Patriot Act to be possibly expanded

[rhadamanthus]

http://news.com.com/2061-10789_3-5736302.html?part=rss&tag=5736302&subj=news

June 7, 2005 7:22 PM PDT
Senate panel votes to expand Patriot Act

Forget scaling back the Patriot Act.

Instead, the controversial post-9/11 law would be expanded to give the FBI new powers to demand documents from companies without a judge's approval, according to a vote late Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence committee.

The final text of the Senate Intelligence committee's amendments was not immediately available (here's a draft dated last month), and reporters were barred from the secret session during which the vote was held.

But the proposal appears to grant the FBI more power to seek information from banks, hospitals, libraries, and so on through "administrative subpoenas" without prior judicial oversight. The subpoenas are only supposed to be used for terrorism or clandestine intelligence cases.

One other detail: the FBI may designate that the subpoenas are secret and punish disclosure of their existence with up to one year in prison (and five years if the disclosure is deemed to "obstruct an investigation.")

In testimony in April, FBI director Robert Mueller said: "The administrative subpoena power would be a valuable complement to (existing) tools and provide added efficiency to the FBI's ability to investigate and disrupt terrorism operations and our intelligence gathering efforts."

The ACLU denounced the Senate Intelligence committee's vote. "In a move antithetical to our Constitution, the new 'administrative subpoena' authority would let the FBI write and approve its own search orders for intelligence investigations, without prior judicial approval," the group said in a statement. "Americans have a reasonable expectation that their federal government will not gather records about their health, their wealth and the transactions of their daily life without probable cause of a crime and without a court order."

In theory, the expand-the-Patriot-Act bill now goes to the Senate floor for a vote. But some negotiations are likely to take place between the Intelligence and Judiciary committee, and that could affect the final form of the legislation.
-------------------------------

Hooray for our new police state.

[tolne57]

So now they want to be able get information without going through a judge and then put people in jail if they talk about it? What happened to the whole checks and balance premise?

[mc mark]

911 changed everything

[rhadamanthus]

So now they want to be able get information without going through a judge and then put people in jail if they talk about it? What happened to the whole checks and balance premise?

Heck, what happened to civil rights period?

We threw it all out to fight terrorists. We gave up our freedoms to defend our freedoms from the freedom-hating terrorists. Someone stop the madness. :(

[Invisible Fan]

One other detail: the FBI may designate that the subpoenas are secret and punish disclosure of their existence with up to one year in prison (and five years if the disclosure is deemed to "obstruct an investigation.")

If the terrorists knew about the subpoenas, we'd lose the War on Terror. :rolleyes:

Chalk up another on the list of the admin's blatant disregard for the Freedom of Information Act.

[SWTsig]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

[rhester]

Heck, what happened to civil rights period?

We threw it all out to fight terrorists. We gave up our freedoms to defend our freedoms from the freedom-hating terrorists. Someone stop the madness. :(

All part of the process to form a more perfect dictatorship.

[wnes]

All part of the process to form a more perfect dictatorship.

"Perfect dictatorship" is indeed an interesting oxymoron.

Countries like South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia were ruled for long times by some forms of authoritarian leaders. Their economies thrived. The citizens generally enjoyed peace and prosperity while the governments had relatively low corruptions and scandals.

On the other hand, "democratic and free" countries like Mexico didn't do nearly as well - manifested by high crime rates, rampant government corruptions at many levels, and generally unappreciable economy.

Question is, do we need any form of "perfect" dictatorial government in US to survive the geopolitical uncerntainties of our life?

[rhester]

"Perfect dictatorship" is indeed an interesting oxymoron.

Countries like South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia were ruled for long times by some forms of authoritarian leaders. Their economies thrived. The citizens generally enjoyed peace and prosperity while the governments had relatively low corruptions and scandals.

On the other hand, "democratic and free" countries like Mexico didn't do nearly as well - manifested by high crime rates, rampant government corruptions at many levels, and generally unappreciable economy.

Question is, do we need any form of "perfect" dictatorial government in US to survive the geopolitical uncerntainties of our life?

Nope.

Money can't buy me love.

I don't trust dictators even if they help the economy.

In a nation diverse as America we are being held together now by a thin thread to our Constitutional protections against tyranny. Let the Patriot Act expand and we move a few steps down the road...

Immigrants never flock to dictatorships looking for freedom, opportunity and civil liberty.

It is too late anyway.

