Last October, agents from the FBI and Treasury Department, accompanied by a gaggle of TV news crews, raided the Columbia, Mo., offices of a small charity called the Islamic-American Relief Agency (IARA). Computers and records were seized, and several hundred thousand dollars in donated funds destined for relief work in Kenya were frozen. There were no arrests or charges, though federal… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (57)Page 1 of 1 pagesI’ve felt many times that something became dislocated in America after 9/11, and the Patriot Act’s swift near-unanimous passage, and the fact that barely anyone has pointedly questioned its provisions or even the need for it has only reinforced my forboding. If the “world changed” that day, as has been repeated to the point of distortion, the worst of all changes inside America was the quickness with which the federal legislators voted a Constitution-damaging statute into law, and the slow and tentative pace with which American citizens have seen the need to confront it. Apparently the concern that freedoms once given up are extremely hard to win back was lost upon everyone after the Towers fell. Maybe that’s understandable, it was really a frightening day, but the entire world and particularly Americans would benefit from our fear-reaction finally petering out, and the hated Patriot Act ideally being repealed. In my true heart, though, I fear that it will only be “improved” so that enough people will feel contented and the movement to get rid of it will become hopelessly “fringe”, such that the quotient of police-state characteristics in the country will have permanently increased. Thank God some communities have seen fit to try and keep it at bay, it’s an example that all communities could benefit from following.
Posted by Kuya on May 28, 2005 at 9:48 AM I read lots here about how awful the Patriot Act is. There is an example of the charity being investigated that is given in this story, but frankly, I rarely read examples like that. Most of the outrage seems theoretical to me.
I mean people huffed and puffed about the library subpoena provision and you would have thought that librarians were being led off to re-education camps. When Ashcroft testified before Congress about it last year, turns out it had never been used.
I would be interested in posters here bringing in specific examples of its misuse. Are there really lots of them?
Posted by Campesino on May 28, 2005 at 8:11 PM Actully, it has been used. I know this because in a town not far from my own in the great state of Washington, a group of librarians exposed the use of it in their own library and how unjustified it was in the particular case at hand. They, along with the local media and townspeople exposed the request and it was cancelled, quietly.
But, really, the idea that only when the Patriot Act is used to abuse people is ok to repeal it quite misses the point. This is a bad law.
Read it. It quite frightening.
Posted by Kayla on May 29, 2005 at 12:49 AM Ashcroft said it. So, it must be true. Blahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Posted by Lefty on May 29, 2005 at 2:24 AM It’s our freedom they hate. They, apparently being Ashcroft, Cheney, Bush and their ilk.
Posted by Matt H. on May 29, 2005 at 3:59 AM Campesino
The Constitution. Try reading it. The Patriot Act is an affront to everything embodied in our founding document. Does it matter to what extent the provisions of the Patriot Act have been exploited, yet? You should be outraged that such an illegal piece of legislation could come into existence.
If nothing else, the spirit and mind-set of the Patriot Act have contributed to the creation and unquestioning public acceptance of abominations such as GITMO. Isn’t that enough for you?
Posted by passing it along on May 29, 2005 at 10:04 AM “ROBERT BLOCK, WALL STREET JOURNAL - Before Sept. 11, 2001, when federal law-enforcement officials asked Fedex Corp. for help, the company had its limits. It wouldn’t provide access to its databases. It often refused to lend uniforms or delivery trucks to agents for undercover operations, citing fears of retribution against employees as well as concerns about customer privacy.
Then came the attacks on New York and Washington and pleas from the government for private-sector help in fighting terrorism. Suddenly, the king of overnight delivery became one of homeland security’s best friends.
Fedex has opened the international portion of its databases, including credit-card details, to government officials. It has created a police force recognized by the state of Tennessee that works alongside the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The company has rolled out radiation detectors at overseas facilities to detect dirty bombs and donated an airplane to federal researchers looking for a defense against shoulder-fired missiles. Moreover, the company is encouraging its 250,000 employees to be spotters of would-be terrorists. It is setting up a system designed to send reports of suspicious activities directly to the Department of Homeland Security via a special computer link. . .
Fedex’s newfound enthusiasm for a frontline role in the war on terror shows how the relationship between business and government has changed in the past few years. In some cases, these changes are blurring the division between private commerce and public law enforcement.
Federal agents privately praise Western Union for sharing information with Treasury and Homeland Security investigators about overseas money transfers. Time Warner Inc.‘s America Online has set up a dedicated hotline to help police officers seeking AOL subscriber information and also proffers advice about wording subpoenas. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which has a sophisticated supply-chain security system, has been helping U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents figure out how to better track international shipping, say Homeland Security officials. . .”
Posted by passing it along on May 29, 2005 at 10:40 AM Psst. It’s Memorial Day Weekend. People died so that this nation might live. This nation is dying. The Constitution is being decimated. Michael Jackson dominates the news. All is well.
