thousands of Americans marched in the streets to end that war, after they learned of U.S. atrocities against the Vietnamese, and after too many of their sons and husbands returned home in body bags.

Hundreds of thousands have not yet assembled in the streets to protest the death of the Bill of Rights via the USA PATRIOT Act. But as the Lane County Bill of Rights Defense Committee petitions in the streets of Eugene, Springfield and Lane County, we realize a rapidly growing number of people are eager to sign a petition to convince their local governments to pass resolutions opposing the USA PATRIOT Act and recent Executive and Military orders.

U.S. Assistant Attorney General Chris Cardani was quoted at length in a Register Guard article on Friday, October 26, about all the reasons why the USA PATRIOT Act is your friend. He says it’s there to help you. To that, we say, “Another government lie, delivered by a paid government messenger.”

Anyone who remembers the 1950s, 60s and 70s, can tell you that law enforcement already tried spying on the public. In fact, in April 1976, Congress outlawed their wiretapping and COINTELPRO-operations. The Final Report of the U.S. Senate Committee studying intelligence activities states, “The crescendo of improper intelligence activity in the latter part of the 1960s and 1970s shows what we must watch out for: In time of crisis, the Government will exercise its power to conduct domestic intelligence activities to the fullest extent. The distrinction between legal dissent and criminal conduct is easily forgotten. Our job is to recommend means to help ensure that the distinction will always be observed.” Once again, law enforcement seeks to trample the safeguards of our freedoms. This time in the name of terrorism.

If our Bill of Rights must be sacrificed to fight terrorism, we submit it is too great a price for a free people to pay. And we submit it is not necessary to fight terrorism by eroding our Constitutional guarantees such as right to a speedy and public trial, right to have evidence presented before we are subjected to search and seizure, right to be told what the charges are against us, and right to due process.

Mr. Cardani and other law enforcement officials apparently think the American people will believe them when they say this is all for our own good, and law enforcement won’t lie to us. But even the FISA Court knows better than that. FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It’s a secretive federal court that approves spying on terror suspects in the U.S.

On May 17, the court alleged that the Justice Department and FBI officials lied to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps. The Court refused to give the Justice Department broad new powers because of these lies. The Court said that law enforcement also improperly shared intelligence information with agents and prosecutors handling criminal cases in New York at least four times. These are not new allegations. The misrepresentations go back as far as 2000. Imagine how much more shoddy the Justice Department’s practices have become since the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law! They have so much carte blanche to “sneak and peek,” to search bookstore purchases, library records, medical, financial, educational records on their mission to prove these new freedoms they’ve acquired will lead to terrorist arrests. Why should they be careful? According to the FISA Court, they’re not.

The underlying, unspoken reasoning behind Mr. Cardani’s assessment of the USA PATRIOT Act is, `we are the Government; trust us to do the right thing.’ History does not always support this notion. What Mr. Cardani uses to support his premise is predictably those instances where the USA PATRIOT Act has been most effective. What the government will not tell you, and what the USA PATRIOT Act does not require the government to report to you are those instances where the Act was used against Americans, where citizens were searched, their privacy invaded, their reputations sullied, and no criminal activity was uncovered.

For example, the USA PATRIOT Act adopts much of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to be available against ordinary citizens.. FISA was initially adopted to protect America from foreign intelligence espionage, and under that premise allowed the Justice Department to conduct surveillance and searches of foreign intelligence agents outside the scope of Constitutional privacy and search and seizure law, including a secret Court called the FISA court. One instance of this is the USA PATRIOT Act, at 215,amends current law 50 USC 1862 to allow application to the FISA Court for an Order to compel production of any business records from any one for any investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. This sounds laudable and what any reasonable citizen would want the government to do to protect us, except when you read the fine print:

1) No showing need be made that the person is an agent of a foreign power;

2) The Court MUST grant the order if the required elements are listed.

3) The Order will NOT say it was issued under this Section;

4) Person served by the Order (employers, telecommunication companies, banks, etc.) Are prohibited from revealing there is such an order;

5) no reporting of items seized or their usefulness reported to the Court or Congress.

The implications are staggering. Secret Courts issuing Secret Orders to Secret Police to secretly peer into the personal and financial privacy of Americans. All with little or no showing of danger, and all with no method of accountability. This type of warrant is similarly applicable to education records (amends 20 USC 1232; Sect 507-8 USAPA), computer records (USAPA 216 amends 18 USC 3121(c)), and telecommunication records (USAPA 505 allows for search of some records without court order).

