# Politics: Patriot Act to be Expanded



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 9, 2005)

[font=arial,helvetica]*http://politics.slashdot.org/Patriot Act to be Expanded*[/font] 	      	 
*
  Wednesday June 08, @09:39PM*
*from the big-brother dept.*
m4dm4n writes _"It seems that the patriot act is being expanded rather than scaled back after a vote late Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence committee. The FBI has gained new powers to demand documents from companies without a judge's approval, as well as the ability to designate subpoenas as secret and punish disclosure of their existence with up to one year in prison._"       	 

*(* *Read More...Slashdot.org*


----------



## TonyM. (Jun 9, 2005)

Ahhhh, now I understand. Everytime the media gets shrill about something that really doesn't effect or concern most Americans, same sex marriage, medical marijuana ect. what's really happening is their putting it to the constitution hard again. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
Gotta admit. Works every time.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 9, 2005)

"senate intelligence"? The supreme of oxymorons?!
 Or just morons?
 Big brother need his *** whooped!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 9, 2005)

But remember, they won't abuse this new power.
And if they do, you have no right to ask about it since admiting it = jail time, possibly being "accidentally" mis ID'd as a terrorist earning you a rights-free vacation in Sunny Cuba, and I aint talking that small town in western NY with the great fishing either.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 9, 2005)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> [font=arial,helvetica]*Patriot Act to be Expanded*[/font]
> 
> *Wednesday June 08, @09:39PM*
> *from the big-brother dept.*
> ...


Why is that everytime someone rails on and on about the Patriot Act, they do so in the most vague, ominous terms possible? What, specifically, about the Patriot Act, are we to fear the most. I'm real eager to get some straigt answers as to what is threatening to me personally about the patriot act. If there's something there, I need to know about. 

For example, WHAT specific documents from companies does the FBI now have the power to demand, and by what process do they demand it?

What process is required to designate subpoena's as secret, and how is someone punished for that (By how, I mean by what process)?

Finally (and most importantly) what, specifically, is objectively unreasonable about any of these powers? or are we just experiencing a knee jerk reaction?

Again, I could be wrong, but I get nervous anytime someone starts complaining about something in vague and ominous ways. I feel it's more important to discuss specific facts.

I'll make this discussion easier. Lets pick any section of the source document http://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/sunset_bill_draft_20050517.pdf and discuss the relavent objective reasonableness of any particular section someone has concerns with. Reading someone else's analysis of this type of thing I find to be often times deceptive.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 9, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Why is that everytime someone rails on and on about the Patriot Act, they do so in the most vague, ominous terms possible? What, specifically, about the Patriot Act, are we to fear the most. I'm real eager to get some straigt answers as to what is threatening to me personally about the patriot act. If there's something there, I need to know about.
> 
> For example, WHAT specific documents from companies does the FBI now have the power to demand, and by what process do they demand it?
> 
> ...



It simply comes down to giving the government more ability to abuse power legally. It's not like it hasn't been done before. I don't see any reason why the government needs to be exempt from the supena process. Making trials and applications for evesdropping public is a safeguard against abuse of power, the possibility of blackmail or harrassment.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 9, 2005)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> But remember, they won't abuse this new power.


 Ah, here in Indiana they've raised talk of the equally elusive "one-year only" tax. Has there ever been a one-year tax that hasn't become permanent?

 Just naming it the "Patriot Act" is so Orwellian as to to be self-parody. It concerns me.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Why is that everytime someone rails on and on about the Patriot Act, they do so in the most vague, ominous terms possible? What, specifically, about the Patriot Act, are we to fear the most. I'm real eager to get some straigt answers as to what is threatening to me personally about the patriot act. If there's something there, I need to know about.
> 
> For example, WHAT specific documents from companies does the FBI now have the power to demand, and by what process do they demand it?
> 
> ...


 
"A nation that gives up freedom for security deserves neither." - B. Franklin


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> "A nation that gives up freedom for security deserves neither." - B. Franklin


"So, this is how freedom dies, with applause..." - Padme Amidala


----------



## Ray (Jun 10, 2005)

With all this concern being raised, I have to ask: how have your lives been negatively impacted by the Patriot act and how will the "expanded" Patriot act change your lives for the <even> worse?

My life hasn't been negatively impacted by the patriot act.  I still do the things that I want to do...maybe I just lead a dull, boring life.  In any case, I'm curious.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 10, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> With all this concern being raised, I have to ask: how have your lives been negatively impacted by the Patriot act and how will the "expanded" Patriot act change your lives for the <even> worse?
> 
> My life hasn't been negatively impacted by the patriot act. I still do the things that I want to do...maybe I just lead a dull, boring life. In any case, I'm curious.


