The Continuing Hunt for PATRIOT Act Abuses

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

One place to look

[nizo]

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

The Headline is Disingenuous

[filmmaker]

1. What about of the one-quarter of all complaints that were outside of OIG's juristiction?

2. What is a rough itemization of the unwarranted complaints? The government's own PDF only gives cartoon-like examples of people who clearly need to adjust their tinfoil hats. This story is highly dubious since the wording, figures, and conclusions sseem to suggest that people who question the PATRIOT act are stupid, crazy or both. A story that would be much more illuminating would be one that investigates the government's report, instead of simply parroting it like a good comarade. But then, where are the names? How would a journalist even go about such a story? And more significantly for the times we live in, how would such a story ever see the light of day in the mass media. It wouldn't, that's how.

It's way past 1984.

"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[Anita Coney]

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

So what?

[garcia]

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

Hopefully

[nate nice]

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

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

What is an abuse?

[Capt'n Hector]

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

</obvious>?

[Neophytus]

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

(not read TFA)

WHAT?!? "Fuss"?!?

[Concern]

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

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

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

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

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

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

USA PATRIOT act abuses not found?

[disposable60]

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

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

Government agency finds they are doing just fine

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Or maybe those who have been abused...

[mobiux]

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

Can you find 'em?

[lukewarmfusion]

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

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

Re:One place to look

[Kainaw]

How about Guantanamo Bay

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

Redux

[daveschroeder]

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

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

And from TFA [volokh.com]:

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

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

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

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

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[Anonymous Coward]

All the real abuses are classified.

I smell a rat

[Radical Rad]

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

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

ACLU Approves Of Overwhelming Majority of Patriot

[Mad Man]

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_02_27-2005 _03_05.shtml#1109530615 [volokh.com]

[Orin Kerr, February 27, 2005 at 1:56pm]

ACLU Approves Of Overwhelming Majority of Patriot Act: One of the odd things about debates over the Patriot Act is that even its harshest informed critics actually only oppose a very small part of the Act; the overwhelming majority of the statute is uncontroversial among the fairly small number of people who understand what's in it. As best I can tell, this has been a well-kept secret for the last 3+ years mostly for tactical reasons: If you want to get the public very worried about a topic to help advance your cause in future legislative debates, you can't very well admit that your objections are actually quite limited.

In light of that, it's good to see that ACLU President Nadine Strossen [aclu.org] apparently has admitted that the ACLU approves of more that 90% of the Patriot Act. As live-blogged at Ex Parte [powerblogs.com], from a recent address by Nadine Strossen at the annual Federalist Society student symposium: "[ACLU President Nadine Strossen] notes that the ACLU only has a few objections [to the Patriot Act, covering] about 12 of the 160 elements of the Patriot Act." While it's too early to know whether this live-blogged report is exactly accurate, note that the statement echoes the view of ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romer [aclu.org] in early 2004 that "much of the Patriot Act is neutral legislation for civil liberties," and that only "about a dozen provisions" are objectionable to him. If anyone has a transcript of Strossen's remarks or a video, please send it on to okerr [at] law.gwu.edu.

I feel compelled to point out that the ACLU does not actually defend the constitution, but simply uses (or mis-uses) it whenver it's convenient to advance their agenda. As Nadine Strossen pointed out in the October 1994 issue of Reason [reason.com]:

Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[pudge]

Therefore, one must conclude you are an anarchist.

The government has many powers with which it can abuse citizens. It sometimes even does abuse those powers. You appear to favor a system whereby the government cannot abuse citizens with its powers, but the only system where such a thing is possible is one in which it does not HAVE those powers. The first power that would have to go is the one most commonly abused: the power to arrest criminal suspects. Which would result in anarchy.

Excuse me for being unconvinced by your "Insightful" (cough) rhetoric.

Re:One place to look

[TGK]

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

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

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

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

That's some catch, that catch-22

[Tackhead]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Catch-22." said the old woman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Catch-22." The old woman said.

- From Catch 22, Joseph Heller, 1961

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[yodaj007]

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

Re: One place to look

[gidds]

So Americans are allowed to torture innocent people, provided they don't do it at home. Lovely loophole.

So it's not illegal...

Ah, well that's all right then. Not illegal. Good. Indefensible, certainly. Morally reprehensible, absolutely. Barbaric, without question. But not illegal. Oh good.

I feel so much safer now.

Just out of interest, I wonder what would happen if, say, Japan had imprisoned a bunch of innocent US citizens at an offshore location, held them there for several years, and tortured them, without even charging them, let alone any other due process? I doubt assurances from the Japanese that their detention was perfectly legal would count for much...

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[CosmeticLobotamy]

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

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

Re:USA PATRIOT act abuses not found?

[M$ Mole]

Mod parent up!

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

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

5 W's

[Doc Ruby]

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

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

Re:One place to look

[Class Act Dynamo]

It's an army base, so it is officially US soil. Anyhow, we should not try to excuse any alleged bad acts that take place at the hands of our soldiers on a techinicality.

Re:One place to look

[Ubergrendle]

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

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

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

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

Re:ACLU Approves Of Overwhelming Majority of Patri

[Ardeaem]

"Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty."

Of course this is true. The Constitution recognizes civil liberties, rather than grants them, in the view of the founding fathers. In this respect the ACLU and the writers of the Constitution agree. You quoted this as if it were a bad thing to have an idea of civil liberties independent of the Constitution.

Re:One place to look

[TGK]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:The Headline is Disingenuous

[filmmaker]

It is you, sir, that comes bearing tripe.

1. I'm fully aware of that. It was the article, and not the bird in the tree outside, that supplied that information to me. My question is: what about those? That's a huge number of complaints. I'm interested in the nature of those complaints. I'm also interested in what the rate of dismissal will be for those cases that fell outside of IOG's juristiction.

2. It is preposterous to suggest that the USA PATRIOT act, and subsequent government reports about it, should be accepted at face value, or at any other value for that matter. The law is flawed, fundamentally, and an investigation of its abuses taken on by a media outlet that would carry weight and credibility (hard to find in these times) is the ONLY way the law will ever be repealed or revised.

