Legislating Tyranny

#1

Anti-Terror Bill number H.R. 3162

or USA Patriot Act

Has Potential to Terrorize Us All  


For bill text: http://thomas.loc.gov

October 26, 2001 DOJgov.net newswire -  In an attempt to cover for US Department of Justice's Immigration and Naturalization Service corruption, inefficiency and "terrorist friendly" activities that led to the terrorist murder of over 3,000 Americans, Congress has taken action.  They have decided that the way to protect liberty is to diminish it.  This legislation masked years of writing reports documenting USDOJ INS deficiencies but never following through.

On Thursday, Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to publish new guidelines.   "I will issue directives requiring law enforcement to make use of new powers in intelligence gathering, criminal procedure and immigration violations," Ashcroft said.

President Bush said that he looks forward to signing the USA Act, which his administration requested in response to the Sep. 11 hijackings, "so that we can combat terrorism and prevent future attacks."

Most everyone in the bureaucratic and political arenas were poised to cover their posteriors for inaction.

During the Senate debate Thursday, the lone critic of the bill was Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), who introduced a subsequently rejected series of pro-privacy amendments stated:  "We in this body have a duty to analyze, to test, to weigh new laws that the zealous and often sincere advocates of security would suggest to us... This is what I have tried to do with this anti-terrorism bill.  And that is why I will vote against this bill."

Feingold said the USA Act "does not strike the right balance between empowering law enforcement and protecting constitutional freedoms."

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) was even more candid.  In a Fox News Interview, he stated that there were enough laws on the books to protect the American people from terrorism and that the government had essentially dropped the ball.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) seemed to speak for the rest of the Senate by saying "the homefront is a war front," arguing that police needed new surveillance powers.  Senator Schumer has been a long time stalking horse for the US Department of Justice and legislating away personal liberty.

Some provisions of this bill are timely and reasonable although questionably needed.  But several are very ominous.  The worst sections of this legislation involve:

JULY 2002 HR 3162 OPPOSITION UPDATE:  Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., a conservative, is sponsoring legislation intended to preserve civil liberties he believes are under attack in the USA Patriot Act.

"The more rights, the more freedoms and the more privacy Americans are forced to give up, the more those terrorists threatening our nation will have succeeded," Barr said. "We can and must achieve an appropriate balance between our homeland security and personal security.''

An "overly intrusive government,'' Barr said, shouldn't be allowed to "erode our constitutional freedoms, through national ID cards or an extensive network of surveillance cameras. This legislation will make government more accountable to the people.''

Opposition to at least some of the government's efforts is beginning to grow on the local level. City councils in at least nine U.S. cities have passed ordinances or resolutions pushed by local activists intended to preserve civil liberties. The cities are: Amherst, Mass.; Ann Arbor, Mich.; Berkeley, Calif.; Cambridge, Mass.; Carrboro, N.C.; Denver, Colo.; Leverett, Mass., North Hampton, Mass., and Portland, Ore.

In March, by 7-4, the Denver City Council passed a non-binding resolution discouraging local police from enforcing those parts of the act that interfere with people's civil rights.

The Cato Institute's Lynch said the "cycle of terrorist attack followed by government curtailment of civil liberties must be broken or our society will eventually lose the key attribute that made it great - freedom.''

CLICK for INFORMATION on SHADOW GOVERNMENT & MARSHAL LAW 

#2

Government Creating a New Legal System for American Citizens without Constitutional Guarantees

DOJgov.net Newswire, December 1, 2002

According to the Washington Post, The administration is developing a parallel legal system in which terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike -- may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system.  This is being confirmed by lawyers both inside and outside of government.

The elements of this new system are already familiar from President Bush's orders and his aides' policy statements and legal briefs: indefinite military detention for those designated "enemy combatants," liberal use of "material witness" warrants, counterintelligence-style wiretaps and searches led by law enforcement officials and, for non-citizens, trial by military commissions or deportation after strictly closed hearings.

Only now, however, is it becoming clear how these elements could ultimately interact on the ordinary American citizen who might disagree with government policy.

For example, under authority it already has under the USA Patriot Act or is asserting in court cases, the administration, with approval of the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, could order a clandestine search of a U.S. citizen's home and, based on the information gathered, secretly declare the citizen an enemy combatant, to be held indefinitely at a U.S. military base. Courts would have very limited authority to second-guess the detention, to the extent that they were aware of it.

Special Report: Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003

Justice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Anti-Terrorism Act "Patriot Act II" Legislation

DOJgov.net newswire

Washington, February 9, 2003

Reports have leaked out that the US Department of Justice is preparing a frightening sequel to the USA Patriot Act (see column to the left).  It is expected to be unveiled during the next terrorist based national crisis.  This legislation will give the government and more specifically, the US Department of Justice,  sweeping new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and law enforcement prerogatives, and simultaneously decrease judicial review and public access to information.

