http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0
Are we about to lose civil rights all in the name of the war on terrorism?
Good article. Although I don’t think from the look of the banners on their website they are nonbiased.
A lot of this “update” seems to have to do with the securing of information. It will most likely impact the media trying to “expose” issues. It will also most likely restrict information to potential terrorists. I don’t think that’s all bad. Perhaps if the media could show discretion they would be trusted more.
I respect privacy, and the Bill of Rights, I am not sure if this update would impare those rights. It seems to say it would make the process for obtaining a warrant more streamlined. Is that bad? Vacate consent orders against profiling is a great idea. It specifically exempts racial profiling so the bigots are not getting a free pass. The Isrealis already do this and it is effective.
Finally expatriating terrorists. Seems like a no brainer. I mean if you plot against the country and plan to kill it’s citizens, isn’t that one of the softest punishments you could think of. The potential for abuse may be present but the intent seems well meaning.
BB got a legal opinion on this?
Interesting, but I haven’t heard anything about this from any other sites, including the Libertarian sites that are pretty strongly anti-Patriot Act. That makes me think that perhaps there is less to the story than that website represents.
Some of the Patriot Act provisions are set to expire this year, so irrespective of whether the proposed legislation the article is talking about is introduced, there will definitely be a lot of focus on the Patriot Act in the near future.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Interesting, but I haven’t heard anything about this from any other sites, including the Libertarian sites that are pretty strongly anti-Patriot Act. That makes me think that perhaps there is less to the story than that website represents.
Some of the Patriot Act provisions are set to expire this year, so irrespective of whether the proposed legislation the article is talking about is introduced, there will definitely be a lot of focus on the Patriot Act in the near future.[/quote]
One of the reasons many haven’t heard of this, as Dr. David Cole mentioned, is because they attempted to keep this under wraps by claiming that there were no revisions. It is just now coming to light what these revisions are. Also, as far as obtaining a warrant and keeping someone without bail, YES, that creates large concern for many. My suggestion is that this not be looked at as "what they plan to do against “THEM”, and more looked at as far as "how does this have the potential to affect “us” if abused. Unless some of you have some weird blind faith in all leaders of this country, being skeptical of any act that gives the government more power than it already has would be the prudent thing to do.
Is this being taken lightly simply because it was proposed by republicans?
They can already hold you as long as they like as a “material witness,” and that predates the PATRIOT Act.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/21/tax.provision/index.html
The purported culprit: Ernest Istook
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Interesting, but I haven’t heard anything about this from any other sites, including the Libertarian sites that are pretty strongly anti-Patriot Act. That makes me think that perhaps there is less to the story than that website represents.
Some of the Patriot Act provisions are set to expire this year, so irrespective of whether the proposed legislation the article is talking about is introduced, there will definitely be a lot of focus on the Patriot Act in the near future.
One of the reasons many haven’t heard of this, as Dr. David Cole mentioned, is because they attempted to keep this under wraps by claiming that there were no revisions. It is just now coming to light what these revisions are. Also, as far as obtaining a warrant and keeping someone without bail, YES, that creates large concern for many. My suggestion is that this not be looked at as "what they plan to do against “THEM”, and more looked at as far as "how does this have the potential to affect “us” if abused. Unless some of you have some weird blind faith in all leaders of this country, being skeptical of any act that gives the government more power than it already has would be the prudent thing to do.
Is this being taken lightly simply because it was proposed by republicans?
[/quote]
It will be taken lightly until it looks like it might actually be introduced, at which point it will be examined, debated, etc.
You can’t get all wound up about every piece of legislation someone claims has been drafted, or you will be wound very tightly indeed.
[quote]Limbic wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/21/tax.provision/index.html
The purported culprit: http://www.nndb.com/people/094/000038977/[/quote]
That is very disturbing – where did you see info that they think it was Instook?
Go to: http://www.dailyrotten.com
Scroll down the page to the last entry for Monday, November 22, 2004. They usually follow-up their entries so check back in with them as the issue evolves.
Also:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/20/tax.returns.ap/index.html
Referred to as the “Instook Amendment”.
The media isn’t supposed to show discretion, it is supposed to keep the populace informed so that the government can’t get away with nonsense!
At least we don’t live in France…
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_11_21.shtml#1101364148
Civil Liberties and the [French] War on Terror:
According to today’s New York Times,
[Begin NYT excerpt] People . . . can be imprisoned [merely] for association with terrorists; a woman has been in jail for nearly a year awaiting trial on charges of knowing of a plot by her son, who is still under investigation. [End NYT excerpt]
Haven’t heard about this case? Thinking of calling your Congressman? Not so fast ? turns out that this is happening over in France. And as the Washington Post reported earlier this month, such tactics aren’t even controversial among the French citizenry:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17082-2004Nov1.html
[Begin WaPo excerpt] Armed with some of the strictest anti-terrorism laws and policies in Europe, the French government has aggressively targeted Islamic radicals and other people deemed a potential terrorist threat. While other Western countries debate the proper balance between security and individual rights, France has experienced scant public dissent over [its] tactics. . . .
. . .
France has embraced a law enforcement strategy that relies heavily on preemptive arrests, ethnic profiling and an efficient domestic intelligence-gathering network. French anti-terrorism prosecutors and investigators are among the most powerful in Europe, backed by laws that allow them to interrogate suspects for days without interference from defense attorneys. [End WaPo excerpt]
Public debates about the war on terrorism are filled with lots of delicious ironies. The fact that the French government has many powers that are orders of magnitude greater than anything in the Patriot Act surely ranks up as one of the better ones.