This isn't about them being "out the get me". This is about the use of words like freedom and partiot that bear no meaning in an Orwellian scenario. It's not Bush sycophant, on one hand, and total tinfoil-hatter on the other. There are legitimate reasons for real people, whatever that means, to be concerned about freedom in the USA.

Re:Why worry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because no abuses are being found. That is a danger sign... Whenever someone tells you 'there is no abuse', worry.

Well, with your reasoning there is no scenario wherein that aren't any abuses. If there are reports of abuse, then there's abuse; if there aren't reports of abuse, well, then there's still abuse. It's nearly impossible to prove a negative, and while your little anecdote sounds like it was a very unfortunate situation, it's hardly proof of anything as it pertains to the Patriot Act.

But it's funny how the /. crowd demands empiricism for everything else, but then seems to do an about face when it suits them. I can just hear the howling and derision if someone with an anti-/. viewpoint posted something as inane as your post. Just imagine a Christian saying, 'The very fact that we have no proof of God's existence is compelling evidence that He exists.'

Oh well, it just goes to show that people will just believe what they want to believe.

Re:One place to look

[Bun]

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

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

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[homer_ca]

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

Simply misreading me

[Concern]

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

Very trivially:

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

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

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[TGK]

The argument goes like this.

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

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

Should you have a problem with the law?

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

Re:WHAT?!? "Fuss"?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe my cup is half full this morning, but it seems to me that the terrorists are the ones who want to unravel hundreds of years of sacred American values and traditions. Our government, on the other hand, has devised a policy to keep this unraveling from happening. In fact, this policy includes the elimination of this theat anywhere it lives. Agree or disagree with this policy all you want, but please realize that there is little chance of us becomming a Taliban-like state any time soon, which is the goal of our enemy.

When was the last time inaction won a war?

Re:One place to look

[Kainaw]

I think the spin you put on news reporters looking to find a juicy story disengenuous.

...

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

Excuse me while I get out my extra-cynical keyboard...

Do you honestly believe a reporter would go there and come back with a story about good and proper treatment of prisoners? The only reason for a reporter to go there is to get a prisoner abuse story. I'm not saying that there is no abuse. I'm only saying that the reporters go there specifically to get evidence of the prisoner abuse stories that they already have prepared. Modern news is far less about reporting the good and bad. It is about creating a bad story and then searching for anything to back it up. Some don't even go get evidence. They just make up stories and then other reporters use their stories as evidence. It is all a bunch of crap based on crap designed to keep us interested enought to sit through 3-4 minutes of commercials. Maybe I should turn off CNN and start paying for Naked News.

Re: One place to look

[daem0n1x]

You're soooooo wrong, dude! Japan is the World's second economy, they don't have nukes, but they certainly fit in my definition of world power.
And they CAN disrupt trade worldwide, the question is, do they want to? Does anyone want to? I dare you gringos to do that...

Re: One place to look

[Shakrai]

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

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

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

The Continuing Hunt for PATRIOT Act *Successes*

[mojoNYC]

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

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

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

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

Re:So what?

[The_Whole_Fn_Show]

As I'm a firm believer that any law that can be abused WILL be abused (human nature, after all), I couldn't agree w/ you more.

Unfortunately, part of the deal is maintaining some balance between safety and freedom. I would choose freedom any day of the week, but it seems that many, if not most, are willing to make sacrifices of that nature for safety. Though I don't appreciate MY freedoms being sacrificed for THEIR piece of mind, it's majority rule, my friend. Until the rest of the populace gets fed up w/ moving in this direction (which will probably take a gross abuse of this law or one like it), we're in for more of the same.

Rephrased

[tom's a-cold]

"Orin Kerr, Associate Professor of Law at George Washington University writes at The Volokh Conspiracy that the Department of Justice is having trouble finding abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Or, to restate it: "The Department of Justice, which initially demanded the Patriot Act, denies having abused it."

Well, they would, wouldn't they?

Even with the best will in the world, internal investigations by any agency are seldom anything but whitewashes. If it's not an independent investigation, with full access to DOJ information, it has no credibility. Even if a true independent investigation comes up with a dry well, absence of evidence is not conclusive proof that everything was always wonderful-- only that that particular investigation didn't find anything. But if the DOJ denies the appropriateness of outside scrutiny, I for one would be profoundly suspicious of their reasons why.

This is especially true since so many provisions of the Patriot Act allow secret action by the DOJ. Not easy to establish accountability under those circumstances.

Put differently, if you were to ask Ashcroft or Gonzalez if they think they overreached in any way, what's the likelihood that they'd ever admit that they had only been crying wolf and that it would have been far better if the DOJ's authority were more constrained? I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for that.

Anyway, this whole approach is backwards. The principle should be that the DOJ has to positively demonstrate the benefits that have been derived from these encroachments on our rights. Not just the empty assertions that have been made so far. Then, that benefit should be weighed against the real costs to everyone of their draconian policies.

And there are moral principles at stake that supersede any such cost/benefit analysis. For example, if the DOJ has had any role in handing over people to be tortured in other countries, that's not a criterion for extending the Patriot Act-- that's a crime against humanity.

Re:One place to look

[Shakrai]

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

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

Re:One place to look

[rossifer]

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

You are part of the problem.

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

Me.

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

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

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

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

Fucking pathetic.

Ross

Re:The PATRIOT Act Is Not Unprecedented

[argent]

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

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

as Harry Browne always says..

[hitchhacker]

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

-metric

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[pudge]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:One place to look

[Shakrai]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:One place to look

[rossifer]

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

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

Check.

Guantanamo does not fall under US jurisdiction.

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

Check.

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

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

Regards,
Ross

Re:The Headline is Disingenuous

[Voytek]

Head meet sand.

