Politics: Patriot Act to be Expanded

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.
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
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.
 
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?
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.)
 
"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.
 
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??
 
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 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.
 
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.....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

[/u]

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.
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.
 
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 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
 
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...
 
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?
 
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).
 
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.
 
Back
Top