Also ironic is the fact that the French government has had these powers since long before 9/11. Although the French government took advantage of the 9/11 attacks to expand the government’s powers in a law passed within a week of the Patriot Act ( BBC News | EUROPE | France adopts new terror law ), my understanding is that most of its powers date back to a law passed in 1986.
It’s also worth noting that in the French system, judges don’t serve as a check that can monitor potential abuses of the executive branch ( Inquisitorial system - Wikipedia ). Rather, French judges work closely with investigators and themselves are in charge of gathering the evidence:
[Begin WaPo excerpt] Over the past decade, [a single anti-terrorism judge in France] has ordered the arrests of more than 500 people on suspicion of "conspiracy in relation to terrorism," a broad charge that gives him leeway to lock up suspects while he carries out investigations.
"There is no equivalent anywhere else in Europe. This provision is very, very efficient for judicial rule in tackling terrorist support networks," [the judge] said in an interview. "Fighting terrorism is like the weather. You have high pressure zones and low pressure zones. Countries that have low pressure zones" attract terrorism. [End WaPo excerpt]
On this Thanksgiving Day, let’s all give thanks that we live in a country that respects civil liberties a lot more than that.
Vroom
The media stumbles accross information that puts peoples life at risk. A discreet mention to the Government Agency involved shows intelligence and foresight rather then blind ambition.
For example: Coder breaking as reported in the Chicago times during WW2. That story cost thousands of lives. For what.
How about breaking the story that we could track Bin-Laden by his Satellite Phone. What possible service did that bring to anyone except Bin-Laden.
Contingency plans for a refinery that can only be given out if you have a need to know what they are seems to be to be common sense. The media fights it. Why? Those who live nearby and first responders need to know this information. The head of the “Muslim Brotherhood” in Egypt does not.
hedo:
You are exactly correct!
Durning World War Two the press used an enormous amount of discretion in order to protect our troops.
The relationship between the press and the government changed after Nixon and Watergate in 1973. It can be argued that prior to that point in time the press acted far more responsibly when it came to matters of national security.
Look, while more discretion would be nice, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle, even if you are a conservative.
How about prosecuting the individuals that are leaking this information to the media. Going after them would send a signal without trying to muzzle the media.
The media is one of the checks in your system of checks and balances. Remove the checks and eventually you will get runaway government happily giving it to a bent over populace.
You can either go change your rules, chase after the real criminals or bitch and moan about the media being one of the problems in society when it is actually serving a vital purpose.
Why oh why are conservatives always crying about things they disagree with as if those things themselves were at fault. The media is not the problem. PETA is not the problem.
Just let go and let other people do whatever the hell they want, as long as they do it within the confines of the law. Bunch of overbearing nose up our asses interfering busybodies.
Yes, I’m a liberal. Unless I’m breaking a law, fuck off and let me do whatever the hell it is I want to do. This goes for the patriot act part X as well. Live free or die!
vroom:
Yes, how nice…just let everyone do whatever…
Naive little boys skipping down the street (La la la la la…)
vroom said: “The media is not the problem. PETA is not the problem.”
Once again you finish defending two liberal organizations…but wait…you are out of the closet now: “Yes I’m a Liberal.” It is appropriate that today of all days you stated you are a liberal with no qualifiers. I’m thankful for that!
Hope you are having a nice Thanksgiving…seriously.
Zeb
Zeb,
I’ve figured it out. You are anti-Freedom. Conservatives are simply anti-Freedom.
How simple. I figure, let any law abiding person or entity do what it wants within the law… otherwise known as freedom. You attack me for it.
How you can be anti-Freedom without being anti-American, I don’t know. If you figure out, let me know. I think we have a lot of anti-Freedom crusaders out there right now.
[quote]vroom wrote:
How simple. I figure, let any law abiding person or entity do what it wants within the law… otherwise known as freedom. You attack me for it.
[/quote]
As Montesquieu said, “Freedom is being able to do that which the law does not forbid.” That’s a pretty weak notion of freedom, however, and Constant pointed out that on TOP of that, freedom was also having certain rights that could NOT be abridged by any governmental act.
As far as France goes, I always knew they sucked.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb,
I’ve figured it out. You are anti-Freedom. Conservatives are simply anti-Freedom.
How simple. I figure, let any law abiding person or entity do what it wants within the law… otherwise known as freedom. You attack me for it.
How you can be anti-Freedom without being anti-American, I don’t know. If you figure out, let me know. I think we have a lot of anti-Freedom crusaders out there right now.[/quote]
I agree. Trying to put a muzzle on news is like giving the government free reign to basically get away with anything it chooses. Somehow, this is ok now simply because Republicans are currently in majority. As was said, there need to be harsher rules for LEAKING information if you are bound to secrecy on an issue and not duct tape placed over the mouths of the media. For every bad story that may hurt someone, there are also those that have helped people simply because the news was an outlet. It is ridiculous now that many are preaching an end to the freedom of speech as if this will solve the world’s problems. If anyone follows history at all, they will know that silencing that outlet will lead to more problems, not less. No one disagrees that TACT needs to be used in reporting. Every single move of our military does NOT need to be posted across CNN and FOX news every time a soldier makes a life or death decision. That doesn’t mean you throw the baby out with the bath water simply because he peed in it.
Hey ProfessorX!!!
Happy Thanksgiving!!!
Ever get tired of constant whining?
How about an alternative to the Patriot Act that is feasible?
Are you capable of anything but criticism?
Please tell me how we should weed out the terrorists.
I am very curious.
Thanks!!!
JeffR