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

Re:Redux

[TheFlyingGoat]

Please point out in the bill where people's civil rights are being violated. If you read sections 213-223, you'll see that EVERY change regarding federal wiretaps simply brings them up to date to include computer and cell phone taps. Additionally, most clauses state that the wiretap isn't valid if the speech being tapped is covered by first amendment rights. Finally, section 223 adds punishment for government agencies and employees if it is found that they have violated any of the preceeding (sections 213-222) requirements for a wiretap, and allows the individual to sue the US government for a minimum of $10,000.

How about you read the act and try being a little more specific. Perhaps the section of the act that you're referring to?

Actually, that is part of this topic.

[khasim]

Since this is about abuses of the PATRIOT Act.

But if the actions in question are "legal", then those actions cannot be an "abuse".

So his analogy would be on topic.

Who gets to define what an "abuse" is?

Gitmo is certainly "legal" if you ask our current government. Yet it is also completely contrary to our stated VALUES of due process and justice.

So, is Gitmo an "abuse" of our justice system?

If "yes", then we can talk about abuses of the PATRIOT Act.

If "no", then the discussion is meaningless because the word "abuse" has no meaning.

Re:One place to look

[sumdumass]

You need to re-read the constitution again. that or get a copy that isn't abridged with the liberal perspective. The constitution clearly states it applies to american citizens and the citizens of the teritories it posesses. Further more laws being made generaly lable the scope to include or disclude the teritories as well as the states. Now when it comes to treaties, Treaties can actualy be made that superceed US law and in effect supperceed the constitution. If it is chalenged it would be thrown out but until then they are law. There is more to play with this then just the constatution and us law.

Somethign that is of further interest is that you are to be trialed by the laws in effect at the place were the crime was imposed. If this is a former state or territory then all is well. as we know most of the prisoners are from other countries and taken for vsrious reasons. If the prisoners were taken by act of war then one set of rules aply were an act of terrorism another would. You could even split the terrorism into even more catagories that mioght fall totaly outside the legal framwork of the US.

BEcause somebody said so does't make gitmo an automatic bad thing. BEcause another person says so doen't make it a good thing either. The p;roblem i have is when people blast the administration for gitmo, All thier gripes can usualy be disqualified with a reasonable legal search. People are being play like a fiddle in this. Sure there might be a couple of abuses here and there but the one brought forth in public light seem to be more publicity stunts then actual problems. Strobe lights and loud music was considered a form of ilegal torture in one complaint. We see people that goto clubs ever night just to get that experience.

Look at the causes of the complaints and dig a little. You will find that every one of them are fringe extream cases that are desinged to get support for a movement rather than being a legitimate complaint. Even the cases were the supream court rulled on were fringe cases. the rulling left more questions then answeres because of this. The bottom line was that certain (not all) prisoners at gitmo had a right to chalenge/petition habeas corpus. EVen the rulling was selective in who it pertained too.

Re:ACLU Approves Of Overwhelming Majority of Patri

[argent]

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

Why is that odd?

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

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

Re: One place to look

[wealthychef]

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

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

Re:One place to look

[eatjello]

Your naivete is touching. You think a nation's entire military mobilizes against the recommendations of both the UN and Congress (the body that supposedly limits the President's power), openly invades not one, but two countries, spearheads a series of legislations that increasingly edge everyday life towards martial law, yet orders to torture these non-persons being detained at Gitmo didn't come down from the top? I think this morale-breaking tactic fits quite well with the ideology of the Bush war machine.
While we're on the subject, what exactly is a terrorist? Someone who enters a foreign country, attempts to overthrow the government of that country, kills citizens of that country without declaring war, tortures hostages that they may capture, etc? Funny, that sounds a lot like the actions of the United States armed forces recently. Perhaps I missed some distinguishing characteristic of terrorists, but perhaps you should hold "zero sympathy" for United States troops killed and tortured, since their actions do not seem very different from every other terrorist group blind patriots love to hate. Either you give them all rights, or you strip them all of their humanity... which will it be?

Re:Why worry?

[farnz]

Third scenario; there are reports of attempted abuse, and that attempted abuse is then dealt with.

I'm not familiar with the PATRIOT Act, so I'm not going to comment on that law at all, but to reuse the psychiatric hospital as an example, there are three scenarios:

1. There are reports of attempted abuse; the management say that there is no abuse, and the reports must be false. In this scenario, the likelyhood of there being genuine abuse is high, as attempted abuse is being reported, but not dealt with, giving potential abusers the feeling that they can get away with it.
2. There are no reports of attempted abuse; management claim that this shows that there is no abuse. Chances are good that either reports are being supressed, or that people are intimidated into not reporting abuse. Again, the likelyhood of there being abuse is high.
3. There are reports of attempted abuse; management look into it, and report back that some staff have been disciplined for it. Chances of abuse in this scenario are low, as whenever it's attempted, it's cracked down upon.

The point is that human nature tends to lead to abuse of power; whenever people claim that no-one is trying to abuse powers, there's something odd going on (either lots of really moral employees, and no bad apples, or abuse being hidden). When abuse is attempted and cracked down on, it suggests that attempted abuse does occur, but is caught and prevented. Of course, I've assumed that penalties for successful abuse are high enough to act as a deterrent in the face of near-perfect detection; if this is untrue, abuse will be rampant regardless, as there's no reason for the bad apples to behave.

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

[The Great Stormrider]

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

Re:One place to look

[yasth]

Umm a lot of them were fulfilling all those conditions at the time of their capture (since a good ammount of them come from afghanistan, and were engaged with open conflict, since al qaeda formed an auxilary to Taliban troops)

Also given the speed of the advance:
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

might apply. (The teritory wouldn't be occupied until it was taken, so if they resisted the advance, they might be under this, it would require some sort of hearing to tie them to a war crime, which in almost no case has been done)

Regardless the major reason they are claimed to be held outside of the Geneva convention is that their status was determined en masse by fiat, and not in any sort of sensible review process, though that is now slowly being corrected.

And none of this really has anything to do with the PATRIOT act.