[pirc1]

"Perfect dictatorship" is indeed an interesting oxymoron.

Countries like South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia were ruled for long times by some forms of authoritarian leaders. Their economies thrived. The citizens generally enjoyed peace and prosperity while the governments had relatively low corruptions and scandals.

On the other hand, "democratic and free" countries like Mexico didn't do nearly as well - manifested by high crime rates, rampant government corruptions at many levels, and generally unappreciable economy.

Question is, do we need any form of "perfect" dictatorial government in US to survive the geopolitical uncerntainties of our life?


Dictatorial government would function much more efficiently than democracy if it is ruled by a competent dictator. The problem is many dictators are not compentent, check the history of mankind, how many great kings or emperors are there? I would hate to imagine what would happen if Bush was the emperor of the United States for the rest of his life.

[wnes]

Twenty some years ago, there was this political humor on a magazine which struck me profoundly.

A (West) German, an English, a French, and a Russian debate in a casual gathering what is happiness in life.

The German talked first about his concept of happiness. The English ridiculed it as being rigid and narrow-minded and presented his view. The French, of course, laughed at both - any happiness without romance is meaningless to him.

Finally, the Russian spoke: "You are all wrong. Happiness is when you heard someone knocking on your door, you opened it, two man announced: "Igor Ivanov, you are arrested", you replied: "I am sorry, but Igor Ivanov lives next door"."

[ROXTXIA]

9/11 was the best thing that could have happened for this President.

Patriot Act. Gotta love that name. Always under the guise of "freedom." When George uses that word, I cringe, because freedom is not something that really interests him.

Going after Saddam. Not that we're gonna miss the guy, but what price will we continue to pay to remove a dictator that couldn't even threaten his own neighbors? And I bet Daddy isn't even proud: the little turd too badly wanted to step out of Daddy's shadow. Now we get to proselytyze (sp?) in the name of Christ and the good ole U.S. of A. And getting our young people killed in the process, while ignoring (or even establishing) dictators friendly to the U.S. (see also, press blackout; any country ending in -stan; Africa [list of countries]).

Environmental rollbacks, deregulation, etc. Argue for or against it, fine. But wartime Presidents get a lot of slack in this regard. Things are either ignored or not really talked about publicly. "You're rolling back environmental regulations that help keep air and water clean etc etc!" "Hey, we're at war." "Oh, yeah, sorry. Where are my priorities?"

Oh, well. This is my punishment. The conservatives had Clinton to hate for eight years.

[rhadamanthus]

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050610/ap_on_go_co/uncivil_hearing

GOP Chairman Walks Out of Meeting
WASHINGTON - The Republican chairman walked off with the gavel, leaving Democrats shouting into turned-off microphones at a raucous hearing Friday on the Patriot Act.

The House Judiciary Committee hearing, with the two sides accusing each other of being irresponsible and undemocratic, came as President Bush was urging Congress to renew those sections of the post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism law set to expire in September.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the panel, abruptly gaveled the meeting to an end and walked out, followed by other Republicans. Sensenbrenner declared that much of the testimony, which veered into debate over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, was irrelevant.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., protested, raising his voice as his microphone went off, came back on, and went off again.

"We are not besmirching the honor of the United States, we are trying to uphold it," he said.

Democrats asked for the hearing, the 11th the committee has held on the act since April, saying past hearings had been too slanted toward witnesses who supported the law. The four witnesses were from groups, including Amnesty International USA and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, that have questioned the constitutionality of some aspects of the act, which allows law enforcement greater authority to investigate suspected terrorists.

Nadler said Sensenbrenner, one of the authors of the Patriot Act, was "rather rude, cutting everybody off in mid-sentence with an attitude of total hostility."

Tempers flared when Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., accused Amnesty International of endangering the lives of Americans in uniform by referring to the prison at Guantanamo Bay as a "gulag." Sensenbrenner didn't allow the Amnesty representative, Chip Pitts, to respond until Nadler raised a "point of decency."

Sensenbrenner's spokesman, Jeff Lungren, said the hearing had lasted two hours and "the chairman was very accommodating, giving members extra time."

James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, speaking immediately after Sensenbrenner left, voiced dismay over the proceedings. "I'm troubled about what kind of lesson this gives" to the rest of the world, he told the Democrats remaining in the room.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, in a statement, said the hearing was an example of Republican abuse of power and she would ask House Speaker Dennis Hastert to order an apology from Sensenbrenner.
------

Democracy my ass.