If you care…..download this for FREE and slip it under the wipers of those cars with magnetic ribbons that applaud war and death and destruction:
To see what it means to be a REAL AMERICAN,
CLICK
Posted by Reg on May 29, 2005 at 9:16 PM Speaking of shredding the Constitution and establishing a federal, American Taleban with International scope :
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-ministers29may29,1,64815 557.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage
LATimes : ” A U.S. Faith Initiative for Africa “
’ WASHINGTON — Escalating its courtship of a politically powerful constituency, the Bush administration is teaming up with some of the nation’s best-known and most influential black clergy to craft a new role for U.S. churches in Africa.
’ The effort was launched last week, when more than two dozen leading African American religious figures met privately with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and senior White House officials at the State Department, according to administration officials and meeting participants.
’ Some of the pastors said it was a matter of national security — that those orphans were susceptible to recruitment by Islamic extremists unless they could be exposed to churches such as theirs… ‘
Ho-hum. Just another day in the descent of the United States of America into hell.
Posted by John Francis Lee on May 30, 2005 at 12:46 AM What if we dispute the story that a group of foreigners armed only with box cutters outsmarted the FAA and the entire U.S. military? Does the PATRIOT act seem scarier then? And if we do believe that ridiculous story, why are we giving them more money and more power? We have been tricked into giving up our rights
Posted by Sian L. on May 30, 2005 at 9:26 PM So let’s try again. Please give specific, documented examples when American citizens have been unjustly harmed by the Patriot Act.
Kayla says that she knows of some request in Washington State for library information that was later cancelled. She cites no documentation. Who went to jail or who was harmed?
passing it along cites an article in the WSJ that says the government has asked the employees of FedEx and Western Union to help identify terrorist support activity. No examples of when this has been used or abused.
Other posters are really OT or say read the Constitution. Maybe passing it along should have told Lincoln to read the Constitution before suspending habeus corpus.
Again, I repeat my question: Please give specific, documented examples when American citizens have been unjustly harmed by the Patriot Act.
Posted by Campesino on May 31, 2005 at 1:11 AM I mean, if the law if so bad, there should be many examples of how it has been misused and those should be cited every time the law is attacked. It would add more power to the argument. So this is a good place to start the list.
Posted by Campesino on May 31, 2005 at 1:15 AM Compasino,
How’s this list? It worked once before, and, it appears history seems to be repeating itself:The History of the present George is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having direct Object the Establishment of absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let the facts be submitted to a candid world.
—-“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.”
—-“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.”
—-“He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.”
—-“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:”—-“He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized Nation.”
********excerpts from the Declaration of Independence—-July 4TH, 1776
Posted by passing it along on May 31, 2005 at 3:47 AM White House Wants Search Limits Overturned
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050527/ap_on_go_pr_wh/secret_searches)
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration asked a federal appeals court Friday to restore its ability to compel Internet service providers to turn over information about their customers or subscribers as part of its fight against terrorism.The legal filing with the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York comes amid a debate in Congress over renewal of the Patriot Act and whether to expand the FBI’s power to seek records without the approval of a judge or grand jury.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero of New York last year blocked the government from conducting secret searches of communications records, saying the law that authorized them wrongly barred legal challenges and imposed a gag order on affected businesses.
The ruling came in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and an Internet access firm that received a national security letter from the FBI demanding records. The identity of the firm remains secret.
The government was authorized to pursue communications records as part of a 1986 law. Its powers were enhanced by the Patriot Act in 2001.
The administration said the judge’s ruling was off the mark because the company did mount a legal challenge to the demand for records. “Yet in this very case, the recipient of the NSL did precisely what the NSLs supposedly prevent recipients from doing,” the filing said.
The law’s ban on disclosing that such a letter has been received also is appropriate because of legitimate security concerns, the government said.
But ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer said the law does not contain a provision to challenge the FBI’s demand for documents. The ACLU and the firm filed the lawsuit to challenge the law’s constitutionality on the grounds that it doesn’t contain such a provision, he said.
“Most people who get NSLs don’t know they can bring a challenge in court because the statute doesn’t say they can,” he said. “No one has filed a motion to quash in 20 years.”
The ban on disclosure is so broad that the ACLU initially filed the suit under seal and negotiated for weeks on a version that could be released to the public.
Previously censored material released several months after Marrero’s ruling included innocuous material the government wanted withheld, the ACLU said, including the phrase “national security” and this sentence from a statement by an FBI agent: “I am a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
Posted by passing it along on May 31, 2005 at 3:53 AM “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS TO BE SEIZED” —-Amendment IV Constitution of the United States of America
Compesino, what don’t you understand about that?
Posted by passing it along on May 31, 2005 at 4:04 AM The suspension of Constitutional protections against arbitrary use of power IS the harm, Campesino. Any implementation of a law that violates basic principles established in the Bill of Rights is already damaging to the country’s legal fabric. And every enforcement, every interpretation in court, every citation of that law as a reason for police action is a further damage.
I don’t have a newspaper article or police report to cite. But if I did, it would be an effect I’d be citing, the cause for which would be a Constitution-suspending statute promoted on the heels of a national trauma, virtually undebated and written in such arcane language that even a lawyer has trouble truly identifying what powers it grants as well as what the limits on those powers are. I will cite, along with passing it along, the 4th Amendment, and I’ll add the 5th and 6th as well, which the spirit and the implementation of the Patriot Act directly contradict.