I'm not sure I want to plaster the entire story on the internet...but I do have a _personal_ experience.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 10, 2005)

How have our lives been impacted?

I'm paying cash alot more.
I've stopped visiting my local libraries since the government can now just stop in and pick up a copy of what I read on a whim.  Considering I used to practically live there....

Theres 2.  I also don't like the idea that it will now be possible for LEO to break into my home and rifle through my belongings on a whim (I'm sorry "suspision of possible terroristic activity) and I'm not allowed to know why. No search warrent needed, well, none that -I- am allowed to see. They made their own, no need to convinve a judge and allow for checks and balances.  Of course we know that they've never, ever, ever made a mistake, gone into the wrong house, shot the wrong guy, etc.

I would feel alot more comfortable if I knew that our government was carefully reading these changes, weighing them out and carefully considering the impact.  But we know that they don't have time for that. They've said it. They are too busy to read everything they pass, so stupid laws slip through (like the one giving congress permission to review your tax return which was thankfully caught in time that "no one" knows who put it in.)

The system -NEEDS- it's checks and balances. Without it, there is too much room for abuse of power, and as much as I respect LEO, I don't trust them to all be honorable. Look at LA.  I'll never go there. Seems at least 2-3 times a year theres an issue.  Rodney King was 1, and most recently, 120 rounds fired against an unarmed man.  

I agree, "A nation that gives up freedom for security deserves neither." - B. Franklin

Changes need to be made, yes.  But maybe, just maybe, those changes should be to enforce the laws already in place, and properly train and staff our LEO.  Not give them powers used by the likes of Sadamn and Adolph. "It'll never get that way".  Right.  Not over night, but 1 step at a time. We can't take those steps. We can't let this nation, who so many fought and died for become that which they fought against.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'll make this discussion easier. Lets pick any section of the source document http://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/sunset_bill_draft_20050517.pdf and discuss the relavent objective reasonableness of any particular section someone has concerns with. Reading someone else's analysis of this type of thing I find to be often times deceptive.


I especially am concerned with this section of the document. Perhaps you can help me understand what it's really saying ... 'cuz I am having a hard time understanding it.



> 6 ... Section 224 (a) of the usa patriot acto fo 2001
> 7 ... (Public Law 107-56; 115 stat. 295; 18 u.s.C. 2510 note)
> 8 ... is amended ---
> 9 ... (1) by striking "203(a), 203(c)" and inserting
> ...


So, please sgtmac_46 ... other than the fact that the government seems unable to sequence numbers correctly, what rights is the government taking away from the individual and assuming for itself in that document? Perhaps you can provide a *reasonable* explanation?

I'll wait . . . . . . 

You do understand that a big problem with the Patriot Act is that very little of the language references itself. Most of the language is referencing other federal documents and laws, which means a staff is needed to perform the research required to determing what the damn thing is changing. 

The original law was passed within 30 days of 9/11. The sunset provision was included to provide cover for anyone who might vote YAY! without having read the ACT. 

Much like we have discovered that the many Billions of Dollars spent on security measures post 9/11 has been woefully poorly administered ; such as the radiological scanners that can not make the distinction between a nuclear weapon in a cargo container and natural background radiation in cat litter.


----------



## Ray (Jun 10, 2005)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> How have our lives been impacted?
> 
> I'm paying cash alot more.
> I've stopped visiting my local libraries since the government can now just stop in and pick up a copy of what I read on a whim.


Sounds like a choice you've made.  I pay by check for almost everything & use credit cards when appropriate; and I still visit my local library.


			
				Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Theres 2. I also don't like the idea that it will now be possible for LEO to break into my home and rifle through my belongings on a whim (I'm sorry "suspision of possible terroristic activity) and I'm not allowed to know why....





			
				Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I would feel alot more comfortable if I knew that our government was carefully reading these changes, weighing them out and carefully considering the impact.


I understand that you have concerns and have made changes in your life because you may have some worries.  But has anything happened to you soley because of the patriot act?

I grew up in So Cal and had a couple of my brothers who were in trouble with the law.  More than once did my brothers get beat up and/or hit by cops unnecessarily.  Once a cop entered our house, bowling over my mother and blacking her eye.  None of that was because of the patriot act.

I had a friend who perceived that the gov't was out to get him for no good reason.  He carried a pistol in his car {illegally} along with some coke...he was also a "naturist" who felt like he was persecuted by police just because he would run around places like Griffifth Parked naked.  None of his problems occurred because of the patriot act.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 10, 2005)

Do we have to be passive about the destruction of our civil liberties until each one of us has been personally limited, incarcerated without appeal, FBI-searched for no reason?