[Saint Louis]

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050610/ap_on_go_co/uncivil_hearing

GOP Chairman Walks Out of Meeting
WASHINGTON - The Republican chairman walked off with the gavel, leaving Democrats shouting into turned-off microphones at a raucous hearing Friday on the Patriot Act.

The House Judiciary Committee hearing, with the two sides accusing each other of being irresponsible and undemocratic, came as President Bush was urging Congress to renew those sections of the post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism law set to expire in September.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the panel, abruptly gaveled the meeting to an end and walked out, followed by other Republicans. Sensenbrenner declared that much of the testimony, which veered into debate over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, was irrelevant.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., protested, raising his voice as his microphone went off, came back on, and went off again.

"We are not besmirching the honor of the United States, we are trying to uphold it," he said.

Democrats asked for the hearing, the 11th the committee has held on the act since April, saying past hearings had been too slanted toward witnesses who supported the law. The four witnesses were from groups, including Amnesty International USA and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, that have questioned the constitutionality of some aspects of the act, which allows law enforcement greater authority to investigate suspected terrorists.

Nadler said Sensenbrenner, one of the authors of the Patriot Act, was "rather rude, cutting everybody off in mid-sentence with an attitude of total hostility."

Tempers flared when Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., accused Amnesty International of endangering the lives of Americans in uniform by referring to the prison at Guantanamo Bay as a "gulag." Sensenbrenner didn't allow the Amnesty representative, Chip Pitts, to respond until Nadler raised a "point of decency."

Sensenbrenner's spokesman, Jeff Lungren, said the hearing had lasted two hours and "the chairman was very accommodating, giving members extra time."

James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, speaking immediately after Sensenbrenner left, voiced dismay over the proceedings. "I'm troubled about what kind of lesson this gives" to the rest of the world, he told the Democrats remaining in the room.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, in a statement, said the hearing was an example of Republican abuse of power and she would ask House Speaker Dennis Hastert to order an apology from Sensenbrenner.
------

Democracy my ass.

Sort of sounds like a scene out of Animal House. I can see Dean Wormer now baning the gavel.

Are we all on double secret probation?

[AggieRocket]

911 changed everything

I am so tired of hearing that 9/11 changed everything. 9/11 was not only a physical attack on us, but it was also an attack on our principles, our values, and our way of life. I like to believe that something sets us apart from everyone else today and every other power in history. We have wealth and might today, but so did many nations and empires before us. The difference between us and the powers that preceded us is that through our might and our wealth, we are also just. We are fair, honest, and equitable. We have values and principles that guide us. When people say that 9/11 changed everything, they are saying that those values, freedoms, and principles that define us are no longer applicable. That is sad.

As bad as 9/11 was, 9/11 was not the worst tragedy this country has faced. We overcame a Civil War. We overcame a Depression. We overcame slavery and segregation. We overcame the Cold War. We made many mistakes, but we didn't sacrifice our American identity. No event in our history "changed everything." The only times we changed, we changed in the name of progress and we emerged better. We went towards Emancipation; not away from it. We went towards integration, not segregation. The analogy continues.

When we say 9/11 changed everything, that is a victory for our enemies.

[AggieRocket]

9/11 was the best thing that could have happened for this President.



As much as I hate saying that, you're right. This was a divided country before 9/11. 50% of the population didn't even consider GWB the legitimate President of the United States. It was Kennedy-Nixon all over again.

9/11 put that partisanship on the back burner. Nobody cared who was in power. We were all Americans; end of story. Of course, GWB couldn't hold on to that unity. Between the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc., we are a divided country again.

[giddyup]

'The public strongly backs the Bush position, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Fifty-nine percent of those surveyed said the act should be renewed, while 39 percent said it should not."

[bigtexxx]

'The public strongly backs the Bush position, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Fifty-nine percent of those surveyed said the act should be renewed, while 39 percent said it should not."


Exactly. The "end of the world" liberal crowd around here lives in their own little fantasy land where they bash Bush 24/7 without thinking twice about the topic at hand. Critical thinking is not taking place. I'd be interested to hear how many of those who have lost loved ones to terror (9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq) are opposed to this.