See, this is the disheartening reality. Not enough mainstream horror at the loss of rights that were hard-fought to be won. A right is like virginity, once you give it up, you’re gonna have a hell of a time getting it back. Sad…
Posted by Kuya on May 31, 2005 at 6:35 AM Please, I am not arguing that the Patriot Act is a good thing. What I am saying is that if it is such a bad thing theoretically, it should be a bad thing practically and there should be many examples of its misuse affecting people’s lives.
I am just asking for examples of that. Those examples, in the real world of politics, should be powerful arguments against the law.
I have e-mailed the author of the article as well, to see if he has more examples other than the one in his article.
Posted by Campesino on May 31, 2005 at 3:52 PM The passing of the Patriot Act pretty much undos the protections afforded us by the constitution.It gives the government the ABILITY to violate our civil rights.Rights that our founding fathers fought and died for.Whether or not it’s actually been used yet is completely besides the point.Campesino,do you honestly think that these powers won’t be used?If so,why are they trying so hard to make these ‘laws’ permanent?Do you think they won’t be used against you?Is that what it’s going to take to get you to pull head out of the sand?
Posted by mike on May 31, 2005 at 8:55 PM And it seems that Kayla did come up with a specific example.
Posted by mike on May 31, 2005 at 8:57 PM For the third time - I HAVE NOT SAID THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF THE PATRIOT ACT. I am asking for documented examples (other than the one in the article) of where it has been abused. Examples of its abuse will strengthen the arguments against its extension.
So far, all I have is the story of the charity in the article and Kayla’s undocumented anecdotal example. And in that example, the request was withdrawn when contested.
Posted by Campesino on May 31, 2005 at 10:27 PM What in the world do you call GITMO?
That’s not example enough? That doesn’t outrage you? You think that wouldn’t be possible without the foundation of the Patriot Act? What the hell is wrong with you?
Maybe, we don’t deserve this republic. We are so absolutely clueless about what it is and why it is important and for what reasons it is. This whole exchange is disheartening beyond belief.
Posted by passing it along on Jun 1, 2005 at 12:15 AM I’m glad if you’re against the Patriot Act, Campesino, I hope that’s the case. You would be the one to know your own views, and documentation of abuses would be of help to scuttle it, if it’s possible to do that, or at least to let as much of it lapse as can be (although my true preference is already impossible; I would have preferred a bit of thoughtfulness and hesitancy to implement “emergency” legislation from its Congressional authors and supporters back in late 2001!).
I still think the tangible harm has already been done and will cause more, since money-flows have changed due to the law, orders of enforcement have been given on its behalf, and investigations with less police restraint have been initiated using it as the legal justification.
Personally, I think better quality police work is more the idea within pre-Patriot Act legal parameters, sharing of info among law enforcement and terror-interdicting agencies, international cooperation in the realm of law and identifying the movements of criminal/terrorist individuals, plus other tactics that could help prevent enemies from getting into the country and wreaking havoc again. Given the findings of the 9/11 Commission, those seem much more to the point, if national security (without sacrificing the freedoms that make America a rarity among societies) is the agenda. But you can see why people are so chagrined, yes? We feel we’ve seen a fast one pulled. We feel the law is inherently abusive of Constitutional limits on power, even if its limitations (whatever those are decided to be in the courts) are adhered to letter-perfect.
After 9/11, when I was already feeling punched out, the passage of that law (the very title of which made me sick) was like a kick to the crotch. It was as if either the legislators had lost their heads or, an unsubstantiated suspicion but one that occured to me, that they had quickly drawn up a bill that contained a long-standing agenda that could now be put into play. I’m not too conspiracy-driven generally, but damn, so quick! Like a rough draft had already been made, although I have no evidence for that sickening suspicion.
You can see what I mean though.
Posted by Kuya on Jun 1, 2005 at 1:09 AM I DON’T CARE THAT YOU HAVE NOT SAID WHETHER YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF THE PATRIOT ACT OR NOT!!!! What I’m saying is that you’re insistence that there are no ‘documented instances of it’s abuse’ amounts to nothing more than a feel good attempt to dismiss its implications.And I submit that the fact that the patriot act was proposed and passed is a ‘documented fact of its abuse’!!!
Posted by mike on Jun 1, 2005 at 1:10 AM Kuya,I think your right.The patriot act was proposed so quickly that I can’t help but to wonder whether it had already been written up and was waiting for just the right moment to be implimented.If thats the case,what does it mean? “Just because you’re paranoid does’nt mean that there isn’t someone out to get you”.
Posted by mike on Jun 1, 2005 at 1:26 AM History is repleat with examples of rulers,emporors,dictators,etc,who put their own needs ahead of the needs of their people,in fact,thats the rule rather than the exception.Why is it so inconceivable that thats the case now?Because we’re a ‘democracy’?HAH!!!!!
