They're At It Again

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

lsvtec

GNU/Linux Evangelist
Originally posted by NY Times@ Feb 8
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — A storm of liberal criticism erupted today over a Justice Department draft of legislation to increase the law enforcement powers it won in 2001 in the U.S.A. Patriot Act.

Although a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Barbara Comstock, insisted that the draft represented nothing more than staff discussions, copies were sent to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and to Vice President Dick Cheney in his capacity as president of the Senate.

The 80-page draft, marked "Confidential — Not for Distribution Draft Jan. 9, 2003," was posted in midafternoon on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/home.asp. It was quickly scrutinized and denounced by the American Civil Liberties Union and Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

These are some of the major proposals in the draft:

¶Invalidate state legal consent decrees that seek to curb police spying. The authors argued such orders could hinder terrorism investigations.

¶Eliminate the requirement that the attorney general personally has to authorize using certain intelligence evidence in a criminal case, permitting him to designate an assistant attorney general to make such authorizations.

¶Allow the collection of DNA samples by "such means as are reasonably necessary" from suspected terrorists being held by federal authorities. Failing to cooperate would be a crime.

¶Flatly bar Freedom of Information Act efforts to gain information about detainees, because litigation over such issues costs the Justice Department resources.

¶Allow citizenship to be stripped from people who support groups that the United States considers terrorist organizations.

Mr. Conyers said: "This draft bill constitutes yet another egregious blow to our citizens' civil liberties. Among other things, the Bush administration now wants to imprison suspects before they are tried and create DNA databases of lawful residents who have committed no crime."

The associate director of the national office of the A.C.L.U., Gregory T. Nojeim, said:

"The initial U.S.A. Patriot Act undercut many of the traditional checks and balances on government power. The new Ashcroft proposal threatens to fundamentally alter the constitutional protections that allow us to be both safe and free."

Ms. Comstock's statement did not disavow the document, though she said no final proposals had even been sent to the attorney general.

"We are continually considering antiterrorism measures and would be derelict if we were not doing so," she said. "The department's deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties."

Exactly how receptive Congress will be to whatever proposal the administration makes is uncertain. Democrats and Republicans on both Judiciary Committees have complained that the Justice Department was withholding information on how the 2001 law was being applied and whether changes were needed.

"Wow", is about all I can say. How far do they (the current administration) have to go before someone takes them to court for violating a citizen's constitutional rights?

Sorry about posting the entire article, but you have to register to see old articles.
 

asmallsol

Super Moderator
There goes the 1st, 4th and a few other amendments. Hell we dont need a bill of rights :ph34r: :( they are out of line and going way too far.
 

dohcvtec_accord

WRX Sellout
I really only see a problem with the last one in the group. The fourth one will never go through, unless they somehow revise it - it's too vague.

Besides, it's just some sort of internal memo, I'm sure that at your typical office, plenty of emails go around talking about who gained weight over the past month, who's getting fired or other heresay or speculation. It's nothing to get upset about until it reaches some sort of official or more structured form.
 

xj0hnx

I wanna be sedated
VIP
Originally posted by Dead Kennedys written 1983
Welcome to 1984 are you ready for the third world war?,you too will meet the secret police,they'll draft you and they'll jail your niece
 

lsvtec

GNU/Linux Evangelist
California, Uber Alles... :)

Originally posted by dohcvtec_accord@Feb 10 2003, 12:17 PM
I really only see a problem with the last one in the group. The fourth one will never go through, unless they somehow revise it - it's too vague.

There is a problem with every one of them.
Invalidate state legal consent decrees that seek to curb police spying. The authors argued such orders could hinder terrorism investigations.

So the police won't require a search warrant to keep tabs on you. Worked real well in the war on drugs.
Eliminate the requirement that the attorney general personally has to authorize using certain intelligence evidence in a criminal case, permitting him to designate an assistant attorney general to make such authorizations.

Anything the police "dig up" (read plant) on you is now admissable in court. So much for due process.
Allow the collection of DNA samples by "such means as are reasonably necessary" from suspected terrorists being held by federal authorities. Failing to cooperate would be a crime.

You don't have to be convicted, only suspected of terrorism to be forced to give a DNA sample. It's like forcing someone to register as a sex offender even if they are aquitted. Sounds bogus to me.
Flatly bar Freedom of Information Act efforts to gain information about detainees, because litigation over such issues costs the Justice Department resources.

So the government can do as they please and not be accountable to the public for anything. "They're getting rich by selling weapons to both countries..." can we say Iran Contra Scandal all over again.
Allow citizenship to be stripped from people who support groups that the United States considers terrorist organizations.

Under our current definition of terrorism, Greenpeace is a terrorist organization. They have never committed a violent act in their history, but could be stripped of their Citizenship by simpling belonging to the organization.

I think all of these are horrible ideas. We don't want to become another police state, but that is where the party for a smaller government:)rolleyes:) is leading us.
 

Capt. Orygun

Win the Day
you know I'm all for safety, but taking away civil liberties over this stuff won't fix anything. Were told to "go about your buisness as usual" to help fight terrorism, but now I have to worry about my son getting deported if congress decides the Boy Scouts are a terrorist group. I have always said to people who ask me how I feel about being in the military "I don't defend America, I defend liberty". And for me that's the way it is. If America became a place of oppresion tomarrow I would renounce it, America is just a name after all. It's Liberty that defines us as a people.
 
Top