[FranchiseBlade]

Exactly. The "end of the world" liberal crowd around here lives in their own little fantasy land where they bash Bush 24/7 without thinking twice about the topic at hand. Critical thinking is not taking place. I'd be interested to hear how many of those who have lost loved ones to terror (9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq) are opposed to this.
First you bemoan the lack of critical thinking, and then want people with emotions involved to such a level that it would seemingly preclude critical thinkging to give us expert testimony? :p

To critically analyze the latest report it looks like the hijackes weren't successful because the FBI or CIA lacked the authority to do what needed to be done, it looked like it as agency terroritorialism, and lack of communication between agencies that allowed them to procede with their plans.

I would be willing to bet that those who lost loved ones to terror would to address the real issues and not be sidetracked with the Patriot Act.

[SWTsig]

Exactly. The "end of the world" liberal crowd around here lives in their own little fantasy land where they bash Bush 24/7 without thinking twice about the topic at hand. Critical thinking is not taking place. I'd be interested to hear how many of those who have lost loved ones to terror (9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq) are opposed to this.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

[wnes]

Exactly. The "end of the world" liberal crowd around here lives in their own little fantasy land where they bash Bush 24/7 without thinking twice about the topic at hand. Critical thinking is not taking place. I'd be interested to hear how many of those who have lost loved ones to terror (9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq) are opposed to this.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

-- Teddy Roosevelt wrote in an editorial for the "Kansas City Star" during World War I, May 7, 1918

[Saint Louis]

-- Teddy Roosevelt wrote in an editorial for the "Kansas City Star" during World War I, May 7, 1918

There is a reason the man is on Mount Rushmore.

[SamFisher]

"Perfect dictatorship" is indeed an interesting oxymoron.

Countries like South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia were ruled for long times by some forms of authoritarian leaders. Their economies thrived. The citizens generally enjoyed peace and prosperity while the governments had relatively low corruptions and scandals.

On the other hand, "democratic and free" countries like Mexico didn't do nearly as well - manifested by high crime rates, rampant government corruptions at many levels, and generally unappreciable economy.

Question is, do we need any form of "perfect" dictatorial government in US to survive the geopolitical uncerntainties of our life?


The US wasn't a developing country like those you mentioned so those examples don't really mesh - also official corruption has been and continues to be a serious problem in Korea and Malaysia where bribery was a way of life (see President Chun in the 90's), although anti corruption drives in recent years have had some effect.

[wnes]

The US wasn't a developing country like those you mentioned so those examples don't really mesh - also official corruption has been and continues to be a serious problem in Korea and Malaysia where bribery was a way of life (see President Chun in the 90's), although anti corruption drives in recent years have had some effect.

OK Sam, I was speaking on relative term. Maybe I should have cited Singapore as the sole example. In reality a large percentage of Americans only let one or two "issues" dictate their political thought processes, which are often dichotomy in nature. Our political "leaders" never cease to feast upon them, and corporate-owned media happlily go along. Of course, it never hurts when you have church leaders urges church goers to follow our "leaders".

[giddyup]

<b>FB</b>: Maybe we could have gotten the two terrorists in San Diego. That still leaves 17 to execute the plan. Do you think it is a no-go with 17? Do you think they had alternates?

I know it is romantic to quote political leaders from one or two centuries ago, but don't we have to measure those sentiments against a rapidly changing and dangerous world? The threats we face today BF and TR could not even imagine.

[FranchiseBlade]

<b>FB</b>: Maybe we could have gotten the two terrorists in San Diego. That still leaves 17 to execute the plan. Do you think it is a no-go with 17? Do you think they had alternates?

I have no idea. I don't know if anyone else does either. But the two they got might have talked, about the plan, and we might have been ready, and better able to prevent the other 17.

I know it is romantic to quote political leaders from one or two centuries ago, but don't we have to measure those sentiments against a rapidly changing and dangerous world? The threats we face today BF and TR could not even imagine.BF and TR could imagine something worse than those threats and that is tyrrany. They faced situations that we had no idea about, but they understood that tyranny was a far greater threat. BF is one of the nation's founding fathers. I think it is important to keep the ideas this nation was founded on alive.

[Refman]

I am a conservative. I think most people here know that. That being said, this is insane.

You cannot force the production of documents without probable cause and a warrant from a judge. The Constitution says so.

[thadeus]

Simply put;

Anyone who supports the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is either a well-paid crony for the Bush Administration, or a total ****ing moron.

Possibly both.

[rhester]

Exactly. The "end of the world" liberal crowd around here lives in their own little fantasy land where they bash Bush 24/7 without thinking twice about the topic at hand. Critical thinking is not taking place. I'd be interested to hear how many of those who have lost loved ones to terror (9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq) are opposed to this.