Hello, fascist state.


----------



## Ray (Jun 10, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Do we have to be passive about the destruction of our civil liberties until each one of us has been personally limited, incarcerated without appeal, FBI-searched for no reason?


Of course not.  I'm just curious to know about the harm that is being done to us.  So far, my life is unchanged.  I'm trying to assess the impact to my life and the lives of my family.

In my mind, it's one thing to be concerned and another to make a change to what we do because we fear the gov't will unjustly do something bad to us.

I'm all for joining the cause against it if it were shown to actually be determental, but so far I've only seen it to be a good thing.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2005)

There are no "powers" that the patriot act gives "LEO's" (other than the Feds) that I have seen.....


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2005)

http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2005/04/28/opinion/doc4270485c9cce1452103736.txt


> Original critics of the Patriot Act predicted the government could rummage through private citizens' homes without anyone ever knowing a search had taken place. The truth is, in limited circumstances approved by a judge, there could be delayed notification that a court-ordered search warrant had been executed.
> 
> This only can take place if a judge finds that immediate notification could have adverse impacts; for example, if immediate notification would tip off a terrorist that he was under investigation before the investigation was complete.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2005)

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20030921edbuch0921p4.asp



> The Patriot Act strengthened our ability to prevent terrorism in three primary ways.
> 
> First, the act attempts to provide parity between criminal and intelligence investigative law. The Patriot Act allows investigators to use the tools in terrorism investigations that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking offenses. As Sen. Joe Biden, a Democrat from Delaware, said during the floor debate in October 2001: "The FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the Mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly," he continued, "that was crazy! What's good for the mob should be good for terrorists."
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2005)

PATRIOT ACT MYTHS


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2005)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> How have our lives been impacted?
> 
> I'm paying cash alot more.
> I've stopped visiting my local libraries since the government can now just stop in and pick up a copy of what I read on a whim. Considering I used to practically live there....


*Section 215. Access to business records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.*


Summary: Allows the FISA court, in an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, to issue an ex parte order requiring the production of any tangible things.
Myth: "Many [people] are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the 'thought police' can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit." [ACLU, July 22, 2003]
Reality:
The library habits of ordinary Americans are of *no interest* to those conducting terrorism investigations. However, historically terrorists and spies _have _used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. *We should not allow libraries to become safe havens for terrorist or clandestine activities.*
Obtaining business records is a long-standing law enforcement tactic. *Ordinary grand juries* for years have issued subpoenas to all manner of businesses, including libraries and bookstores, for records relevant to criminal inquiries.
In a recent *domestic terrorism* *criminal *case, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that a suspect had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying the suspect as the bomber.
In the 1997 *Gianni Versace* murder case, a Florida grand jury subpoenaed records from public libraries in Miami Beach.
In the 1990 *Zodiac gunman* investigation, a New York grand jury subpoenaed records from a public library in Manhattan. Investigators believed that the gunman was inspired by a Scottish occult poet, and wanted to learn who had checked out his books.

Section 215 authorized the FISA court to issue *similar orders in national-security investigations*. It contains a number of safeguards that protect civil liberties.
Section 215 requires FBI agents to get a *court order*. Agents cannot use this authority unilaterally to compel any entity to turn over its records. FISA orders are _unlike_ grand jury subpoenas, which are requested without court supervision.
Section 215 has a *narrow scope*. It can only be used (1) "to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person"; or (2) "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." *It cannot be used to investigate ordinary crimes, or even domestic terrorism.*
Section 215 preserves *First Amendment rights*. It expressly provides that the FBI cannot conduct investigations "of a United States person solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
Section 215 provides for *congressional oversight*. Every six months, the Attorney General must "fully inform" Congress on how it has been implemented.
On October 17, 2002, the House Judiciary Committee issued a *press release* indicating it is *satisfied with the Department's use of section 215*: "The Committee's review of classified information related to FISA orders for tangible records, such as library records, has not given rise to any concern that the authority is being misused or abused."