Posted by mike on Jun 1, 2005 at 1:39 AM I DON’T CARE THAT YOU HAVE NOT SAID WHETHER YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF THE PATRIOT ACT OR NOT!!!! What I’m saying is that you’re insistence that there are no ‘documented instances of it’s abuse’ amounts to nothing more than a feel good attempt to dismiss its implications.And I submit that the fact that the patriot act was proposed and passed is a ‘documented fact of its abuse’!!!
Posted by mike on May 31, 2005 at 8:10 PM
Reread my posts. I have NEVER said that there are no documented instances of its abuse, just that I had never heard of any other than the one in this article and would like to hear of more. I e-mailed the author of the article and asked him the same question.As of last night he had not replied.
Posted by Campesino on Jun 1, 2005 at 2:34 PM History is repleat with examples of rulers,emporors,dictators,etc,who put their own needs ahead of the needs of their people,in fact,thats the rule rather than the exception.Why is it so inconceivable that thats the case now?Because we’re a ‘democracy’?HAH!!!!!
Posted by mike on May 31, 2005 at 8:39 P
You are exactly right. Read some American history. The things that Lincoln did to Northern opponents of the Civil War effort make the Patriot Act look pretty weak
Posted by Campesino on Jun 1, 2005 at 2:37 PM Mike,
Maybe we can get some sort of petition going and ask the Russians to become the Soviets and practice dictatorial communism again.They wouldn’t really have to do anything,just say they’re communist and have the May Day Parade every year.You know,a pageant to inspire fear.We have technology enough to pull of the rest:Wag The Dog on a daily basis.After all,it’s not like Fox News doesn’t already do it. Then,with an old enemy back,the Republicans can go back to hating and fearing someone other than political opponents.
That may sound silly,but looking at the far-right,it might work.The far-right has applied the techniques of stifling opposition through the fear of being watched,and possibly arrested in our country.Does it matter how many times it’s done if it’s a threat?
The relationship the Republicans have with the former Soviets kind of reminds me of the movie Psycho.Norman Bates kills his mother,but misses her and stuffs her.Then he puts on her clothes and pretends to be her and carries on conversations wth himself as her.In a way,that’s what we’ve done with communism.What’s the method we’ve used?The USA PATRIOT act.I’m sure the Soviets used equally patriotic sounding names for their repressive programs.
The most horrible thing about the neo-cons is their predictability.I know Orwellian references are out of style,but they fit the neo-cons well.The more powerful they become,the less tolerant they become,and their appetite grows with the eating.
Also,I wonder about this:if Gore had been in office during 9/11 and proposed the USA PATRIOT act,what sort of reaction do you think the republicans would have had?Would Rush have not exploded?Speaking of explosions,how many reactionary,gun-hoarding nut-cases would have become right wing unabombers?How many people would have declared war on their government by joining militias?Would we have not had civil war.The Republicans should think about that,especially since they could lose in 2008 and be a minortiy hoisted by their own petard.
Posted by wbysea on Jun 1, 2005 at 5:57 PM The USAPatriot Act is clearly unconstitutional and should be repealed. One reason Bush is trying to pack the Federal Appeals Court system is to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases which would contest the constitutionality of this law that went through in a panic, under great pressure and with virtually no debate, and about which most people, including legislators, know very little. The USAPatriot Act allows all manor of Federal snooping without a warrent or even traditional conceptions just cause. It presumes guilt before innocense and creates whole new totalitarian-style legal categories of suspects such as “person of interest” to be investigated at will without customary constitutional protection. This is a blueprint for dictatorship. It is obvious that Bush, who wouldn’t lift a finger in the interest of national security before 9/11 (even to get a FISA warrent to search known terrorist Zacharious Massouwi’s computer), allowed 9/11 to occur in order to establish a police state in the panic of the aftermath because conservatives, in addition to Muslim fanatics, also hate deomcratic freedoms. Let’s oppose crypto-fascism! Let’s repeal the USA Patriot Act now! Even the Act’s name is creepy!
Posted by steve on Jun 1, 2005 at 6:31 PM The USAPA is only three and a half years old which means there needs to be more time before some of its more outrages impications are practically played out. Also keep in mind that like Rome, police states aren’t built in a day! I am not, admittedly, greatly informed on civil liberties issues and not an ACLU member so I am not the best one to ask about what kinds of violations of civil liberties have been routinely occurring if any have at all. I suspect it will have to happen eventually. Just that fact that USAPA exists and enables such things to occur is sufficiently disturbing. I do believe however that there have been some minor cases but in all honesty I’m not really sure.
Posted by steve on Jun 2, 2005 at 9:40 PM What Lincoln pulled during the civilwar does make the Pat Act look weak, but it took 60 years of hard dedicated work(mostly by ppl who wanted to put Black ppl down again) to repeal a lot of what Lincoln pulled. I mean It has been a long hard climb in this country to get somthing resembling real freedom, and now they are tring to take it away. A lot of ppl died for the 8 hour work day(for the most part), the end of child labor(kinda sorta),and things like the merandia rights(when they choose to use it, or fufill their obligation to it). Its bad enough as it is, we dont need to be taking any backward steps.