There are alot who lost love ones 9/11 who are not pleased at all with the government answers they have been given.Link (http://www.justicefor911.org/)

Including the attorney general of New York Eliot Spitzer.

The Patriot Act and Homeland Security are unnecessary.
9/11 could have and should have been prevented by the government.
There was ample knowledge and time to respond.

9/11 is the saddest event in U.S. history.
Terrorism can be stopped only when the U.S. decides to stop it.

[wnes]

I know it is romantic to quote political leaders from one or two centuries ago, but don't we have to measure those sentiments against a rapidly changing and dangerous world?

If you have no problem with (people) quoting Jesus and Bible, which were about a couple of millennia ago...

[rhadamanthus]

Related: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050613/ts_nm/security_court_padilla_dc

By James Vicini 1 hour, 28 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court rejected on Monday a request by Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for three years as a suspected enemy combatant, for an immediate decision on his detention instead of waiting for a federal appeals court to rule.

His attorneys asked the justices to decide whether
President Bush has the power to seize U.S. citizens in civilian settings on American soil and subject them to indefinite military detention without criminal charges or a trial.

Padilla, a former Chicago gang member and convert to Islam, initially was suspected by U.S. officials of plotting with al Qaeda to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States.

U.S. officials last year backed off that claim and said Padilla had plotted with al Qaeda leaders to blow up apartment buildings by using natural gas. None of the plots was carried out.

On May 8, 2002, Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after returning from Pakistan. Bush then declared him an enemy combatant, and Padilla has been held in solitary confinement at a Navy brig in South Carolina.

"This case is of imperative public importance that justifies immediate review in this court," Padilla's attorney, Stanford University law professor Jenny Martinez, said in the appeal to the justices.

"Only this court -- and not the court of appeals -- can provide the definitive answer the nation needs to the momentous and pressing constitutional questions presented by this case," she said.

A federal judge in South Carolina ruled in February that Bush has no authority to have Padilla held as an enemy combatant. The judge said Padilla must be released if he is not charged with a crime.

The Bush administration appealed to a U.S. appeals court based in Richmond, Virginia. The appeals court has scheduled arguments in the case on July 19.

Padilla's lawyers asked the high court to bypass the appeals court and take the case directly from the judge's ruling. The Supreme Court rarely grants such requests.

Solicitor General Paul Clement of the
Justice Department argued there was no need for the Supreme Court to consider the case now.

"The court of appeals might ... resolve the government's appeal in ways that could make further review inappropriate or unnecessary at this time," he said.

Padilla's attorneys said the court already was familiar with the facts of the case. The justices heard arguments in the case last year.

The Supreme Court last June declined to decide whether Bush had the power to detain Padilla. It ruled on narrow jurisdictional grounds that the case should have been brought in South Carolina instead of New York.

After the appeals court rules, the losing side then could appeal to the Supreme Court. The justices rejected Padilla's request for review now without any comment or recorded dissent.

[mc mark]

Misleading at best ...

On our sister site yesterday, David Gelber called readers attention to a piece by Mark Danner in the New York Review of Books in which Danner writes that "Never in my experience has frank mendacity so dominated our public life."

(The piece is actually an edited version of a recent commencement address.)

There was a good example of the point on the front page of yesterday's Washington Post, in an article by Dan Eggen and Julie Tate.

The upshot of the piece is fairly straightforward. In the push for the renewal of the Patriot Act, the president and other administration officials have been publicly and volubly claiming that the administration's tough anti-terrorism tactics have resulted in some 400 terrorism-related indictments, with more than half of those leading to convictions.

Only, as Eggen and Tate point out, that's not true.

The president is telling people his administration has nabbed some 400 terrorists. But actually the overwhelming majority of the cases don't involve terrorists in any way. They're people who got swept up in this or that terrorist investigation and then got nabbed for some immigration violation or false statement to investigators.

In the words of the Post: "Among all the people charged as a result of terrorism probes in the three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, The Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them." Most of the remainder had nothing to do with al Qaida but were rather narco-traffickers, Palestinians, Rwandan war criminals and others.

For the details, see the piece. The point though is that the president is out on the hustings spouting what in common English we call a 'lie'. And yet the best the Post writers can do is say that the president's "numbers are misleading at best."

This isn't so much a criticism of the writers who wrote a thorough and important piece, or even the Post which placed it on A1.