There is much *misinformation - even disinformation* - about the supposed use of section 215 at libraries.
On November 3, 2002, the _Hartford Courant_ alleged that the FBI installed software on computers at the Hartford Public Library that lets agents track a person's use of the Internet and email messages. The article even said that individuals' library use could be surveilled even if they weren't suspected of being a terrorist. In reality, the FBI *obtained a single search warrant* to copy the hard drive of a specific computer that had been used to hack into a business computer system in California for criminal purposes. *No software was installed* on that or any other computer in the library. *The Hartford Courant has retracted the story in full.*

Section 215 actually is *more protective of privacy* than the authorities for ordinary grand jury subpoenas.
A *court must explicitly authorize* the use of section 215 to obtain business records. By contrast, a grand jury subpoena is typically issued without any prior judicial review or approval.
Section 215 *expressly protects the First Amendment*, unlike federal grand jury subpoenas.
Section 215 can only be used, in investigations of U.S. persons, to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. A grand jury can obtain business records in investigations of _any _federal crime.
The requirement that recipients of these orders keep them confidential is *based on "national security letter" statutes*, which have existed for decades. (An NSL is a type of administrative subpoena used in certain national-security investigations.)
The details of FISA-related investigations, including requests for business records, are classified. Classified details about the use of section 215 were provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on July 29, 2002, in response to a request by the House Committee on the Judiciary, and to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on January 7, 2003, in response to a request by the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
The new tool improved on FISA's original business-records authority in a number of respects:
It expanded the *types of entities* that can be compelled to disclose information. Under the old provision, the FBI could obtain records only from "a common carrier, public accommodation facility, physical storage facility or vehicle rental facility." The new provision contains no such restrictions.
It expanded the *types of items* that can be requested. Under the old authority, the FBI could only seek "records." Now, the FBI can seek "any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)."

This provision will sunset on December 31, 2005.

 



> Theres 2. I also don't like the idea that it will now be possible for LEO to break into my home and rifle through my belongings on a whim (I'm sorry "suspision of possible terroristic activity) and I'm not allowed to know why. No search warrent needed, well, none that -I- am allowed to see. They made their own, no need to convinve a judge and allow for checks and balances. Of course we know that they've never, ever, ever made a mistake, gone into the wrong house, shot the wrong guy, etc.










*Section 213. Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant.*​
Summary: Allows courts, in certain narrow circumstances, to give delayed notice that a search warrant has been executed.
Myth: "It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner." [ACLU, Apr. 3, 2003]
Reality:
Delayed notification warrants are a *long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades* in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography.
Section 213 of USA PATRIOT Act simply codified the authority law enforcement already had for decades. Because of differences between jurisdictions, the law was a mix of inconsistent standards that varied widely across the country. This lack of uniformity hindered complex terrorism cases. Section 213 resolved the problem by establishing a *uniform statutory standard*. Section 213 is a vital aspect of our strategy of prevention - detecting and incapacitating terrorists _before_ they are able to strike.

*The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant.* The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant." In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous." _Dalia v. U.S._, 441 U.S. 238 (1979). In yet another case, the Court said, "officers need not announce their purpose before conducting an otherwise [duly] authorized search if such an announcement would provoke the escape of the suspect or the destruction of critical evidence." _Katz v. U.S._, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
If the *Otter Amendment*, passed in the House July 22, 2003, becomes law, it would have a devastating effect on our ongoing efforts to detect and prevent terrorism, as well as to combat other serious crimes. This amendment could *tip off terrorists *or criminals to investigations before law enforcement could obtain the needed information to locate their terrorists or criminal associates, identify and disrupt their plans, or initiate their arrests.
Premature notification of a search warrant could result in the *intimidation of witnesses, destruction of evidence, flight from prosecution, physical injury, and even death*.

In all cases, section 213 *requires law enforcement to give notice* that property has been searched or seized. It simply allows agents to *temporarily delay* when the required notification is given.
This authority can be used only upon the issuance of a *court order, in extremely narrow circumstances*. Courts can delay notice only when immediate notification may result in *death or physical harm* to an individual, *flight* from prosecution, evidence *tampering*, or witness *intimidation*.
Under section 213, courts can delay notice if there is "reasonable cause" to believe that immediate notification may have a specified adverse result. The "reasonable cause" standard is consistent with pre-PATRIOT Act caselaw for delayed notice of warrants. _See, e.g., United States v. Villegas_, 899 F.2d 1324, 1337 (2d Cir. 1990) (government must show "good reason" for delayed notice of warrants).
Section 213 is important to law-enforcement investigations of a wide variety of serious crimes, including *domestic and international terrorism*, *drug trafficking*, *organized crime*, and *child pornography*.
In _United States v. Odeh_, a recent narco-terrorism case, a court issued a section 213 warrant in connection with the search of an envelope that had been mailed to a target of an investigation. The search confirmed that the target was operating a hawala money exchange that was used to funnel money to the Middle East, including to an individual associated with someone accused of being an operative for Islamic Jihad in Israel. The delayed-notice provision allowed investigators to conduct the search without fear of compromising an ongoing wiretap on the target and several of the confederates. The target was later charged and notified of the search warrant.
During an investigation into a nationwide organization that distributes marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine, the court issued a delayed notice warrant to search the residence in which agents seized in excess of 225 kilograms of drugs. The organization involved relied heavily on the irregular use of cell phones, and usually discontinued the use of cell phones after a seizure of the drugs and drug proceeds, making continued telephone interception difficult. Interceptions after the delayed notice seizure indicated that the suspects thought other drug dealers had stolen their drugs, and none of the telephones intercepted were disposed of, and no one in the organization discontinued their use of telephones. The government was able to prevent these drugs from being sold, without disrupting the larger investigation.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 10, 2005)

