Unfathomed Dangers in Patriot Act Reauthorization

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I think it important to note who the author of this essay is. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He does not appear to be some crackpot liberal wacko conspiracy theorist.

-----------------------------------

Patriot Police

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

A provision in the "Patriot Act" creates a new federal police force with power to violate the Bill of Rights. You might think that this cannot be true as you have not read about it in newspapers or heard it discussed by talking heads on TV.

Go to House Report 109-333 -USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 and check it out for yourself. Sec. 605 reads:

"There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division'."

This new federal police force is "subject to the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security."

The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

The new police are assigned a variety of jurisdictions, including "an event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance" (SENS).

"A special event of national significance" is neither defined nor does it require the presence of a "protected person" such as the president in order to trigger it. Thus, the administration, and perhaps the police themselves, can place the SENS designation on any event. Once a SENS designation is placed on an event, the new federal police are empowered to keep out and to arrest people at their discretion.

The language conveys enormous discretionary and arbitrary powers. What is "an offense against the United States"? What are "reasonable grounds"?

You can bet that the Alito/Roberts court will rule that it is whatever the executive branch says.

The obvious purpose of the act is to prevent demonstrations at Bush/Cheney events. However, nothing in the language limits the police powers from being used only in this way. Like every law in the US, this law also will be expansively interpreted and abused. It has dire implications for freedom of association and First Amendment rights.

We can take for granted that the new federal police will be used to suppress dissent and to break up opposition. The Brownshirts are now arming themselves with a Gestapo.

Many naive Americans will write to me to explain that this new provision in the reauthorization of the "Patriot Act" is necessary to protect the president and other high officials from terrorists or from harm at the hands of angry demonstrators: "No one else will have anything to fear." Some will accuse me of being an alarmist, and others will say that it is unpatriotic to doubt the law's good intentions.

Americans will write such nonsense despite the fact that the president and foreign dignitaries are already provided superb protection by the Secret Service. The naive will not comprehend that the president cannot be endangered by demonstrators at SENS at which the president is not present. For many Americans, the light refuses to turn on.

In Nazi Germany did no one but Jews have anything to fear from the Gestapo?

By Stalin's time Lenin and Trotsky had eliminated all members of the "oppressor class," but that did not stop Stalin from sending millions of "enemies of the people" to the Gulag.

It is extremely difficult to hold even local police forces accountable. Who is going to hold accountable a federal police protected by Homeland Security and the president?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I must be one of the naive he is referring to--as I'm all for it and somehow I have always been under impression that law enforcement has been able to arrest someone they believe comitting a felony without a warrent since as long as I can remember.

Wonder what his stance is on asking foreigners for ID when stopped.
You know in some cities in CA where they don't want police to be able to ask if they are legal alien when they stop them???


---and yes I think he is full blown alarmist--my reason is if law abiding citizens see the 1st hint of abuses under these new laws--I expect they they will handle the situation--why?- because unlike his comparisons this is a democracy and-- we the people--would vote out any party that abused the rights of general population--and each party knows they would be history in any attempt to do so...
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
DOGS THAT BARK said:
-I expect they they will handle the situation--why?- because unlike his comparisons this is a democracy and-- we the people--would vote out any party that abused the rights of general population--and each party knows they would be history in any attempt to do so...

I agree with you here, and I think you will witness this in action next election. Except for the counties that will be using Diebold machines and that "special proprietary software" to tabulate the votes, that is.

I think the general population is getting fed up with the leaders of the administration and likes of Delay, Frist, Ney, etc. They certainly should be. I would think conservatives would have to be concerned that the leaders of the party are seemingly all being indicted. Not accused...indicted. Pretty serious stuff, and as widespread as it is...people are not just going to blow it off - like the administration hopes the public does with the spying situation.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Someone put an SOS out to all our favorite neocons please.

Speaking of that, what did this forum do so right to deserve a one month break from Manson and Palehose and only a recent cameo from Spibble Spab talking about some soldier who bought a mustang?

22 (10 members & 12 guests)

kosar, bjfinste, Chadman, djv, godsfavoritedog, JCDunkDogs, StevieD, tofeco23
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
i`m so sick of this crap...honestly...


these people have a narcissistic personality disorder with both antisocial and suicidal elements...and short term memory loss......they`re delusional...

the terriorist will have spent every waking minute preparing while we spent the time protecting "privacy".

the loss of privacy is suppositional...3000 dead at the wtc is reality...


as far as they are concerned, america can go to hell if they are not in control.....in fact,i`d say they desperately desire that it do so.

i don`t care if this guy`s from the reagan administration....or the polk administration...

these guys need to give it a break... put they`re heads in some ice water and cool down.... think what they are doing......and if they know what they`re doing and don't care, then they can go to hell,imo...... if they haven't thought about the consequences of their behavior and speech, then they should stfu until 2008..get all your evidence together regarding how all your rights and privacy have been trampled....and go to the ballot box.....or go to europe...

have the police knocked on your door,chad?...anybody else?....

moron`s like this(the author,not you,chad) ...and the aclu....are going to eventually be the demise of this country....

if we let them....

i`m going to post an article regarding how the patriot act is helping keep radical muslim "scholars"(translation:terrorist sympathizers and acolytes)from entering our country...

if cockblocking this administration`s attempts at keeping us safe weren`t so serious and dangerous,it`d be laughable...

if this guy and his ilk (the aclu) had their way,we`d be laughing out the other side of our mouths...
 