But it does illustrate on aspect of Danner's point: Public mendacity, statements meant to deceive the public on matters of great import, have become so commonplace that they now barely hold any capacity to shock. And the best journalism can do is issue anemic phrases like "misleading at best."

A phrase which is, in this case, itself misleading at best.

-- Josh Marshall

[rhadamanthus]

The president is telling people his administration has nabbed some 400 terrorists. But actually the overwhelming majority of the cases don't involve terrorists in any way. They're people who got swept up in this or that terrorist investigation and then got nabbed for some immigration violation or false statement to investigators.


http://www.alternet.org/rights/19948/

On Sept. 2 a federal judge in Detroit threw out the only jury conviction the Justice Department has obtained on a terrorism charge since 9/11. In October 2001, shortly after the men were initially arrested, Attorney General John Ashcroft heralded the case in a national press conference as evidence of the success of his anti-terror campaign. The indictment alleged that the defendants were associated with al Qaeda and planning terrorist attacks. But Ashcroft held no news conference in September when the case was dismissed, nor did he offer any apologies to the defendants who had spent nearly three years in jail. That wouldn't be good for his boss' campaign, which rests on the "war on terrorism." Here, as in Iraq, Bush's war is not going as well as he pretends.

The Detroit case was extremely weak from the outset. The government could never specify exactly what terrorist activity was allegedly being planned and never offered any evidence linking the defendants to al Qaeda. Its case consisted almost entirely of a pair of sketches and a videotape, described by an FBI agent as "casing materials" for a terrorist plot, and the testimony of a witness of highly dubious reliability seeking a generous plea deal. It now turns out that the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense evidence that other government experts did not consider the sketches and videotape to be terrorist casing materials at all and that the government's key witness had admitted to lying.

Until that reversal, the Detroit case had marked the only terrorist conviction obtained from the Justice Department's detention of more than 5,000 foreign nationals in anti-terrorism sweeps since 9/11. So Ashcroft's record is 0 for 5,000. When the attorney general was locking these men up in the immediate wake of the attacks, he held almost daily press conferences to announce how many "suspected terrorists" had been detained. No press conference has been forthcoming to announce that exactly none of them have turned out to be actual terrorists.

Meanwhile, despite widespread recognition that Abu Ghraib has done untold damage worldwide to the legitimacy of the fight against terrorism, the military has still not charged any higher-ups in the Pentagon, and the administration has shown no inclination to appoint an independent commission to investigate. It prefers to leave the investigation to the Justice Department and the Pentagon, the two entities that drafted secret legal memos defending torture.

And in late July, resurrecting the ideological exclusion practices so familiar from the cold war, the Department of Homeland Security revoked a work visa for a prominent Swiss Islamic scholar who had been hired by Notre Dame for an endowed chair in its International Peace Studies Institute. DHS invoked a PATRIOT Act provision that, like the McCarran-Walter Act of the cold war, authorizes exclusion based purely on speech. If a person uses his position of prominence to "endorse" terrorism or terrorist organizations, the PATRIOT Act says, he may not enter the United States. The McCarran-Walter Act, on the books until its repeal in 1990, was used to exclude such "subversives" as Czeslaw Milosz and Graham Greene. This time the man whose views are too dangerous for Americans to hear firsthand is Tariq Ramadan, a highly respected intellectual and author of more than twenty books who was named by Time magazine as one of the hundred most likely innovators of the 21st century.

Notre Dame is not known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism – and Ramadan is no extremist. He argues for a modernized version of Islam that promotes tolerance and women's rights. Two days after 9/11 he called on fellow Muslims to condemn the attacks. In short, Ramadan is precisely the kind of moderate voice in Islam that the United States should be courting if it hopes to isolate al Qaeda. The barring of Ramadan reinforces the sense that the administration cannot or will not distinguish between moderates and extremists and is simply anti-Muslim.

What is most troubling is that none of these developments – the revelation of prosecutorial abuse in the interest of obtaining a "win" in the war on terrorism; the continuing failure to hold accountable those most responsible for the torture at Abu Ghraib; and the exclusion of a moderate Muslim as too dangerous for Americans to hear – is an isolated mistake. Rather, they are symptoms of a deeper problem. The President thinks he can win this war by "acting tough" and treating the rule of law and constitutional freedoms as optional. With enough fearmongering, that attitude may win him the election. But it will lose the war. Bush is playing right into al Qaeda's hands by further alienating those we most need on our side.