Re:The PATRIOT Act Is Not Unprecedented

[retrosurf]

The suspension of rights for the wars that you mention are in no way comparable to the suspension
of rights in the Wars on Drugs and Terrorism. The wars that you mentioned had endings, while the
WOD and WOT are the encroachments of a police state.

You say that we cannot afford to give more civil protections to Tony Soprano than we do to Osama bin
Laden. Let me paraphrase that: We cannot give more civil protections to a citizen than we can to a
noncitizen enemy combatant who is suspected of committing mass murder. Surely that is not what you
meant. I would prefer to take the chance of being killed by a terrorist than to risk being tortured by the government.

To misquote the tired old chestnut from B. Franklin, those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a
little more security deserve neither. Franklin was talking about you, wombatcontrol.

Re:The PATRIOT Act Is Not Unprecedented

[cpeikert]

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

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

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

Yes, we do. Your point?

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

"Deep Breath" is doublespeak for "keep silent"

[FreeUser]

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

Everything? I guess not. But it was VERY BAD if you were japanese and you were placed in internment.

And for some of the detained, it was the end of everything. They "died" while being detained ... a euphemism for "they were murdered in American concentration camps," but we aren't really aloud to say that out loud, because we want to continue to believe that America hasn't had, doesn't have, and never would have concentration camps, no matter how hight the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

In any event, for those who are "lawfully" murdered under such toxic laws, these abuses really are "the end of everything." Life will certainly go on (though perhaps only at the microbial level if the worst of the worst were to happen), civilization will probably go on (though as history shows, at some point we'll have one abuse too many, and civilization will fall. The more abuses we heap on, the sooner that day will come), and for most of the detainees, some semblance of continued existence will go on, though certainly diminished in emotional and financial terms from what they would have had had they not been subject to such abuses.

As for America's formerly good reputation for fairness, enlightened, and lawful behavior, that is gone and probably will never be recovered. The PATRIOT act, however, was just one nail in the coffin of that dead ghost, however. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et. al. have hammered a bunch of them in, the litany of which (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and so on) should raise the hairs on the back of the neck of every decent human being, everywhere.

Re:The PATRIOT Act Is Not Unprecedented

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the talk of how the PATRIOT Act is somehow systematically unraveling our freedoms, it's not the only time this sort of thing has been done during a time of war.

Pause right there. There are two assumptions implicit in this opening sentence that underpin the rest of your post. The first is that since this is no worse than has been done in the past, it's fine to do it again now. Most Americans, I think, would disagree. Abuses in the past were still abuses; we should learn from our history instead of repeating it. Second, that extraordinary measures are appropriate in wartime. Are we at war? The obvious answer (to me) is, "yes". But against whom, exactly? How will we know if we've won? When will this war be over? None of those questions can be answered. Neither, therefore, can the question of how long these "temporary" provisions will be necessary. That should make you very wary, if not downright scared, even if (like me) you believe that we *are* at war. Egypt, for example, has a fairly liberal constiution, but has been in a state of perpetual "emergency" for oh, about 30 years now. Not an example I wish our government to follow.

Issues raised by the rest of your post pale beyond those two critical points. But you still have a few fundamental misconceptions.

More recently, library records were instrumental in locating Andrew Cunanan, the man responsible for the murder of Gianni Versace. Yet very few civil libertarians seemed to have an issue with this. If it is acceptable to search library records to find a serial murderer, why not a terrorist. And why a library records so sacrosanct when other private records such as phone conversations and financial records could already be examined by the government under RICO and other laws?

One is with a court-issued warrant, one is not. Not a difficult distinction to make. Police were issued a warrant to search Cunanan's library record in a specific library. Wiretapping and financial records require warrants for a particular suspect and purpose. PATRIOT ACT allow law enforcement to search *all* library records, without a warrant - without even a suspect.

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

Are you trying to suggest that civil liberties are a partisan political issue? I assure you that the people most vocal in opposition to PATRIOT ACT are very much anti-war-on-drugs, and anti-abuses-of-civil-liberties that accompany it. They're probably more likely to oppose than support Bush, but they're not terrible happy with Democrats, either. Civil libertarians don't fit neatly into any pigeonhole but their own.

We cannot afford to give more civil protections to Tony Soprano than we do to Osama bin Laden, which was the state of US law before September 11.

I don't understand this. None of PATRIOT ACT applies to Osama unless he sets foot inside the US. Tony had more protections pre-9/11, and he still does. PATRIOT ACT removes rights from anyone in the US suspected of involvement in "terrorism", or anyone who happens to be in the way of a "terror" investigation (think every other patron of a library whose records get searched). "Terror" is defined quite tightly, and seems to exclude most/all home-grown terrorists - so Tony should be safe.

Re:The Headline is Disingenuous

[Voytek]

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

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

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

[Lead Butthead]

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

hebeas corpus

[prgrmr]

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

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

Re:Take a deep breath...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

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

There's a difference between suspending Habeaus Corpus during a war and doing it during peacetime, which this is. We haven't declared war since 1941.

Re: One place to look

[baudbarf]

Secondly, these people are not innocent.

In the USA, it takes a trial in court to prove that allegation. These people are not given one. How, then, are they "not innocent?" Are you saying that they're guilty until proven innocent? That's certainly not the American Way... in fact, it's strikingly unamerican!

They were captured fighting for a terrorist cause on a battlefield.

For many of them, this is NOT true [bluetriangle.org] (2 [chargepadilla.org]). You've fallen victim to the assumption that they want us all to make, that anyone at Guantanamo is a "terrorist", and all "terrorists" have committed at least one act of violence against the USA. But, I'm afraid, the USA's criteria for labeling someone a "terrorist" is much looser than that:

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

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

Jaywalking is now a terrorist act, as it is dangerous to the life of the jaywalker and is a violation of law.

I'm certain that the USA is not concentrating on filling Guantanamo up with jaywalkers, but according to USAPATRIOT, the act doesn't have to be carried out to be a terrorist. So now, even thinking about it is an act of terrorism. So, no, those inmates are NOT all guys caught red-handed fighting as terrorists on a battlefield.