JCDunkDogs

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 5, 2002
956
5
0
L.A. Area
I see your point, gardenweasel. And I sort of felt the same way in 2004, when I saw that scene in Farenheit 911 where Michael Moore read the Patriot Act over the ice cream truck's loudspeaker. Over-the-top, right? Just a comedian acting irresponsibly. We have nothing to fear. The Government is just trying to protect us.

Then, last month, I heard the President say the Government is listening to overseas telephone and data transmissions without following the law. What? Does that mean that every time we call our off-shore outlet, or logon their website, we get caught in the net?

Then, this week, I learn that the Government received from Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft private information about users who have used their search engines. What?! Does that mean if we searched "bikini dare" just once (twice, tops) we get caught in the net?

What's next? If the Government starts collecting personal info about who bought violent video games, then I'll have no hobbies left.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Well, gardenweasel, I could not disagree with you more. But I respect your opinion and right to have it. I don't think it's a fair comment to call "these people" delusional and morons. This country was founded on having these types of rights and people have fought long and hard to protect them. People are doing that right now. And we all have a basic right to speak out on things in this country.

To clarify...I am not personally all that concerned with people listening to me, or checking me out. I really have nothing to hide, and can understand giving up some privacy to be kept safe. But to have no way to monitor what this administration (or any before or after, for crissakes) is doing and have no record of it means they simply do not have to follow any rules or the law. And that is at the most basic of our civil liberties and has nothing to do with terrorism or us being protected. NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW. We have laws in place...because we choose to and have chosen to as a way of life and maintaining order. If you don't care about that, then so be it. But I do. And I will argue this point and for basic rights and common sense forever.

It is ultimately important. And should not be glossed over, relaxed about, or forgotten. I'm sure there are MANY positive results that have come from the Patriot Act. But I'm also sure there are many bad things that come from it too. So, we should examine both and make a decision. And we should leave political leanings out of the study of basic law and the rights that are spelled out - and have been upheld for many years now. This issue has already been ruled on, and the current administration doesn't like the ruling. So they blow it off and do what they want. That is wrong, gardenweasel.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
kosar said:
"Speaking of that, what did this forum do so right to deserve a one month break from Manson and Palehose "

my guess is that being inspired by Brokeback Mountain they are on sabbatical trying to DECIDE if they should be gay or not.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
my guess is that being inspired by Brokeback Mountain they are on sabbatical trying to DECIDE if they should be gay or not.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Could be, and here at Madjacks we should support them in their quest to find love with a man, woman or each other. Hopefully they find that only if you allow yourself to receive love, can you give it.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Some folks say hey we lost 3000 people because we were not safe. And of course if any one would have listen to those who were yelling. We had info to stop 9/11 with out any new laws.
We have lost so many more folks in wars to safe guard our rights. Over a million. That we should fight any new laws that take any away. And for sure do not give more power to one person called president. We are to close to a dictator right now.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
when we find out that people are prosecuted for frequenting sites like "bikini dare" due to the patriot act.....


i`ll forego showers and soap for a few weeks and march on the white house with "code pink"...and the aclu....

all due respect,jc...and i mean that...cause i respect all the guys that post here...this is typical aclu speculation...i`ve seen no examples of prosecution for such things...

if this were the case,why is congress and the intelligence committees briefred on this stuff on a regular basis?.....

what is bush`s motivation?...to get stuff on political enemies?...like the 900 republican fbi files found in the clinton whitehouse?....

i don`t think any of us have to worry about that...


until these scare-mongering suppositions bear some fruit,i`m all for any surveillance they need...

btw....here`s your aclu at work....yet again...

ACLU Sues to Let Muslim Scholar Enter US....(they obviously believe we don’t have enough spokesmen for radical islam in the u.s)....

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union sued the U.S. government Wednesday for preventing a Muslim scholar from entering the country, arguing that the government was using anti-terrorism laws as “instruments of censorship.”

The lawsuit asks the court to find a provision of the Patriot Act unconstitutional and seeks clearance for Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss intellectual and Muslim scholar, to accept invitations to speak in the United States.

