The quotes below are the germaine parts of a longer article on the weekleystandard.com and reinforce my contention that the hysteria surrounding the patriot is based at least in part on ignorance of the law's true intent/impact and anti-ashcrofy animus. -- The Patriot Act's Surprising Defenders by David Tell, for the Editors 11/03/2003, Volume 009, Issue 08 ...what the Patriot Act really needs are some Democratic defenders. And, we're pleased to report, it now has two. They deserve a loud round of applause, and a great deal more publicity. At last week's Senate hearing, Joe Biden of Delaware didn't have to say that "the tide of criticism" being directed against the Patriot Act "is both misinformed and overblown," that "I stand by my support" of that law, and that the Ashcroft Justice Department has "done a pretty good job in terms of implementing" the law's provisions. But Biden did say all these things, anyway. And California's Dianne Feinstein went further still, in a stern and lengthy lecture about the concrete reality of U.S. anti-terrorism law--as opposed to the paranoiac fantasy version now being circulated throughout the land by the likes of Bob Barr and Howard Dean. How's about we concentrate on some facts, Feinstein suggested. "I've tried to see what has happened in the complaints that have come in," she said, "and I've received to date 21,434 complaints about the Patriot Act." Except these turned out to be unrelated civil liberties gripes, or complaints about a "Patriot Act II" that doesn't yet exist. "I have never had a single [verified] abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff emailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They emailed back and said they had none." The widespread hullabaloo over the Patriot Act, Senator Feinstein concluded, proceeds from "substantial uncertainty . . . about what this bill actually does do." And "perhaps some ignorance," she added.
Yep, DiFei has really shocked a lot of lefties in California with this, but I really respect her take here. She's on the senate intelligence committee, correct? She's smart, sticks to her guns, and analyzes what's in front of her. And to think she's been labeled a "scumbag" by some posters here... disgraceful.
while i appreciate the gratuitous shot at "some posters", how about we try and stay on topic and not let this thread degenerate into a another lib vs. con free-for-all. for instance, is the patriot act just the leading edge of the wedge in a 1984 style attack on our civil liberties, or are biden and feinstein right? are the fears over-blown? can anyone cite an actual instance of the type of abuse some fear?
I heard Ashcroft on the radio the other day. He stated that the ACLU has not brought a single charge against the government because of The Patriot Act. I guess it's true.... I meant the part about Ashcroft not being a Nazi. That's worse than scumbag!
Fair enough. I did not mean you, by the way. I remembered someone else calling them scum. It was a cheap shot from me, but I really respect DiFei a lot, so that original cheap shot had stuck with me. I think a lot of the fears are overblown at this point, BUT at the same time I think we must maintain some vigilant fear and oversight on this particular issue. At any rate, I, for one, have trouble citing multiple abuses of this sort. It's difficult to document. I do have one troubling anecdote: Apparently, a Texas A&M biochemist was led off in chains and jailed without any sort of due process after he reported losing a tiny sample of plague virus. These things happen and you must report such accidents. Your laboratory can be shut down if you make mistakes. But getting locked up without a trial on the horizon? That's a new game, and sounds like a civil rights abuse. The folks who got the Nobel prize in chemistry this year have decided to donate the majority of their $1 million to support scientists who've been affected by Homeland Security in this way. American media did *not* report this part of their Nobel prize speech, but the European press published the entirity of their comments. That was all a bit eerie.
True! I would rather be called "scumbag" than "Nazi," and I have probably been called both by students anyway.
b-bob, where do you teach, A&M? i'd like to get a little more context on that story. for instance, did this happen during the anthrax scare? what became of him- was he released, was there a chrage filed, or is he still in some sort of legal limbo?
Amazing that any Democrat had anything to say positive about anything the Bush admin has done. I personally do not agree with it, but I'm not shocked that some Democrats would not disagree with the Patriot Act. And for sh!ts and giggles, I have voted for one Democrat for a major national office, Zell Miller.
No, I teach in San Francisco. As for the scientist, my facts were a little flimsy, but still disturbing. His name is Peter Agre and he works at Johns Hopkins. I was *wrong* about his Nobel speech -- that comes on December 8, so we may hear more. And I was *wrong* about the Texas A&M -- it's Texas Tech. finally, I have at last found a tiny reference to it in an American news outlet. Here's a quote from the Washington Times, after the award was first announced and he was talking to reporters. Apparently, there will be a trial. Glad you made me look this crap up! I didn't know the charge was "false information." Probably a sloppy report or some such. Mr. Agre also used the opportunity to speak about what he called the persecution of U.S. scientists under the USA Patriot Act, particularly the case of Texas Tech researcher Thomas C. Butler, who was charged with giving false statements to the FBI in January about missing vials of bubonic plague bacteria. Mr. Butler, a former Hopkins professor, faces 74 years in prison. He goes to trial this fall.