The impact on computer surveillance and the inclusion of computer activity as `terrorist’ is equally disturbing. Without requiring any court order, but by mere virtue of a unilateral subpoena, someone in Mr. Cardani’s position may acquire a detailed analysis of an American’s Internet uses including session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I..P.) addresses, means and source of payments including credit card numbers and bank account numbers and locations. There is of course a prohibition against anyone served with such a subpoena from informing the subject of the subpoena. And of course there is less reporting requirements than required above since the subpoenas originate in the office of the United States Attorney and all information derived therefrom remains there. Mr. Cardani needs to answer whether or not he will subject all subpoenas generated by him, or his office to public inspection to determine the breadth of scope of governmental intrusions into our lives.

There is also the well known `sneak and peek’ provision allowing law enforcement to obtain a search warrant and search any American’s residence and effects, without ever informing the subject of the search. Besides the obvious secret and shadowy nature of sneaking around an American’s home and effects, this also prevents anyone from ever challenging what the government has stated about them in order to obtain the warrant. Was it false? Was it political? Was there probable cause of criminal activity? One will never know

This sort of lack of accountability is the core difference between Mr. Cardani’s analysis and our own. Mr. Cardani’s statement that only the rights of criminals will be impinged is not supported by the Act’s absence of any Reporting of ALL citizens whose rights were violated.

Further, when Mr. Cardani states, “The USA PATRIOT Act gives us tools to better hunt them down. No question about that..” this too is without substantiation. Senator Feingold, when voting against the Act, stated the government made no showing the reasons they failed to detect the planing of recent attacks or any other terrorist attacks were the civil liberties compromised by this Act. As we have since learned the government already had the tools available to prevent the attacks but failed to properly utilize them; Search Warrants were not applied for on Mr. Mouusarri, internal memoranda were ignored advising of flight schools, surveillance was not followed up on. The tools of which Mr. Cardani speaks were already there.

It is no surprise that those who search and peer into the privacy of Americans would welcome any opportunity to do so further. It is also no surprise Americans would want more accountability from their government, and would challenge any law which allows for less accountability while simultaneously granting broader authority.

Nice going! Who's next? Patriot act II

 

Sounds like a night out on South Beach.......

 

The problem isn't dubya, at least not directly. He's too stupid and lacks enough common sense to protect the rights of the individuals who voted for him, when those same individuals are willing to throw away a perfectly good Bill Of Rights because they're scared sh!tless by a bunch of cavemen.

The problem is Ashcroft. He's the man behind the scenes whose taking your civil liberties. Considering what he's done to a nation with a constitution and civil rights, he makes Kim Jong Il look like a hippie. I am ashamed that this is our government, and that these imbeciles are making America look like 15th century England.

Luckily, there's a new election every four years. I really doubt that people like myself are going to allow W and ashcroft to continue to destroy a strong economy and a strong democracy. I just don't understand why the repubs put up W when there were strong candidates, like forbes, who understand the basic principles of economics. Bush, with his pricey education, clearly does not.

It's funny right now, because it seems that all the ranking democrats have already announced their plans to run in 2004. I think this is because they're pretty convinced it'll be an easy victory against President Einstein in '04, but who knows what the issues will be when the election comes...

If the repubs can manage to divert the voters away from the real issues like W did in 2000 (everytime a reporter asked him something, he babbled about being there for "real people" while never directly addressing any issues), they'll have a shot, but if the democrats can manage to debate the real issues, I don't think W will stand a chance, unless he can manage to grow a brain overnight. Just my .02

 

Better to have an Ashcroft at this juncture than some wimp from the Willy's administration.

 

You see, this is the mentality that I'm talking about here. People are SO FRIGHTENED that they are willing to throw the bigger picture (civil liberties) away in favor of fighting this "war on terror."

Let me tell you this - al queda has been very successful so far - they've managed to--

1) cost the US economy billions of dollars
2) make everyday life more difficult for the average american
3) reduce the civil liberties of the average american

The first two are inevitable. They've already happened, and there's nothing we can do to change them. The third is our choice -- we do not have to let the Stalinist Justice Dept. limit the civil liberties of the average TAX PAYING american.