Re:The PATRIOT Act Is Not Unprecedented

[tom's a-cold]

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

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

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

Some Thoughts...

[carcajou]

Abusing people may not be happening, but that does not mean that the Patriot Act is not stomping all over our rights. You are not "abused" if your free travel is interfered with; but your rights are being interefered with...

So the government cannot find evidence of the government doing wrong? Hmmm...

The terrorists never really have to do anything else in the US other than use rhetoric...did it not occur to anyone in government that one terrorist act was all they would do? Then just make threats to screw up everything here...

Re:One place to look

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the Federal Government need to step in and take yet more power away from the states? The role of the Federal Government should be to assist the states -- not bypass them.

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

Re:Why worry?

[poot_rootbeer]

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

Exactly.

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

If something sounds to good to be true...

Could it be that they cleaned-up really well?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, it's all secret. Your ISP can't talk about Patriot Act actions.

Your local library can't talk about Patriot Act requests.

If you can't fly because you're in a no-fly list, your airline can't talk about the rules.

This proves the law has built-in mechanisms to shield law enforcement not from terrorists, but from accountability.

Re:The PATRIOT Act Is Not Unprecedented

[kokoloko]

For all the talk of how the PATRIOT Act is somehow systematically unraveling our freedoms, it's not the only time this sort of thing has been done during a time of war.

How is the second half of this sentence a refutation of the first half? The fact that Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the civil war doesn't mean that suspending habeus corpus is not a fundemental attack on your constitutional rights. If your point is that these rights will someday be reinstated because that's what happened in the past, then your argument has no logical force. Given the current context, we're not likely to see any roll-back of the powers granted to law enforcement.

We cannot afford to give more civil protections to Tony Soprano than we do to Osama bin Laden, which was the state of US law before September 11.

Ignoring the fact that Tony Soprano is a fictional character, one would expect that as a US citizen he would have certain rights not extended to OBL. As far as I know the Mafia had no more to do with the attack on the World Trade Center than did, well, Iraq. We've had at least 10 years of declining crime in the US, the notion that withouth the Patriot Act, law enforcement was not able to do it's job is completely unsupported. The balance you seek existed before 9/11, and can be reinstated by allowing the Patriot Act to lapse.

Re:One place to look

[Anonymous Coward]

The base is a US military outpost wherein US troops are subject to the Code of Military Justice, a US Law.

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

Umm, no... Actually this is the reason the UCMJ was created, since the US Constitution does NOT extend to military members outside the territories of the US. The UCMJ provides uniform coverage regardless of the location of the service members and in fact has more safeguards and protections than the Constitution for the accused.

Re:So what?

[Phisbut]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution is Supreme Law

[gmcraff]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:The continuing hunt for terrorist threats

[John Newman]

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

While I agree with your fundamental point - that the potential risk of foreign terrorism is outweighed by the real loss of liberty - you have to be honest, that 9/11 really did affect a huge number of people. Beyond the relatives and coworkers of the victims, the lives of just about everyone in New York were directly affected. It probably seemed remote if you weren't there, but it was very real.

However, and ironicallly, I think if you polled those people, you'd find relatively low support for USA PATRIOT. In fact, I think if you polled all the citzens of those cities most likely to be affected by a future attack, you'd find much lower support than in the Heartland-WalMart demographic that is extremely unlikely to ever be targeted by foreign terrorism.

Re:Actually, that is part of this topic.

[JabberWokky]

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

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

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

--
Evan

Mod abuse

[rumblin'rabbit]

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

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

Re:One place to look

[suitepotato]

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

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

[javaxman]

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

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

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

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

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

[MadAhab]

Prosecutors will use every tool available to them, fair or unfair. And that's why an apparent lack of abuses doesn't mean that the so-called Patriot act isn't hurting America. To study this properly, you'd have to find every case where the Patriot act's provisions are being used to fight crime that has nothing to do with terrorism; there are plenty of abuses of this sort because prosecutors will use whatever they can to go after the people they think are guilty.

This is why the Patriot act should be eliminated completely: since its passage, it has been used to tip the balance against defendants who are undisputedly not terrorists. It has not resulted in a single terrorist conviction. Therefore, it's illegitimate use exceeds its legitmate uses and it's bad law.

Americans aren't any safer from terrorists because of the Patriot act, and they are considerably less safe from overzealous prosecutors.

Re:One place to look

[Rei]

D? Hmm, looks like some US troops are in trouble [smh.com.au]... (additional 200 or so articles snipped for space reasons). I guess Iraq should start its own version of Guantanamo and start subjecting US soldiers to sleep deprivation, flashing lights, being chained in uncomfortable positions for long periods of time, extensive use of drugs, and keep them in small cages. Right?

BTW, the Geneva Conventions are hardly the only piece of international law :P

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[DunbarTheInept]

As the PATRIOT Act does not give authorities that power

Yes it does, because it removes the requirement that the government disclose the evidence it is using to make the claim that a person is worthy of being arrested. It allows arrests without full disclosure.

Re:One place to look

[Tassach]

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

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[pudge]

Yes it does

Removing the requirement of disclosure does not equate to legally being able to arrest whomever they wish. If they arrest people without cause, you may not find out because of this new ability, but it doesn't make that action any less illegal. It simply hampers our ability of oversight. This is a problem, but it is not the same thing.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[DunbarTheInept]

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

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[DunbarTheInept]

Exactly. Contrast that with the Patriot act, where proof of probable cause is not necessary for arrest anymore.

Re:Doesn't matter

[biglig2]

Exactly right. I suspect that the FBI et al are pretty decent bunch of guys and gals who are doing their best to keep the free world safe, and so this finding does not surprise me.

But that doesn't change my belief that you should give the state as few powers as you can get away with, because power is dangerous when abused, and people are only human.

I don't really expect that Charles Clarke in the UK would have abused his proposed power of house arrest without involving the courts, but I still don;t think he should have that power. Even now he has to get a judge to sign off on it, I don't believe he needs that power.