Posted by Vanella on Jun 2, 2005 at 10:25 PM Campesino,
Go to Progressive.org and type in Patriot Act. It isn’t about guys in Idaho being rounded up for their so-called conspiracy to bomb abortion clinics,but ‘twill do.Actually,they had all that heating oil and fertilizer for a pyrotechnic display they were going to do this Fourth of July.Just wanted to see something blowed up real good!Sky full of smoke!
Funny isn’t it?The kooks who said they were at war with their government are now completely silent now that a real tyrant is in power.
Posted by wbysea on Jun 3, 2005 at 12:56 PM Campesino—
Again, let me ask you, what do you think GITMO and all of the other detention camps are about. By Rummy’s figures along, the US has detained over 60+thousand individuals in that system. Few, if any have had recourse to due process. THAT doesn’t raise a concern in your mind? You may be suffering from a condition of cranioadiposity.
Posted by passing it along on Jun 3, 2005 at 8:22 PM “Again, let me ask you, what do you think GITMO and all of the other detention camps are about.”
I think the Patriot Act is about surveillance of American citizens and resident aliens on American soil to ostensibly detect terrorist activity or support for terrorist organizations.
I think Guantanamo Bay is about holding captured enemy combatants and extracting intelligence data from them. They are purposefully held outside of United States territory so that they in theory wouldn’t be subject to US laws (like the Patriot Act)though the courts seem to be disagreeing with that.
I think you can reasonably argue that they come from the same mind-set. I don’t think that provisions of the Patriot Act are being used to justify how prisoners at Guantanamo are treated. Actually I think that the government’s argument is that the prisoners are beyond US law and they wouldn’t be given as many rights as the Patriot Act would give.
Posted by Campesino on Jun 4, 2005 at 12:03 AM You may be suffering from a condition of cranioadiposity.
Right back at ya, buddy
Posted by Campesino on Jun 4, 2005 at 12:06 AM Funny isn’t it?The kooks who said they were at war with their government are now completely silent now that a real tyrant is in power.
Posted by wbysea on June 3, 2005 at 7:56 AM
Actually, we’ve come a long way as a country. You should read some history. The Federalists passed the Sedition Act and John Adams used it to imprison newspaper columnists who wrote articles critical of his administration. During the Civil War, Lincoln imprisoned critics without trial and without charges for years. Hundreds of anti-war people were taken to the borders of Southern states and expelled from the country. Again, without charges, without trial. Maybe we shouldn’t even talk about what Roosevelt did to the citizens of Japanese descent during WWII. The Patriot Act is pretty weak stuff compared to that.
Posted by Campesino on Jun 4, 2005 at 12:15 AM Actually, I did read where the USAPA is being used by the FBI to survey search engines like GOOGLE to see what people are looking up and investigating on that basis. Be careful out there web people!
Posted by steve on Jun 4, 2005 at 10:46 AM Campesino,
Honey,it’s Kayla. Ok, I’ll bite. Even though I hate doing someone else’s homework for them, here’s a start:
I did a search on Dogpile and came up with 67 hits, most of which I’m not going into here but these I found interesting:
‘OIG Receives 34 Credible Complaints..” Found on www.cpa.org Also “Senators Vow To Halt Data Mining Project…found on www.silconvalley.com and also “Patriot Act Abuses Growing…found on Webolg.sillconvalley.com. Also, try these:
www.sourcewatch.com
web.morons.org and finally there’s a film documenting the abuse that normal citzens (from law-abiding store clerks to Olympian althletes according to the intro) have endured under the Patriot Act called “Unconstitutional: The War On Civil Liberties” -this can be found on www.talkleft.com(it’s a crime site)Also try www.capitolhillblue.com.
Now for the original incident that I posted. If you re-read your original request, you mentioned nothing about documentation. It was only after I posted the incident that you changed the rules(classic conservative ploy) However, you can find documetation of this incident(I just hate doing other peoples’work)because not only did it make our little small town newspaper but one of the big time Seattle stations(ch.4KOMO or Ch.7KIRO ???)picked it up. But I have problems with the assumption that one needs documentation of abuses to have a legitimate claim to repeal the law. It’s a bad law even if it isn’t abused. (you might remember this was my larger point)This law is about nothing more than Unchecked Power. Power doesn’t police itself, nor does it document its’ abuses.You’re a student of some history and history bears this out. It frightens the bejesus out of the very people it’s supposed to protect and does nothing, evidenced by the continued attacks around the world, to stem the so-called tide of terror. And , yes, documented or not, it has been responsible for a good number of incidents that have harmed undeserving people. Now before you loop back to a demand for documetation of this claim, it is a very big country and while in this age of information documentation does carry a certain authority,I remind you that the interred Japanese citzens that you refer to did not document their lot at the time, history revealed those abuses at a much later date.Life happens-documented or not. So, do we allow a law that was created in a moment of fear and anger stand to harm the very people it was supposed to protect or do we act before great harm is done and repeal the damn thing ? Why wait? Because we have had worse laws?? Is this the standard we’re using now-if it’s not as bad as we’ve had, well, lets keep it….wow, things are worse that I thought..
Posted by kayla on Jun 4, 2005 at 11:07 PM “But I have problems with the assumption that one needs documentation of abuses to have a legitimate claim to repeal the law.”