Is this really TPA, if the guy is facing a trial? I thought TPA dealt only in secret, military tribunals?
Agre may well be confused, but my understanding goes something like this. Once upon a time, mishandling some virus like that would result in, at worst, the closing of your research lab and some fines for your university. Now, same type of mistake lands you in prison. Even though I don't work with dangerous stuff, I know many people who do, and their lives have definitely become a lot more complicated. Is the change in penalty related to the Patriot Act? I don't honestly know.
i think that's one of the misconceptions. as i understand it, the patriot does give law enforcement officers the ability to look into your life in new, perhaps disturbing ways, but they must get approval from a judge before doing so. theoretically, there's plenty of room for abuse if they were to ignore the judge, but then, they didn't need TPA if they were just going to illegally snoop on people, so i'm not sure how the act makes this type of abuse more likely.
The Patriot Act has not affected me or anybody I know. However, being a staunch libertarian, I disagree with it on principle - I do not agree with any usurpation of civil liberties, no matter how innocuous it may be.
i guess the point of the thread is to define that "usurpation of civil liberties." we hear a lot of talk that this is what TPA does, but does it really? can you relate how?
I don't care what Democrats praise or endorse about the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. It's a HORRIBLE act. This abomination gives government more power, takes liberties from people and hides any abuse that may take place. This isn't Libya. It strips any semblance of due process, and violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments. You can be secretly arrested and held indefinitely without being charged or having access to a lawyer (!). THINK ABOUT THAT. That's mortifying. Feds can tap your phone without a warrant, search your house without a warrant, and check all your personal records (including medical and credit card statements). In a very real way, they can do whatever they want to you. Have they already violated people's rights with this act? No doubt, but how would we know? And does it matter if they have or not? They gave themselves the right to do it anytime they want, regardless of reason. Our government has *NO RIGHT* to do these things. THIS IS AMERICA, DAMN IT! Where's the outrage?
GV, i feel your pain buddy, but how about some documentation? you say they can tap your phone, search your house, etc. all w/o a warrant, but it's my understanding they must have a judge's order to do so. can you give examples for the abuses you cite?
Ashcroft has recently propsed that the judges order should be removed. He actually claimed that they would get the order anyway, and might lose valuable time if they were recquired to get the order before hand. This guy swore to uphold the Constitution of the Untided States. Regardless of anyone's feelings about the Patriot Act. That kind of thinking is dangerous and unAmerican.
Don't take my word for it. Read the entire P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act yourself. http://www.fincen.gov/hr3162.pdf
Back in September, Slate's Dahlia Lithwick (who writes their Jurisprudence featre) wrote a 4-part series on the act. The purpose of the series was to summarize and synthsize the most controversial sections of the act...basically to let people know what the act does and doesn't allow, so that they could make their own judgements... This is the link for Part 1 http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/ Here is an excerpt explaining the purpose of the series: How bad is Patriot, really? Hard to tell. The ACLU, in a new fact sheet challenging the DOJ Web site, wants you to believe that the act threatens our most basic civil liberties. Ashcroft and his roadies call the changes in law "modest and incremental." Since almost nobody has read the legislation, much of what we think we know about it comes third-hand and spun. Both advocates and opponents are guilty of fear-mongering and distortion in some instances. The truth of the matter seems to be that while some portions of the Patriot Act are truly radical, others are benign. Parts of the act formalize and regulate government conduct that was unregulated—and potentially even more terrifying—before. Other parts clearly expand government powers and allow it to spy on ordinary citizens in new ways. But what is most frightening about the act is exacerbated by the lack of government candor in describing its implementation. FOIA requests have been half-answered, queries from the judiciary committee are blown off or classified. In the absence of any knowledge about how the act has been used, one isn't wrong to fear it in the abstract—to worry about its potential, since that is all we can know. Ashcroft and his supporters on the stump cite a July 31 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll showing that 91 percent of registered voters say the act had not affected their civil liberties. One follow-up question for them: How could they know? If you haven't read all 300-plus pages of the legislation by now, you should. If you can't, in the following four-part series, Slate has attempted to summarize and synthesize the most controversial portions of the act so you can decide for yourself whether you want Patriot, and the Patriots that may follow, to be a part of your world. Part 1 tackles Section 215, the law dealing with private records. Part 2 will address changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, and "sneak and peek" warrants. Part 3 will discuss new electronic surveillance, and Part 4 will discuss miscellaneous provisions, including alien detentions. ---------------------------- The series is long, but it's interesting and informative, and looks evenhandedly at the law from a legal as opposed to a political perspective...