-Do you want to pay taxes to support Big Brother spying on you?? What if Ashcroft decides that YOU are the head of Al-Queda? You are innocent, yet you have no civil rights because the Justice Department has decided that the way to skirt the Constitution (and let's not forget that we are supposed to be in Iraq FIGHTING for DEMOCRACY) is to transport you outside of the US to no-man's land, JUST LIKE how corporations move offshore to skirt the tax laws.

Let me tell you - ASHCROFT IS NUTS. About six months ago, he took an innocent academic scientist - Steven Hatfield - who had previously served his country in the armed forces - and WRONGLY accused this man of being the anthrax mailer. When this guy CLEARLY proved that he could NOT have been the anthrax mailer, Ashcroft did not give up. Ashcroft PISSED AWAY MILLIONS of YOUR tax dollars persecuting this man -why? TO SAVE FACE, so Ashcroft wouldn't look like he had the wrong guy, WHICH HE DID.

And what ever came of the anthrax mailer investigation?? NOTHING. Ashcroft spent all of YOUR MONEY and did not accomplish a DAMN THING. Look at him. He even looks crazy.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. History has shown that there are no exceptions.

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Al-queda has already damaged America -- don't let them damage the principles which separate those animals from us -- the Bill of Rights. Otherwise our government becomes more like the Taliban every day.

 

<--Almost 3,000 individuals having their rights abrogated.

So this one P.O.S., we should protect his individual rights even when we could perhaps prevent another terrorist attack, possibly even worse than the one above?

 

that is a good point - some Constitutional provisions have been held to apply to non-citizens, and some not. also, his potential status as an enemy combatant plays a part in it. I don't know enough about those points to argue the legalities of it. but it seems contrary to the basic premises of a nation of laws to apply those laws selectively or whimsically. as to preventing casualites - if there were some concrete danger, and no reasonable means to prevent it, then it might certainly be justified. that would be an exceptional and limited situation, and very different than the general suspension of Constitutional protections some posts here have called for.

surely you see the danger in such a broad argument -- that is the justification given for every tyrrany and oppression in history. the problem is in the definition of the "greater good" -- weren't stalin, hitler, castro, and jong il acting to further what they claimed was the "greater good"?

 

Yes, because by protecting his individual rights, we are protecting our civil rights. I don't give a sh!t about this guy. On a personal level, for all I care, he could be locked in a cave and eaten by rats, but since I wouldn't want this to happen to me, I don't want it to happen to anybody.

Looking at those 9/11 pictures, I get angry and I want revenge, just like you, and I think he should be interrogated and sleep-deprived, as any other prisoner would be.

But I don't think it is appropriate to violate the Constitution when popular demand calls for it. This includes "cruel and unusual" punishment.

Just my .02

 

The whole way the Bush administration has been handling the Iraq thing is typical of an administration that doesn't understand how to play THE GAME. They're like the wannabe listed traders that sit around whining about the specialist instead of accepting the specialist and trading with him.

If the W administration were smart, they'd play UP the whole human rights thing. They'd say - "we have the mastermind, and we're going to interrogate him, but we're going to make sure he has a fair trial, because we ARE THE US, WE BELIEVE IN FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY, and we are going to STAND BY WHAT WE BELIEVE IN. We are going to interrogate him, and we're going to adhere to international laws regarding such interrogations, and we are still going to get a ton of information out of him and use that to save lives."

And they'd say "we are going into Iraq to bring those people these freedoms which we cherish, because these freedoms are what make our country STRONG AGAINST THESE TERRORIST COWARDS."

Instead, the administration has taken the first opportunity to show the world that they are NOT above Al-Queda. Instead of saying, "we are more powerful, and are better, and thus have a responsibility to stick to a higher standard when dealing with this little pondscum who thinks that his cowardly guerilla attacks against defenseless civilians can stop our great nation," they are essentially justifying the contempt that al-queda has for the US, the land that they (and the rest of the world) see as the land of hypocrisy. They are saying that we are no better than these terrorists who also think that they are above the law.

The reason that the US is a good place and Iraq SUCKS is freedom. Americans have the freedom to start businesses and run for government. Iraqis do not. Let's not forget the bigger picture here.

Again, I'm glad I don't have kids during the Bush administration. What terrible lessons they are teaching our children.