I wasn’t making that assumption. I guess the point I was trying to make was that I had read scores of articles against the Patriot Act over the last three years, and that this article was the first that had documented an actual abuse of the law. That doesn’t necessarily mean that there haven’t been any, it’s just that with as many people in the press as there are against the law, I assumed that there would be a cottage industry in building lists of cases. Often in things like this, one journalist builds a list of instances, and then it gets flipped from story to story as other journalists pick it up. I find it puzzling that something like that hasn’t happened in this instance.
Maybe that just says something about how lazy some people in the media are.
But I stay with my point that an argument against a bad law is immensely strengthened when you can demonstrate real abuses that harm real people. It gets emotions involved which are important in political media campaigns.
I will look at the sources you found kayla, and thanks for researching.
” remind you that the interred Japanese citzens that you refer to did not document their lot at the time, history revealed those abuses at a much later date.Life happens-documented or not.”
I have to disagree with you slightly here. I think that it was very well publicized at the time that citizens of Japanese descent were being interned at the beginning of the war. It wasn’t a secret that wasn’t revealed until after the war.
American public opinion was actually in support of the internments at the time. I think that says lots about how our racial attitudes have changed and also says lots about the psychological effect of the Pearl Harbor attack on us.
Thank you for your thoughtful posts.
Posted by Campesino on Jun 4, 2005 at 11:35 PM “It was only after I posted the incident that you changed the rules(classic conservative ploy)”
I didn’t mean to change the “rules” but you have to admit you sounded pretty vague about the whole thing
Posted by Campesino on Jun 4, 2005 at 11:36 PM So Hitler’s Germany exterminated 12 million people. Is that really that horrendous? After all, the German people were in support of the policy at the time.
Compare that with the 25,000,000 done in by Stalin. And what about the unknown tens of million reputedly executed by the purges under Mao? So, what I’m saying is, I know there might have been some atrocities, but, when you compare that when your historic examples, is it really all that bad? Maybe someone out there can give me names? If you are talking about 12 million, there ought to be some lists of names. I’m saying the argument will be more persuasive and immensely strengthened when you can demonstrate it with specific lists of real names…I love the logic of some thinking
Posted by passingitalong on Jun 5, 2005 at 11:53 AM I might just add to Kayla’s impressive list of abuses of the USAPA the attempt within the last couple years to bust a strike of the ILWU of westcoast stevedores and to bring down their union. The act was used to prevent sympathy wildcat work stoppages all up and down the west coast docks. The stevedores probably had a legitimate grievance since the US labor movement has been taking horrible setbacks and perhaps sympathy strikes do violate such labor laws as Taft-Hartly (1947) but it is horrible to see some totalitarian piece of legislation like USAPA being used on behalf of the bosses! This only proves the real purpose of the law: not national security but the mass repression of civil society! Let’s fight it, its unconstitutional!
Posted by steve on Jun 5, 2005 at 4:41 PM most, but not all, of you have fascinating posts , , , , , i remember the day a little differently, i.e., when i saw a plane actually hit/target the second tower my very first thought was: bush/cheney pulled it off = they continue to do so, both are actually quite good actors, the losers? = most of the rest of the world ‘cepting, to a lesser extent, the majority of american voters whom continue to get to pay $ for their fuel > you gotta start somewhere to clean up this mess if for no other reason saving that you want to be able to personally accept your own view of reality instead of the “official”/media view > (i wish i could say “. . . but everyone knows we did it to ourselves!” . . . but they don’t, BUT WE DID)
Posted by james r cummins, orchardist/farmer on Jun 5, 2005 at 11:20 PM The scenario sounds familiar. Does the Reichstag Fire, February 27, 1933 come to mind? No one knows who was really responsible to this date. Terrorists or Nazi sympathisers creating panic. Nevertheless, on February 28, 1933, Adolf Hitler prevailed upon President Hindenberg to sign a decree “For the Protection of the People and the State” suspending the seven sections of the constitution which guaranteed individual and civil liberties. Described as a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state,” the decree held that:
“Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searches; orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise proscribed.”
Posted by passingitalong on Jun 6, 2005 at 1:58 AM Campesino,
I was talking about the militia yahoos who were so loud during the Clinton administrationHaven’t made a peep about tyranny since Bush was elected.Cowards.