Thanks Tom.  I like MythBustering. 


Unfortunately, falsehoods are more prevaliant than truths. How many people falsely believe that Iraq was directly responsible for 911 for example? If a LEO thinks that the PA gives him certain powers, and then acts on that belief, and the target also believes the LEO has that power, then the PA -has- in fact impacted lives, regardless of it's real meaning and allowances.

I still have to ask though.  Do we need more laws, or would we be better served by better enforcement of what we already have?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2005)

What there is really "new"??

Most of what I have read is already in use and has been for a while. Like the "new" law about delaying notification of warrants....nothing new there.

As I read it most of this stuff is more about "procedure" than making new "law".


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2005)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> If a LEO thinks that the PA gives him certain powers, and then acts on that belief, and the target also believes the LEO has that power, then the PA -has- in fact impacted lives, regardless of it's real meaning and allowances.


I really dont know how to read that one Bob. If I "believe" that I have the right to kick in your door at whim and search your house. And you "believe" I have that right doesnt mean that I dont need a search warrant. Doesnt mean that anything I find wont get tossed. Doesnt mean that I wont be facing a federal lawsuit for violation of your rights....Its always about what the letter of the law says. None of that PA stuff can happen without as much due process as any existing law.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 10, 2005)

You're right.  The evidence will get tossed, and what we "think" isn't always what it "is".
 But. In a situation like that, some will be indignant and fight back. Oh, gee, "Assaulting an Officer". Never mind that said officer was acting illegally. Also, what about those who won't fight back, won't complain, but will just "take it"? Either out of fear, intimidation, or a feeling of "what good will it do?"

 I've heard some interesting tales, from LEO's about their fellow cops. They worry me. I read stuff in the paper. It worrys me. I've had a few less than pleasant encounters. They worried me. I have a problem with putting more power and less accountability, both real and imagined in the hands of LEOs.

 If this new "verbage" is simply intended to clarify earlier, more confusing verbage, then sure, pass it. But, ONLY after a careful examination of it, to ensure noting is "accidentally" snuck in.

 Maybe, if we didn't have situations where trusted officials had overstepped, or outright abused their positions, I and many others wouldn't be so 'paranoid'. 

 I'd really hate to have a flashbang tossed through my window, my door smashed down, my computers smashed, and my body violently wrestled to the ground, because someone failed to note that they had the wrong house, and meant to raid the one next door to me. Accidents happen, but they can be minimized with the proper safeguards...safeguards that all these "new" and "expanded" rules seem to remove or minimize. Theres a reason I sleep with a loaded sword y'know. 

 My opinion is still, rather than all this "expansion", etc, why can't we spend the time properly training our LEO's, properly equiping them, and making certain that they had the backup needed (2 man cars anyone?) to do their jobs efficiently and safely, while educating the public to avoid all the confusion.  You know....stop writing this crap in "legaleeze" and start writing it in Simple English, so "Joe Average" can understand it without 6 years of law school.

 In fact, lets educate the cops on the law while we're at it.  I called several local police stations (West Seneca, Cheektowaga, Buffalo and Lackawanna) as well as Councilmen in Buffalo, Amherst and Lack. and asked them a simple question: "Is it legal to place a paper flyer under a wiper blade on a car?".  I got all different answers.  Some said it was legal. Some said it was not.  I finally ended up calling NYS and got the answer - Misd. Offence, NYS Motor Vehicle Code.  It's illegal, state wide.  But half the LEO I asked didn't know that.  That laws been on the books for years.

 So, how do we expect anyone to keep up with all these new changes, when they can't even know the old ones?

 (Why is it illegal?  It interferes with visibility while operating the vehicle as too many people are too stupid to STOP before trying to remove the paper.)