Ramadan was blocked from accepting a tenured teaching position at the University of Notre Dame when his visa was revoked in August 2004 because of a provision of the Patriot Act, said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU staff attorney.

Jaffer said it was part of an effort by the federal government to bar foreign scholars whose political views might be contrary to those of the U.S. government. The provision blocks entry to the country for prominent aliens who used their status to endorse or espouse terrorism or to persuade others to terrorist activity, he said.

“We don’t think there’s any evidence at all that he has endorsed terrorism,” Jaffer said. “In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that he has condemned terrorism.”

Some background on Tariq Ramadan:

* He has praised the brutal Islamist policies of the Sudanese politician Hassan Al-Turabi. Mr. Turabi in turn called Mr. Ramadan the “future of Islam.”

* Mr. Ramadan was banned from entering France in 1996 on suspicion of having links with an Algerian Islamist who had recently initiated a terrorist campaign in Paris.

* Ahmed Brahim, an Algerian indicted for Al-Qaeda activities, had “routine contacts” with Mr. Ramadan, according to a Spanish judge (Baltasar Garz?n) in 1999.

* Djamel Beghal, leader of a group accused of planning to attack the American embassy in Paris, stated in his 2001 trial that he had studied with Mr. Ramadan.

* Along with nearly all Islamists, Mr. Ramadan has denied that there is “any certain proof” that Bin Laden was behind 9/11.

* He publicly refers to the Islamist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, and Madrid as “interventions,” minimizing them to the point of near-endorsement""""....

personally,if there is even one iota of doubt regarding this non-citizen`s intentions,he shouldn`t even sniff our shores....

anybody else find it galling that women`s groups and the aclu said absolutely nothing about the guy that got a 60 day sentence for continually raping a 6 year old for 4 years?....

anybody else find that strange?....repugnant?
 

JCDunkDogs

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 5, 2002
956
5
0
L.A. Area
gardenweasel said:
when we find out that people are prosecuted for frequenting sites like "bikini dare" due to the patriot act...i`ll forego showers and soap for a few weeks and march on the white house with "code pink"...and the aclu....

Alright, gw, you got a deal. I'll bring the protest signs.

Seriously, I get where you are coming from, but the 4th Amendment was not intended to protect criminals from government snooping. It was intended to protect dissenters from government sanction.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Agree Chad on getting tired of Delay ect--but until I actually see some abuses of Patriot act/Survailance I can't see raising a stink--I am MUCH more concerned with ACLU on extremes the other way.
Had a recent occurance down Matts direction in Fla where residents got tired of drug dealers and prostitues and put up cameras (with them footing the bill) to catch/discourage them.
Aclu I believe has backed out of fight now on protecting these rift raft against the community on grounds that public privicy is not to be expected in communty park.
Don't know yet how they ran boyscouts out in CA--
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
i hear you j.c....i understand that people need to be vigilant.....

i just feel that a dirty bomb in n.y.c. scares me alot more than someoone wiretapping me if i`m calling syria or lebanon...or somebody in the government knowing that i check michael connelly books out at the library...

it`s cool...we can disagree...

as long as we don`t discuss the aclu....they`re anal.....they`re in the annals of anal...
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I get your points, DBT and GW, the last ones. Without knowing the specifics of the public/cameras case, I would probably be in favor of their rights to take action to protect the community. I don't know where the cameras are, etc, so don't really know. If they are putting them up on public lights, etc., there may be some issues. I am not a blanket liberal that thinks the ACLU is right at all times. Quite wrong sometimes, my opinion. I think sometimes they look for publicity more than issue. A lot of organizations do. The ACLU has done a lot of good for this country and citizens, but they are not always in the right, so to speak.

My main concern, though GW, is not about monitoring of civilians, although it sure could be by rights. It's more about not having any way to monitor what is being undertaken in this country by people in positions of authority. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I do not feel that at most levels of top government and business that having no way to know what is going on is a very smart way to run a government.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
gw....

i agree with you 100%....

i'm in favor of the patriot act until it's proven that the gov't is over reacting.....
 

JCDunkDogs

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 5, 2002
956
5
0
L.A. Area
gardenweasel said:
it`s cool...we can disagree...

You're right. It is cool.

This is the type of debate that is worth having. I'll bet its the hot topic in the law schools, universities, court houses, prosecutor's offices, and everywhere people care about freedom and security. (Big thanks to MJ for this forum!)
 

Englishman

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 20, 2003
2,268
26
0
Lincoln Park, New Jersey
I'm a conservative but I'm totally opposed to the Patriot Act. This is simply because the act is not limited to action against only suspected terrorists, but anyone for anything.

For instance, that dickhead who shined a laser into the cockpit of a plane landing at Newark is charged under the PA even although he is just a piece of white trash from Parsippany.

This is totally wrong, and any of us could be next.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top