Posted by wbysea on Jun 6, 2005 at 11:10 AM Passingitalong needs to reconsider the wisdom of downplaying/making apologia for Nazism! First of all even conservative historians recognize the unambiguous Nazi responsibility for the Reichstag fire. Its been officially and universally acknowledged. In the second place, Hitler, in a psychotic and pathologically racist rage and fury unleashed a military assault on all of Europe and North Africa murdering and deporting millions in his path. His ultimate goal was nothing less than the murderous and pathological rearrangement of the world along the lines of his sick Nazi “futurist” vision which necessarily entailed the extermination of whole groups! Such a political entity and vision could never settle down to normalcy of any kind and HAD to be destroyed! This was why the US and UK finally entered the war and fought for unconditional surrender. Besides the Western leaders knew as well they could not reach global economic preeminance without an open world economy. Hitler’s maniacal stunts were “acceptible” to the west up to 1939 when he upset the chess board. One of the reason the US and UK leadership made no fuss and even encouraged capitulation until the invasion of Poland was that the Nazis were seen by the US/UK as a counterwieght to the substantial political left in Europe; the workers’ movements and socialist parties not to mention the USSR. Once the Nazis destroyed the influence of the European Left and severely weakened the USSR which contributed most to the defeat of the Nazis, the US/UK mopped up (with significant losses and sufffering of course!)and, with much of Germany’s modern industrial capacity in tact, used some meagre Marshall Plan aid, new rules for the world economy, and renewed German economic growth to open a new world capitalist order based on US hegemony. Ditto for the pacific and Japan. As far as Stalin and Mao in the USSR and China are concerned were are talking about a different phenomenan. Both leaders were fanatically cruel and murderous and engaged in inexusable crimes. Yet both were ultimately stable, status quo powers. Both leaders presided over large, incredibly poor nations which were brutally blockaded, colonized and invaded (China by Japan since 1931)and deprived of opportunities for political normalcy by powers who wanted to destroy them. WWII, which neither started and which Mao might never have even rose to power without, gave each a terrific survival motivation and prevented more moderate forces from emerging. In may ways War and Fascism generated and sustained communist extremism. Things could have been different.
Posted by steve on Jun 6, 2005 at 11:30 AM Comments regarding the NAZI atrocities were an exercise in applying the absurd logic seen elsewhere on these boards.
There are far too many parallels with occurrences of the thirties and now for one not to be alarmed at the frightening direction the United States is taking.Steve, your history needs a bit of revising. To suggest that much Germany’s modern industrial capacity was intact is absurd. The nation was reduced to rubble. The carpet bombing of the RAF and the US Army Air Force were highly effective in levelling nearly everything. I have walked through some of that rubble. The nation was devastated.
Historians today are all too quick to discount the concerns of the era. It is easy to construct all manor of motivation for the missteps of the 30’s. At that time it was impossible to walk down any street in Britain and not encounter a WWI vet who had been catastrophically disfigured from the war. Nearly every family had experience had experienced personal loss as a result of the conflict. A desire to avoid any other similar blood bath was more a rational.
Posted by passingitalong on Jun 6, 2005 at 1:40 PM Passingitalong,
RAF/USAF carpet bombing did leave Germany in rubble and was one of the reason’s for its post-war economic success vs. the US which did not HAVE to retool industry along modern lines in the same manner after the war. Certainly SOME of Germany’s modern industrial capacity WAS intact afterwards and within a year or so of reconstruction Germany’s industrial output began to approximate its pre-War (1939) levels. Like in the first World War there was much suffering. No knowledgable individual denies this fact! I entirely agree with the 1930s parallels with today. The militariasm, jingoism, racist paranoia, crisis prone economy, arrogant political leadership, and mutual mistrust and animosity people ignorantly display toward one another as if it is expected from them like so many performing poodles! It is truely nauseating! Let’s all learn from the recent past!
Posted by steve on Jun 7, 2005 at 11:55 AM Campesino,
Tom Delay flagrantly abused the Patriot Act during the Republican gerrymandering of Texas when Democratic representatives fled the state as a tactical effort to avoid a restructuring vote. Delay used his powers to commandeer tracking aircraft and other resources that were specifically set up only for those purposes outlined in the Patriot Act for dealing with terrorists.
Further, it’s seldom what you see on the surface that kills you and common knowledge should tell you that citizen rights are usurped enough as it is without giving carte blanche to the ilk of Tom Delay.
Posted by Tim Christopher on Jun 10, 2005 at 3:08 PM Campesino,
Tom Delay flagrantly abused the Patriot Act during the Republican gerrymandering of Texas when Democratic representatives fled the state as a tactical effort to avoid a restructuring vote. Delay used his powers to commandeer tracking aircraft and other resources that were specifically set up only for those purposes outlined in the Patriot Act for dealing with terrorists.
Further, it’s seldom what you see on the surface that kills you and common knowledge should tell you that citizen rights are usurped enough as it is without giving carte blanche to the ilk of Tom Delay.
Posted by Tim Christopher on June 10, 2005 at 10:08 AM
Sorry, but you can’t blame the Patriot Act for that one. Delay had people contact the FAA, which tracks all flights and always has from long before the PA, to find out where the flight the assemblymen took was going. I won’t disagree that contacting the FAA was wrong, but this wasn’t based on any authority from the Patriot Act. Delay isn’t a law enforcement official and had no implementing authority unde the PA anyway.
Posted by Campesino on Jun 10, 2005 at 3:49 PM The system used (abused, in this case) was in place as designed by the Patriot Act and it points out how such measures can be manipulated to suit extremists drunk with power such as a Tom Delay. And I believe there was abuse of power of authority in connection to Patriot Act provisions on the part of Delay, something to do with membership of a certain Washington committee though I can no longer provide you with those details. I am certain however, that the system used was designed only for use under provisions of the Patriot act—that’s what made it newsworthy and just one of the valid reasons why there’s legitmate cause now to reign in the Patriot Act as outlined in the above article.