Re:One place to look

[timster]

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

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

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

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

Why there are no abuses

[lostwanderer147]

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

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[DunbarTheInept]

I apologise for making the false assumption that you were intelligent enough to see that not giving information to the judges renders their authority irrelevant and thus, in practical terms, they really don't have authority. To reject the bad warrants they'd have to blindly reject all warrants.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[Moofie]

"If so, then by your logic, we should get rid of the vast majority of laws, as they could be abused as often as the Patriot Act is."

Now you're getting it.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[DunbarTheInept]

The difference between "illegal but undiscoverable" versus "legal" is practically nil. For example, lots of places that show tolerance to gays still have anti-sodomy laws on the books - why? because since violations of the laws are not discoverable anyway (unless you are also guilty of indecent public exposure), then there's no practical difference between having the law there and not having it there, so the law goes unused and gets forgotten about.

Re:well Jeremy

[Qzukk]

How can we possibly make everyone happy?

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

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

Re:Take a deep breath...

[Idarubicin]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:One place to look

[egomaniac]

These folks are not being held for "capital crimes", which is a technical definition. In fact, the letter of the law says that we don't have to charge them with anything. The fifth amendment does not come into play. So while your post is well-intentioned, it is not rigorously correct.

It specifically states that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

So by saying the fifth amendmed does not come into play, you are asserting that A) they aren't people, B) they haven't been deprived of liberty, or C) there has been due process of law.

So, which is it?

Re:Forget the PATRIOT Act

[lostwanderer147]

Here's a really nice summary of where the USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional. http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c =130 [aclu.org] Yes, it's from the ACLU, so yes, it's going to be slightly biased, but it seems to be a more objective analysis that normal.

My personal opinion is in line with that of the ACLU, but I can see how the Act could be considered useful as a government tool. However, as far as I've seen, it has not produced any terrorists for the courts to prosecute. All it has done it create major controversy in this country and made a lot of people really worried about their rights.

And, as many people have said, it doesn't matter if they haven't infringed on your rights yet, because by the time they do, it's too late for you to do anything about it.

Re:One place to look

[pmc]

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

And that is exactly the point: "An argument can be made". This implies that there is some doubt as to their status, as obviously the opposite argument can be made. Which, according to the Geneva convention, means that:

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Their status has not been determined by a competent tribunal, and therefore they are being held in violation of the Geneva convention.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[truthsearch]

And let's not forget their wishlist was created BEFORE 9/11. The Justice Dept was asking for these drastically expanded powers since at least the 1990s. These weren't powers specifically requested to fight terrorism. Only when the opportunity presented itself were the powers granted in the name of anti-terrorism. So it's no wonder these powers are being used for a variety of reasons and not just to fight terrorism.

Tassach Re:One place to look

[Psyqlone]

"...it's a list of what the GOVERNMENT can do..."

...yes and no. The Constitution specifies what the government is allowed to do with the consent of the governed.

That portion is rather important

"It says ANY PERSON. That means anyone, anywhere, at any time."

...see, that's what makes me think that you're not reading what you post, because before you went into that bit about "anyone, anywhere, anytime", you yourself posted this:

"...unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;..." (my emphasis added)

Folks, this is what happens when contributors to Slashdot blindly copy and paste. What you just read was more than just a trivial typo or grammatical error. That was a self-documented mis-understanding. If left un-challenged, it could (and probably would) lead to further mis-understanding.

I am not a lawyer (then again neither are you, just a hunch), but if you really want to formulate an educated opinion, do some research about the Constitution on your own.

U.S. Constitution (Gutenberg.org - HTML) [gutenberg.org]

U.S. Constitution (Gutenberg.org - plain text) [gutenberg.org]

Re:MOD DOWN USA Basher

[BasharTeg]

First, you have been trolled by the parent post.

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

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

Why wait until something goes wrong?

[moogleii]

Why is it that we have to wait until something goes wrong before fixing things? Especially considering the relative youth of the PATRIOT Act.

"Well, there aren't any abuses, yet... So everything's A-OK."

... my beefs with the patriot act ...

[ninjagin]

I have some beefs about the thing, frankly, bu the main one is that its so darn hard to know if and where its being abused. I'll come around to this point shortly, but first THE NINJAGIN BEEFS:

The USA-PATRIOT act was signed in the hysterical, paranoid aftermath (within weeks) of the the 9-11-01 attacks. It received broad bipartisan support, naturally. At the time, though, people in podunk towns all across America were deathly afraid that terrorists might fly planes into the local piggly-wiggly or tastee-freez. When a populace is hysterical and paranoid, they'll agree to anything that purports to increase safety or allow law enforcement greater power to identify and lock up the evildoers. Once you've identified a person or group of people as "Evil", you can do anything to them -- even inhuman, unethical things -- because they're not human.

The act allows library and bookstore records to be searched under secret warrant. If such a warrant is served, it is unlawful for the librarian/bookseller to disclose the event or its parameters -- the secrecy must be maintained because you don't want to tip the terrorists off and you can't compromise national security. What if someone's browsing for books about poisons or explosives? This would mean that they're thinking about poisons or explosives, and if they're thinking about these things, they may be thinking about a crime. So what is the secret search trying to find out? It's trying to find people who may be thinking about things that could be related to crime -- thoughtcrime. The Orwellian quality of it is frightening.

The act permits secret warrants to be issued for unannounced secret searches of any and all premises that are the subject of terror-related investigations. Anything can be confiscated or taken, without any public record, as a part of the search. The owner of the premises need not be informed of who did the search (or even that a search took place) or what was taken as a part of the secret investigation. The act basically allows law enforcement/intelligence/covert/homeland security agencies to conduct burglaries of any property in the US without any evidence or charges being brought beforehand. Speculation is all that is required, in addition to the secret sanction of a judge who (as it turns out) is bound by the law to not reveal that the investigation, warrant or subsequent search and seizure of property ever took place.