----------



## arnisador (Jun 10, 2005)

"The truth is, in limited circumstances approved by a judge, there could be delayed notification that a court-ordered search warrant had been executed."

Mark Felt, your phone is ringing.

Secret warrants issued in secrecy is exactly the kind of not-open-to-public-scrutiny thing that worries me.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2005)

Bob..you should have asked me. NYS VTL 375(1) "illegal hand bill" is a violation not a misdemeanor BTW. You are not going to face jail time for placing a hand bill on a car. The same section includes a violation "illegal use of horn", "unauthorized sticker" (those college stickers in your rear window are a no no) , some obscure trailer weight law and a misdemeanor section for "improper brakes" and all kinds of other laws...so you even got a wrong answer there. When you "call a police station" 9 times out of 10 you get a dispatcher who knows little about law or a receptionist.

As to the "educate cops" thing. You will never get cops educated on ALL law. I can handle a robbery, rape, burglary, larceny, common traffic infractions etc. but when it comes to commercial vehicle enforcement I call a traffic unit. Most of the stuff seen in the PA are things handled by the detective bureau (subpoenas, warrants, wire taps, court orders) or the DA's office. I dont see what "educate cops" has to do with the PA. Things like the mysterious "secret warrant" scare have been in use against mobsters and drug dealers for YEARS. This stuff has to be part of an actual investigation, not a fishing expedition. Has to be approved by a judge and has all the due process that has been in effect up to this act. I really see no "safeguards" being removed.

Personally I think that if Clinton had pushed this act with a different name and under different circumstances, when Osama hit us what 2-4 times during his administration? There wouldnt be such hoopla.

Not to get pissy but is the topic switching from the actual content of the PA to how inept LE is??


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 10, 2005)

Heh. I didn't know ya then. (I asked that question in the late 90's) 



> Not to get pissy but is the topic switching from the actual content of the PA to how inept LE is??


 No.  I was just using some examples on how things can be mistaken.  I've got alot of respect for the majority of LEOs, please don't take my comments as intended to bash or slight them.

I'd like to see more on what it really says, as opposed to what I or others think. :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2005)

Heres the justice dept. site on the act. Including its full text.

http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Personally I think that if Clinton had pushed this act with a different name and under different circumstances, when Osama hit us what 2-4 times during his administration? There wouldnt be such hoopla.


Yeah ... like firing missles into Afghanistan and Sudan was just a distraction from ******** accusations anyhow. .. .

Not to mention that Clinton seems to have bombed the WMD right out of Iraq.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2005)

Point being that I believe the angst over this act is as much its association with the president and Iraq as it is over its content. Remember the act was supported by members on both sides of the aisle when it was the Taliban and Osama that were the focus.....


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 10, 2005)

The Patriot Act was passed when the government was in a frenzy to do something, anything, as a response to 9/11.  The legislators admit that they didn't read it (Fahrenheit 9/11 showed that)

As far as what the Patriot Act did to me, well, maybe *I* am irritated by the fact that people can be detained indefinitely on a technicality, as long as the president decides there's a "national emergency."  Has it happened to me?  Not yet...
Speaking of which, we're due for a terror alert.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> As far as what the Patriot Act did to me, well, maybe *I* am irritated by the fact that people can be detained indefinitely on a technicality, as long as the president decides there's a "national emergency." Has it happened to me? Not yet...
> Speaking of which, we're due for a terror alert.


Hmm..this is the only reference to detention in the PA that I can find...isnt as broad as you would like to believe.

Section 412. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; judicial review.



> Once the Attorney General has taken a certified alien into custody, he has seven days to initiate removal proceedings or file criminal charges. If the Attorney General does neither, he is required to release the alien. If an alien has been detained "solely" under section 412, and his removal is unlikely in the foreseeable future, the Attorney General "may" continue to detain him for additional periods of up to six months. Additional detention periods are authorized only if releasing the alien "will" threaten national security or cause harm to "the community or any person."




People like Padilla... there are issues there, I agree. But I dont "believe" that there is anything in the PA specifically that grants any such power.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> "A nation that gives up freedom for security deserves neither." - B. Franklin


Hey, great, more hyperbole, and less facts. Is that what we take for debate on the left? I'm waiting for a specific discussion of relavent sections of the Patriot Act, not one line slogans, thanks for providing the later.  At least you didn't try to rhyme it with "1, 2, 3, 4". 



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Hmm..this is the only reference to detention in the PA that I can find...isnt as broad as you would like to believe.
> 
> Section 412. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; judicial review.
> 
> ...