Believe what you will of the Texas incident but I didn’t find it particularly reassuring to know that the likes of Tom Delay were already finding loopholes in provisions provided for under the Patriot Act to use for their personal witch hunt.
Posted by Tim Christopher on Jun 10, 2005 at 5:45 PM “The ethics panel faulted DeLay’s actions in asking the Federal Aviation Administration last year to help locate a private plane that Republicans thought was carrying Texas Democratic legislators. Some Democratic lawmakers were leaving the state to prevent a quorum that Republicans needed in Austin to pass a bitterly disputed congressional redistricting plan engineered by DeLay. DeLay’s staff asked an FAA official to help find the plane in a bid to force the legislators back to the capital.
The ethics report cited House rules that bar members from taking “any official action on the basis of the partisan affiliation . . . of the individuals involved.” It noted that the FAA official later said he felt he “had been used” for political purposes. DeLay’s role in the matter “raises serious concerns under these standards of conduct,” the report said.”
This is from WaPo 10/7/04. No mention of the PA.
Posted by Campesino on Jun 10, 2005 at 10:49 PM I couldn’t copy from the PDF, but the link below goes to a PDF of the official complaint filed against DeLay by Rep. Bell of Texas. It doesn’t mention the PA either.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/filelibrary/summary_delay2.pdf
Posted by Campesino on Jun 10, 2005 at 10:52 PM “U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay admitted Thursday he provided Texas Speaker Tom Craddick with the same information that state police used to enlist a homeland security agency in the search for runaway Democratic legislators.
DeLay said his staff used public information at the Federal Aviation Administration to track former Texas Speaker Pete Laney’s airplane.
Laney was among 55 Democrats who broke a House quorum on May 12 to kill a congressional redistricting bill sought by DeLay, R-Sugar Land. Craddick and DeLay wanted the errant legislators arrested and returned to the House to force a vote on the bill.
“I was told at the time that that plane was in the air coming from Ardmore, Oklahoma, back to Georgetown, Texas,” DeLay said of the FAA’s information, which he said was also available on the agency’s Web site. “I relayed that information to Tom Craddick.”
Texas Department of Public Safety officers working in Craddick’s office had the same information when it contacted a federal air interdiction agency to seek its help in finding Laney’s airplane. The federal agency has since said it was misled into believing Laney’s airplane was missing and possibly had crashed.
Homeland Defense Secretary Tom Ridge, meanwhile, said Thursday his agency is investigating “potentially criminal” misuse of the federal air interdiction service by the DPS.
DeLay said he played no part in the DPS’ decision to contact the federal air interdiction service. And Craddick denies knowing anything about how the DPS came to call the agency.
“I don’t know who contacted who,” Craddick said.”
This is from a 5/3/03 Houston Chronicle article. Again no Patriot Act - but it does appear that the federal air interdiction service was set up under the act setting up the Department of Homeland Security not the Patriot Act
Posted by Campesino on Jun 10, 2005 at 11:04 PM Thanks for clearing that up. I was pretty sure it was PA connected but as the reference you provided points out, it was Homeland Security related, instead. Your time and effort is this regard is appreciated.
After 911 I’ve been particularly suspicious of the government’s war on terror, having had direct experience with both pilots of the airliners that struck the world trade center. I’ll never be convinced that our government was unaware of the motives of these individuals. That, along with the President’s reading of “My Pet Goat” (to fidlle as Rome burned) convinced me that there was a much larger agenda being ushered in. And so, too, I see the Patriot Act as yet another ruse by the Bush administration to usurp the protections of our democracy to further their personal agenda.
Posted by Tim Christopher on Jun 11, 2005 at 1:14 AM I could be wrong, but seem to recall that one of the provisions of the Patriot Act is to suppress any reference to its use (or abuse), which, if true, would make it illegal to cite any documented evidence of its misadministration, or, in any case, to reduce the likelihood of its publicity.
Moreover, applications of the act would appear to be haphazard for the very good reason that, with the exception of the World Trade Center attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing, very few terrorist attacks have occured on US soil. An administration which, as we now know, contemplated and planned an invasion and occupation of Irag long before 911 would feel understandably concerned about the repercussions derived from their anticipated foreign policy.
One might even refer to the Patriot Act as the Pre-emptive Domestic Terror Act, where terror, to an adminstration determined to suppress any political blowback to its self-fulfilling foreign policiy, could plausibly be defined to include domestic dissent to those policies which generate the terrorist response that justify them.
Posted by Just A Thought... on Jun 11, 2005 at 11:23 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Dave Lindorff
- Radioactive Wounds of War
Tests on returning troops suggest serious health consequences of depleted uranium use in Iraq - Before Sunset
A broad coalition is pushing Congress to rein in the Patriot Act - GMs Healthcare Double Standard
Bad ideology trumps good business - Beating the Boomers
Why Bush and Co. are racing to cut Social Security - A Milli Vanilli President
- Protesting Too Little?
Homeland Security wants to cage dissent at this summer’s political conventions
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