No-fly and watch lists -- enough has been posted about these already.

To return to my introductory point, so much of what the act allows is so secret that there is no way to determine if abuse has taken place. What's especially alarming is that in the 18 months following the 9-11-01 attacks, sooooo many things (like drug abuse and insurance fraud) were being implicitly associated with terrorism. What were ordinary instances of bad judgement or lawbreaking pre-09-11-01 suddenly became wrapped in terrorist clothes. After passage of the act, its scope seemed to snowball and since we don't have any way of knowing how the growth in scope has been exploited (since its all secret!), we may have unleased a Stasi-style security apparatus under the aegis of USA-PATRIOT.

The whole thing gives me the willies. It's doubleplusungood.

Re:One place to look

[Rei]

So wait a minute... an "ultimate deterrant" has a negative effect? Because, as was discussed earlier, the states with the death penalty have *higher* murder rates than those without.

Re:One place to look

[Anonymous Coward]

Flaimbait? Sure it is. He makes the flagrantly ignorant assumption that all these people are terrorists. There has been no due process, and several prisoners have been released without charge after god-only-knows what kinds of torture. Saying "they're terrorists, they deserve to be there" is simply incitement.

It's all about foo

[kuzb]

If someone told you that you wern't allowed to say 'foo' (and there was no viable reason, other than retaining more than his/her fair share of power) would it matter at all if it wasn't enforced/used? Wouldn't it make you mad that someone had the right to violate your free speech at all?

This is about the principle of the law. It allows governments, at will, to violate your rights. While it may not be immediatly proveable that they are abusing it, the *very fact* that it's there is a threat to americans.

Re:One place to look

[Shakrai]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:One place to look

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'll explain what's wrong with that, no problem.

It's called "due process". It hasn't happened here. People are being detained, subjected to torture, and denied basic liberties, sometimes without good reason.

Look it up - use the BBC, try finding out about the guys who were released to Britain recently and were subsequently released without charge because there was no evidence to back up their detention.

The reason we have due process is to stop abuses like this. What you suggest is that anyone in a position of authority can indefinately detain and abuse people at will. You are misguided to believe this is ok; please, please have a think about what it means, and where it leads - then recall Germany under Hitler.

First they came for the Gypsies; I did not complain because I wasn't a Gypsy. Then they came...

Re:One place to look

[Rei]

Indeed, that is possible, but it's pretty hard to claim that it is an "ultimate deterrant" given the murder rates. And I would think that the "ultimate deterrant" would at least be enough to turn the tide somewhat, wouldn't you? Could you present any evidence that it is any sort of deterrant?

Re:MOD DOWN USA Basher

[canesfan]

"You liberal hippy pot smokers"

I was right there with you riding to glory till you threw the "pot smokers" in. The rest of te post was sweet though!!!

Re:One place to look

[Shakrai]

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

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

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

Re:One place to look

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is, these were all people captured on the battlefield engaged in some kind of resistance or another. There's no need for a trial, there's no need for Geneva Conventions, etc. They were foreign nationals committing organized acts of war against the US, most or all of them weren't in battlefiend dress, none of them are operating as part of a foreign army.

Problem is, that's what's -alleged- it may or may not be the -fact-, there's been quite a lot of people who have claimed to have been rounded up on flase pretenses, because they've pissed off a local warlord, or for bounties being handed out. It got to the point where being a non-american/non-afghani, put you in danger of being detained, regardless of weather you're engaged in the fighting or not.

And while the Geneva Conventions don't say much about how you treat people who fight outside the rules of war, they do say that the determination if someone is a POW or not, needs to be made by an -independant- tribunal

Re:One place to look

[morcego]

And proving that you see all of this as nothing but a game, and that all you can do is try making fun on other people arguments helps you side in what way ?

If you think I'm wrong, make your case. Otherwise, keep your peace, since you are making absolutely no contribution to this discussion.

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[DunbarTheInept]

I'm not lying - I'm pointing out the uncomfortable truth thaat you can't pass judgement on the validity of a warrant when you have no information of why it's being issued. Therefore the authority that the law claims on paper that the judges have, in practice they do not.

Under Jim Crow Laws, blacks were allowed to vote - but that existed on paper only, not in practice. This is much the same. Taken in a vacuum without looking at the rest of the act, it looks like the judges have the authority to deny the warrants - only if you put blinders on and ignore the rest of the act.

Gitmo detainees should have trials

[Sloppy]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:One place to look

[Anonymous Coward]

Your so wrong its pathetic. Do you even engage your mind for one seconds worth of critical thought before opening your mouth?

Mumdouh Habib, an australian citizen wasn't "caught" on any battlefield, neither were dozens of others.

Of course your arguments (like so many arguments that seem to come out of the US) run deep with hypocrisy and can be quite readily applied to your own forces.

I certanly hope you don't get up in arms when contractors in Iraq are detained. Of course you do, because your a stupid mindless hypocrite. Let me help you understand...

The fact is, these were all people captured on the battlefield engaged in some kind of resistance or another. There's no need for a trial, there's no need for Geneva Conventions, etc. They were foreign nationals committing organized acts of war against Iraq, most or all of them weren't in battlefield dress, none of them are operating as part of a foreign army.

Oh thats right, do as we say not as we do.

(from The Watchmen)

[Anonymous Coward]

Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who watches the watchmen?

Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, how about actually addressing the issue that he's talking about? I don't care whether he lied or not, he's saying that if the judge isn't shown the supporting information, his having to make the decision becomes more or less meaningless, as he cannot justify it one way or another.

It doesn't matter how he phrased it, please just address this point?

Re:One place to look

[Vitriol+Angst]

Declaring people enemy combatants is absolute crap. It is a loophole. When we can abuse people based on some legal mumbo jumbo label we have allowed anyone to be abused.

If the various administrations involved had merely been doing their jobs, 9/11 would not have happened. We have done nothing to address the incompetence. If this had been a bank robbery, it's as though we found the sleeping security guard and gave him a machine gun. Then said; "back to bed everyone, we've solved the security problem!"