That's what i'm talking about, Tgrace.  There are a lot of "myths" about the Patriot Act, spread by a lot of people who read second hand documents ABOUT to the Patriot Act, but too lazy to actually READ the Patriot Act.  It's intellectual laziness at it's worst, allowing other people, such as posters on the internet, to GIVE someone an opinion about an issue.  That's why I keep referring to the SOURCE document.  Again, there are a lot of intentional and unintentional lies and distortions revolving around the Patriot Act that can be cleared simply be READING it.  Come on folks, cite me chapter and verse, not a bunch of One Line Hyperbole.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 12, 2005)

From the front page of the Washington Post ... 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8185798/

(excerpt)
*U.S. produces fewer terror convictions than officials claim*

An analysis of the Justice Department's own list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people  not 200, as officials have implied  were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security.
Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law  and had nothing to do with terrorism, the analysis shows. For the entire list, the median sentence was just 11 months.
​


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> _"A nation that gives up freedom for security deserves neither." - B. Franklin_





			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Hey, great, more hyperbole, and less facts. Is that what we take for debate on the left?


A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it. - W. Churchill


----------



## arnisador (Jun 12, 2005)

When the hyperbole is coming from Ben Franklin and Winston Churchill, I listen.

It's more than just what's in the act. It's the slippery slope it may be putting us on that really worries people, I think. First one protection goes, then another, then two more...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 12, 2005)

We can easily secure the nation.
- Require gov. ID
- Make weapon ownership illegal. (guns, knives, swords, sticks, etc.  ALL of em)
- Allow the police to search and seize at will.
- Allow individuals to be held without charge or hearing for indefinate periods of time.
- Only allow protest in controled locations, while surrounded by armed guards.
- Suspend or significantly limit the 1st 10 amendments.

We've established that:
- The cops don't know all the laws, and can't possibly.
- That Congress and other lawmakers pass laws without reading them
- There are many many myths as to what is, and isn't said by the PA.

Does anyone else see that as a danger, or am I just being paranoid again?


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 12, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> . There are a lot of "myths" about the Patriot Act, spread by a lot of people who read second hand documents ABOUT to the Patriot Act, but too lazy to actually READ the Patriot Act. It's intellectual laziness at it's worst, allowing other people, such as posters on the internet, to GIVE someone an opinion about an issue. That's why I keep referring to the SOURCE document. Again, there are a lot of intentional and unintentional lies and distortions revolving around the Patriot Act that can be cleared simply be READING it. Come on folks, cite me chapter and verse, not a bunch of One Line Hyperbole.


And yet, the usa patriot act is a completely unreadable document. As is the supplemental bill to eliminate the sunset provision. As I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread. Plainly, there is no *context* in the usa patriot act. 

The document references many, many other documents; striking words and phrases from those documents, adding words and phrases to those documents, without defining the meaning, of the intention of the change. 

The government simply asks us to trust them that these changes are important to the 'war on terror' (a mythical beast to feed the military industrial complex), and for national security (despite, at best, only 39 people have been convicted of terrorism or national security violations since the usa patriot acts inception).


----------



## Tgace (Jun 12, 2005)

What protections in are we "loosing" in the PA? Everything I have read has been in use against organized crime and the "drug war" for a while. Including asset forfeiture. Why dont the people who wring their hands about this quote some sections from the act that are "unusual" and removing some specific right? There is a lot of soundbyte "the patriot act is Hitler!!" **** going around out there w/o any specifics being put out.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 12, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Just naming it the "Patriot Act" is so Orwellian as to to be self-parody. It concerns me.


  "Patriot Act".....:shrug:

  The Patriot Act is to patriotism
 what MTV is to music and
  what KFC is to chicken!


----------



## Tgace (Jun 12, 2005)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> We've established that:
> - The cops don't know all the laws, and can't possibly.


Did you know thats it illegal to sell a turtle under 4" in length? Agriculture and Market Law...

Thats why the stuff is written down in books. Who here actually thought that cops knew "every" law? To add to it, every year NYS adds/alters to the existing laws. To think that this is something new is erroneous. Its the nature of law. What do you think paralegals do for a living? They research law and legal precedent for attorneys because even lawyers dont know the intricacies of every law. Divorce attorneys know a lot about divorce law but probably little on criminal defense law. Cops know a lot about the laws that they deal with on a daily basis, but when they find something new that they never dealt with before its time to hit the books. Most of the time on the street you know when something is illegal but you still have to consult the law book to get the exact section and sub-section to charge for the offense. My former partner and I were in plainclothes in a local flea-market and saw a guy with bins full of obviously pirated music CD's for sale. Now its obvious that thats illegal, but do you think we knew the exact law and persons we had to contact to sign paperwork? Nope. 