[mc mark]

Oh man! Another victory for common sense!


House Votes to Limit Patriot Act Rules

WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to block the FBI and the Justice Department from using the anti-terror Patriot Act to search library and book store records, responding to complaints about potential invasion of privacy of innocent readers.


Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.

The vote reversed a narrow loss last year by lawmakers complaining about threats to privacy rights. They narrowed the proposal this year to permit the government to continue to seek out records of Internet use at libraries.

The vote came as the House debated a $57.5 billion bill covering the departments of Commerce, Justice and State. The Senate has yet to act on the measure, and GOP leaders often drop provisions offensive to Bush during final negotiations.

Congress is preparing to extend the Patriot Act, which was passed quickly in the emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Then, Congress included a "sunset" provision under which 15 of the law's provisions are to expire at the end of this year.

Supporters of rolling back the library and bookstore provision said that the law gives the FBI too much leeway to go on "fishing expeditions" on people's reading habits and that innocent people could get tagged as potential terrorists based on what they check out from a library.

"If the government suspects someone is looking up how to make atom bombs, go to a court and get a search warrant," said Jerold Nadler, D-N.Y.

Supporters of the Patriot Act countered that the rules on reading records are a potentially useful tool in finding terrorists and argued that the House was voting to make libraries safe havens for them.

"If there are terrorists in libraries studying how to fly planes, how to put together biological weapons, how to put together chemical weapons, nuclear weapons ... we have to have an avenue through the federal court system so that we can stop the attack before it occurs," said Rep. Tom Feeney (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla.

Last year, a similar provision was derailed by a 210-210 tie tally after several Republicans were pressured to switch their votes.

In the meantime, a number of libraries have begun disposing of patrons' records quickly so they won't be available if sought under the law.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Congress in April that the government has never used the provision to obtain library, bookstore, medical or gun sale records.

But when asked whether the administration would agree to exclude library and medical records from the law, Gonzales demurred. "It should not be held against us that we have exercised restraint," he said.

Authorities have gained access to records through voluntary cooperation from librarians, Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller said.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050615/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act_libraries

[tigermission1]

Oh man! Another victory for common sense!


House Votes to Limit Patriot Act Rules

Is it impossible for people to learn from history?

What the hell do library books have to do with terrorism?

That we are even considering whether or not its ok for the state to spy on us is mind boggling.

Ultimately, the safeguarding of democracy is entirely on the shoulders of the citizens, not the government. What government in its right mind will EVER oppose being granted extra police powers over its citizens? It's the dream of every government, be it democratic or not. I doubt the House opposed this expansion of the already intrusive PATRIOT Act out of the goodness of their hearts, but they likely received a few thousand angry letters/faxes/e-mails from their constituents demanding an end to this relentless assault on our civil liberties.

What can I say? the American people will one day wake up when they find an intrusive "Big Brother" meddling in every aspect of their lives. By then, it will be too late to reverse the damage already done.

[Saint Louis]

What can I say? the American people will one day wake up when they find an intrusive "Big Brother" meddling in every aspect of their lives. By then, it will be too late to reverse the damage already done.

It is never too late to undo tyrrany.

[rhester]

Is it impossible for people to learn from history?

What the hell do library books have to do with terrorism?

That we are even considering whether or not its ok for the state to spy on us is mind boggling.

Ultimately, the safeguarding of democracy is entirely on the shoulders of the citizens, not the government. What government in its right mind will EVER oppose being granted extra police powers over its citizens? It's the dream of every government, be it democratic or not. I doubt the House opposed this expansion of the already intrusive PATRIOT Act out of the goodness of their hearts, but they likely received a few thousand angry letters/faxes/e-mails from their constituents demanding an end to this relentless assault on our civil liberties.

What can I say? the American people will one day wake up when they find an intrusive "Big Brother" meddling in every aspect of their lives. By then, it will be too late to reverse the damage already done.

Well said.

[andymoon]

It is never too late to undo tyrrany.

Unfortunately, if it goes on long enough it takes an actual revolution to undo it. I would prefer it didn't come to that.

[tigermission1]

It is never too late to undo tyrrany.

Unfortunately, not Locke nor our Founding Fathers ever envisioned states to be armed with so much power (fighter planes, tanks, technology) that it would become virtually impossible for the citizenry to revolt against it. Just ask the Syrians, the IRaqis, or even the Uzbeks how successful they were at overthrowing their tyrannical regimes. Let's see: AK-47s & hand grenades vs. F-16s, tanks, and missiles...hmmm.