We should never trust the government to do anything without oversight. Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, or NeoCon -- we should trust anyone. If someone is detained or arrested, they need to see their day in court and it if the government can't produce evidence against them then they should be free to go.

I would rather be afraid of enemy combatants than I would want to be afraid of my own government.

A few years ago, if you had asked me if I would die for my country, I would have said, yes, as long as it was for a nobel cause. Now, I would have to say; "Hell no!" Because I now realize, I don't even know what the issues are. I wouldn't have a clue whether my government was doing the right thing or not.

We have to undo all the secrecy and shine a light on everything yesterday. I can't tell you whether it is incompetence or criminal activity that this secrecy protects. I do know that keeping secret our weaknesses only protects our government and those who wish to do us harm.

Re:One place to look

[Shakrai]

Kill a guard. Kill another prisoner. Teach others that aren't in for life how to be better criminals. Escape and kill.

Again, the purpose of a sentence isn't to punish you for crimes that you might commit in the future. It's to punish you for the crimes that you already committed and were convicted of. Should shoplifters be executed because they might teach other people in prison how to be better shoplifters?

And BTW, in some states you *can't* put someone away for life. There's always the possibility of parole. Texas is like that; that's why they use the death penalty so much. It's the only way a jury can *guarantee* someone leaves prison in a box.

Yes, Texas. Where defense lawyers fall asleep during capital murder cases. If it's actually true that you can't put somebody away without parole, then why don't the people of that state lobby their legislators to close that loophole?

Re:One place to look

[Mandoric]

Okay, let's take this from the other direction. If the Russians come over the north pole like so much bad cold-war fiction, and I take the family deer rifle and head up into the hills, am I:

a) an unlawful combatant. No insignia, taking pot shots at soldiers, when they catch me it's straight to the gulag and that's how it should be.
b) a partisan. While I probably will be dragged away and imprisioned/shot, if my side ends up winning the war I'll be summarily upgraded to a hero and once every few years there'll be a congressional attempt to repatriate me or my corpse. Meanwhile, if they don't, I'll just be another member of a failed, doomed rebellion; still, a fair amount of, if not most, people will consider the treatment of those like me rather harsh.
c) a heroic patriot. Died trying to defeat a foreign invader bent on extinguishing our entire way of living.

Coming from a region of the nation that idolizes men like Ethan Allen and Nathaniel Hale (a leader of an irregular military unit and a caught and executed spy, respectively), there's no way I can morally condone option a. Without making moral judgements about how just a particular cause is, which really isn't a good kind of thing to encode in international law, I'd say the best option would be detention until the cessation of full military operations in that theatre (cough mission successful cough), followed by either immediate release (where peace has been reached with the cause the partisan was fighting for) or a full civilian appeals process, with constitutional rights extended, and release of any partisan who wasn't likely to immediately revert (when the cause he fought for has been scattered or obliterated, as with the Taliban.)

Re: One place to look

[Ender_Wiggin]

Bush could probably go on TV, holding up a closed and bound folder, saying "in this folder, is classified evidence that John Kerry conspired with Osama Bin Laden. I cannot reveal the source of this information, but it is enough that I order him designated an enemy combatant and shipped off to Guantanamo Bay immediately. Oh, and Howard Dean too, he has information as a witness." What could legally prevent him from doing this, or is there any oversight?

Possibly because they cover their tracks.

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

If you try and find out about President Bush's arrest and conviction record you have a hard time. The CIA is doing a purge of de-classified information, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4535175

If you research the Bush Family history back a few generations where Congress had to intervene because of War Profiteering (seeling goods to the other side of a war we were fighting), and some of the original moneys to build some "synthetic fuel" plants in Germany that were later made famous for other reasons. You can see that is is easier although time consuming to cover your tracks and sanitize history.

This presidency has the reputation of being the most closed with regard to sharing information. That is our publicly elected representative does not want us to interfere with his proper running of government. But aren't we suposed to audit his business dealing?

My point is that with the new powers given in the Patriot act, it may be hard to get to the evidence of abuse as that would be classified information and not availble possibly even with the use of the Freedom of Information act powers.

If all else fails, shred the evidence, whoever they are, after all we don't want to look bad on camera do we. Is my collar straight? Smile

They're not looking hard enough

[FrancisNey]

The so-called Patriot Act is definitely being abused. I have been placed on the no-fly list. Because it is secret, I can not find out who placed me on it or why and there are no procedures to challenge the listing.

I'm pretty sure I'm there in retaliation for political activities that are covered under the First Amendment, but the Bill of Rights is completely meaningless under the Bush Regime.

Re:They're not looking hard enough

[ChaoticLimbs]

Um, sir, USA PATRIOT act has nothing to do with the NOFLY list at all. That's separate legislation which was passed much earlier. And your claims are completely baseless, politically motivated chicanery without citing names, places, etc. I mean, anyone can claim the government is persecuting them, but it takes a class A narcissist to think that the FBI is targeting them because they don't like Bush. Seriously, like 49% of the US doesn't like the guy, where are the concentration camps? The arrests of people for lawful activity? Yeah, I thought so. I was told that my rights were being violated DAILY by one of you chicken-little assholes, and when I actually investigated the person arrested in the story, I found an angry socialist who laid down in the road blocking traffic during a demonstration, and refused to move when asked to by the police. Let's just have a little refresher on what is and is not covered by the Bill of Rights, okay? You can talk all you want, wave banners, print leaflets, but NOTHING gives you the right to deny travel or movement, or use of public resources, to others in order to make your points. It's so simple- your rights to express yourself explicitly END when you use them to deny me my rights. You see? Civil disobedience is not protected! So, I'm curious, what radical marxist eco-terrorist group do you belong to / burn down facilities for? Because really that's what it takes. You have to be associated with an ARMED VIOLENT extremist group. And that activity is not protected by the first amendment. Because if you deny others the right to be secure in their persons or to keep their property, you forfeit your own rights in the process.