Heres just the consolidated laws of NY. 

The point being that law has been this complex for a long, long time. And in regards to the PA, most of this stuff is just codifying federally what has been going on in law enforcement for a long time; delayed notification of warrants (not new), subpoenas for business records, federal guidelines for pen registers (that they have to go through more process than your local LEO's do to get), making cable communication companies subject to the law the same way telephone and internet companies have been etc. And all of this stuff sunsets in a fairly short time to allow tweaking of the act in a timely manner. The other terrorism related specifics, such as asset forfeiture and detention, dont seem to be too draconian to me.

Whats amusing is all the people who screamed about the lack of intelligence on the 9/11 suspects, the compartmentalization of intelligence, and wondered why our intel/LEO agencies failed to alert on these people. But at the same time dont want any alteration of law to fix those problems and improve/streamline investigative procedure. 

On the other hand there are probably some people in the same crowd (nobody in this discussion that I know of) who would have NO problem rewriting the 2nd amendment of our constitution to their liking....


----------



## Tgace (Jun 12, 2005)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-25-patriot-main_x.htm



> The passionate  and often misleading  debate over the Patriot Act is a big reason there is so much confusion about it.
> 
> The administration's chief spokesman for the act, Attorney General John Ashcroft, occasionally has blurred fact and fiction in giving the law credit for preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. He also has belittled anyone who has questioned the law and played down how it has expanded the power of federal law enforcement agencies to gather evidence in terrorism and intelligence probes.
> 
> ...





> Meanwhile, misleading descriptions of the Patriot Act are seeping into popular culture, further perpetuating the myths about it.
> 
> TV scriptwriters are taking literary license with the act by casting it as the latest interrogation-room weapon for fictional cops.
> 
> ...





> Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a defender of the act, says Justice officials gave the ACLU an opening to attack the law by initially being secretive about how they were using it.
> 
> It wasn't until last fall that Ashcroft revealed that the "libraries" provision hadn't been used. It allows the FBI to get secret court orders for records it says it needs in terrorism or intelligence probes.
> 
> ...


The biggest expansion of federal powers I have found is probably the "nationwide" warrant and subpoena powers. Instead of having to jump local federal district court hurdles, the feds can execute the warrants nationwide..

Section 219. Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism. 


That and this one..

Section 223. Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures. 

are the biggest "new" things I can find. Some of the other stuff like asset forfeiture and "material support of terrorism" are so limited in scope that they dont worry me much.

As a matter of fact Bob, maybe you can use the PA yourself...

Section 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications. 



> Section 217 *made the law technology-neutral*, placing cyber-intruders on the same footing as physical intruders. Now, hacking victims can seek law-enforcement assistance to combat hackers, just as burglary victims have been able to invite officers into their homes to catch burglars.
> 
> Prior to the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, the law prohibited computer service providers from sharing with law enforcement that hackers had broken into their systems.
> Computer operators are *not required to involve law enforcement* if they detect trespassers on their systems. Section 217 simply gives them the option of doing so.
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And yet, the usa patriot act is a completely unreadable document. As is the supplemental bill to eliminate the sunset provision. As I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread. Plainly, there is no *context* in the usa patriot act.
> 
> The document references many, many other documents; striking words and phrases from those documents, adding words and phrases to those documents, without defining the meaning, of the intention of the change.
> 
> The government simply asks us to trust them that these changes are important to the 'war on terror' (a mythical beast to feed the military industrial complex), and for national security (despite, at best, only 39 people have been convicted of terrorism or national security violations since the usa patriot acts inception).


39 people have been convicted of terrorism or national security violations since the USA Patriot Act inception? It only took 19 to hijack Airliners and kill thousands of Americans.

It might help if you actually read it before pronouncing it "unreadable". I'm looking at the document right now, it might be confusing for those not used to reading statutory writting, but it's by no means the most obtuse government statutory document i've ever read. Again, the government does NOT ask us to just 'trust' them, this isn't a secret document. Read it for yourself, and give me the specific chapters and verse you disagree with. I've yet to hear one of you guys actually attempt this, preferring as you apparently do, to operate in one line slogans and hyperbole. As I told you in another post, stop spinning and get specific.  The reality is, I believe you HAVE read the document, and are hard press to quote anything in it that you can get folks worked up about, so you don't actually want to discuss, specifically the document, but merely wish to talk ABOUT the document in vague, ominous terms.  Until someone quotes me some direct material that is concerning (and it's all there in black and white for anyone to do), this is a false issue.


----------