Pretty much the only recipe for a successful revolution nowadays is to have the full backing of the military, or otherwise you are screwed. How else do you think Saddam survived for so long? Pretty much the only way to successfully overthrow a modern government is to do what the US did in Iraq, and of course, even that is a problematic approach if you don't have the full approval of the natives.

[rhester]

Unfortunately, not Locke nor our Founding Fathers ever envisioned states to be armed with so much power (fighter planes, tanks, technology) that it would become virtually impossible for the citizenry to revolt against it. Just ask the Syrians, the IRaqis, or even the Uzbeks how successful they were at overthrowing their tyrannical regimes. Let's see: AK-47s & hand grenades vs. F-16s, tanks, and missiles...hmmm.

Pretty much the only recipe for a successful revolution nowadays is to have the full backing of the military, or otherwise you are screwed. How else do you think Saddam survived for so long? Pretty much the only way to successfully overthrow a modern government is to do what the US did in Iraq, and of course, even that is a problematic approach if you don't have the full approval of the natives.

If we were to think outside the box a moment but remain logical then the only thing that might separate the U.S. from total tyranny is the understanding of freedom and the Constitution by the military. No citizenry could stand against the U.S. military.

That is if a president became tyranical and Congress remained amblivious.

[tigermission1]

If we were to think outside the box a moment but remain logical then the only thing that might separate the U.S. from total tyranny is the understanding of freedom and the Constitution by the military. No citizenry could stand against the U.S. military.

That is if a president became tyranical and Congress remained amblivious.

That's a good point, but that's exactly what should never happen in the USA: that is the military becoming part of the ruling elite. If it does, then the military becomes effectively a tool by which the civilian leaders can oppress the citizens. This is pretty much what has happened in dictatorships all over the world: Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, as well as others.

[FranchiseBlade]

If we were to think outside the box a moment but remain logical then the only thing that might separate the U.S. from total tyranny is the understanding of freedom and the Constitution by the military. No citizenry could stand against the U.S. military.

That is if a president became tyranical and Congress remained amblivious.
Not militarily the citizens couldn't take out the U.S. military. But there is a coarse that the people could do, which would cost as many lives, quite possibly, but would actually be effective. We would need to use the Ghandi method.

If the citizens simply all refused to work, and went on strike the whole nation would stop. Initially people might be imprisoned, starved, beaten, killed etc. That part wouldn't change from a war, but in the end the country needs its citizens to work. In reality any occupied nation prepared to sacrifice enough could use the same tactics.

Technically speaking a military isn't even really needed.

[SWTsig]

Is it impossible for people to learn from history?

What the hell do library books have to do with terrorism?

That we are even considering whether or not its ok for the state to spy on us is mind boggling.

Ultimately, the safeguarding of democracy is entirely on the shoulders of the citizens, not the government. What government in its right mind will EVER oppose being granted extra police powers over its citizens? It's the dream of every government, be it democratic or not. I doubt the House opposed this expansion of the already intrusive PATRIOT Act out of the goodness of their hearts, but they likely received a few thousand angry letters/faxes/e-mails from their constituents demanding an end to this relentless assault on our civil liberties.

What can I say? the American people will one day wake up when they find an intrusive "Big Brother" meddling in every aspect of their lives. By then, it will be too late to reverse the damage already done.

i really want to see someone logically refute this, because i don't think it's possible.

[FranchiseBlade]

i really want to see someone logically refute this, because i don't think it's possible.
attempts to refute it may include these phrases...

9/11 Changed the way(everything)...

Our govt. is only trying to protect us.

Do you really think you have more information about what is needed than the govt. does?

Why should you be worried about the govt. looking at your library books unless you have something to hide?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think any of those lines of thinking do refute Tiger's post, but they are the kinds I seem to see a lot of.

[Sishir Chang]

That is if a president became tyranical and Congress remained amblivious.

Saddly it might not be that far off. Just read some of the other threads where posters are going on and on about how criticizing our military and their civillian leadership for lapses of discipline and policies that sanction torture is aiding the enemy.

Given the paranoia, the consolidation of power in the hands of a party with a narrow majority, the willingness of Congressional leadership to defer to the executive branch and and widespread accusations that any criticism of the Admin. is treasonous its not going to take much for this country to voluntary become a police state.