The Center for Public Integrity has obtained a draft, dated January 9, 2003, of this previously undisclosed legislation and is making it available in full text (12 MB). The bill, drafted by the staff of Attorney General John Ashcroft and entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, has not been officially released by the Department of Justice, although rumors of its development have circulated around the Capitol for the last few months under the name of “the Patriot Act II” in legislative parlance.

“We haven’t heard anything from the Justice Department on updating the Patriot Act,” House Judiciary Committee spokesman Jeff Lungren told the Center. “They haven’t shared their thoughts on that. Obviously, we'd be interested, but we haven’t heard anything at this point.”

Senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff have inquired about Patriot II for months and have been told as recently as this week that there is no such legislation being planned.

Mark Corallo, deputy director of Justice’s Office of Public Affairs claimed that his office was unaware of the draft. “I have heard people talking about revising the Patriot Act, we are looking to work on things the way we would do with any law,” he said. “We may work to make modifications to protect Americans,” he added. When told that the Center had a copy of the draft legislation, he said, “This is all news to me. I have never heard of this.”  But as you will read below, a copy of the draft was secretly sent to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Vice President Richard Cheney on Jan 10, 2003.  You can download or view the cover letter in PDF format by clicking on this hyperlink.  This control sheet was obtained by the program "Now with Bill Moyers."  It states "Attached for your review and comment is a draft legislative proposal entitled the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003."

After the Center posted this story, Barbara Comstock, director of public affairs for the Justice Dept., released a statement saying that, "Department staff have not presented any final proposals to either the Attorney General or the White House. It would be premature to speculate on any future decisions, particularly ideas or proposals that are still being discussed at staff levels."

This is "lawyer speak."  You will notice that nothing is denied and her words are masked in typically judicial prose.  Click on this hyperlink for a pdf of the official response.

Comstock later told the Center that the draft "is an early discussion draft and it has not been sent to either the Vice President or the Speaker of the House."  As can be seen by your ability to download the coverletter above, this is another and very typical US Department of Justice lie.

Dr. David Cole, Georgetown University Law professor and author of Terrorism and the Constitution, reviewed the draft legislation.  His response was, that the legislation “raises a lot of serious concerns. It’s troubling that they have gotten this far along and they’ve been telling people there is nothing in the works.” This proposed law, he added, “would radically expand law enforcement and intelligence gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive ‘suspicion,’ create new death penalties, and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups.”

Some of the key provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 include:

Section 201, “Prohibition of Disclosure of Terrorism Investigation Detainee Information”: Safeguarding the dissemination of information related to national security has been a hallmark of Ashcroft’s first two years in office, and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 follows in the footsteps of his October 2001 directive to carefully consider such interest when granting Freedom of Information Act requests. While the October memo simply encouraged FOIA officers to take national security, “protecting sensitive business information and, not least, preserving personal privacy” into account while deciding on requests, the proposed legislation would enhance the department’s ability to deny releasing material on suspected terrorists in government custody through FOIA.

Section 202, “Distribution of ‘Worst Case Scenario’ Information”: This would introduce new FOIA restrictions with regard to the Environmental Protection Agency. As provided for in the Clean Air Act, the EPA requires private companies that use potentially dangerous chemicals must produce a “worst case scenario” report detailing the effect that the release of these controlled substances would have on the surrounding community. Section 202 of this Act would, however, restrict FOIA requests to these reports, which the bill’s drafters refer to as “a roadmap for terrorists.” By reducing public access to “read-only” methods for only those persons “who live and work in the geographical area likely to be affected by a worst-case scenario,” this subtitle would obfuscate an established level of transparency between private industry and the public.

Section 301-306, “Terrorist Identification Database”: These sections would authorize creation of a DNA database on “suspected terrorists,” expansively defined to include association with suspected terrorist groups, and noncitizens suspected of certain crimes or of having supported any group designated as terrorist.  This is particularly scary because of the vagaries of who can be held for forced DNA testing.   It might even include publishers of websites who question US Department of Justice policy.  (Because of the importance of this section, you can download a sectional  pdf of the USDOJ's classified document by clicking this hyperlink.)

Section 312, “Appropriate Remedies with Respect to Law Enforcement Surveillance Activities”: This section would terminate all state law enforcement consent decrees before Sept. 11, 2001, not related to racial profiling or other civil rights violations, that limit such agencies from gathering information about individuals and organizations. The authors of this statute claim that these consent orders, which were passed as a result of police spying abuses, could impede current terrorism investigations. It would also place substantial restrictions on future court injunctions.  (Because of the importance of this section, you can download a sectional  pdf of the USDOJ's classified document by clicking this hyperlink.)

Section 405, “Presumption for Pretrial Detention in Cases Involving Terrorism”: While many people charged with drug offenses punishable by prison terms of 10 years or more are held before their trial without bail, this provision would create a comparable statute for those suspected of terrorist activity. The reasons for presumptively holding suspected terrorists before trial, the Justice Department summary memo states, are clear. “This presumption is warranted because of the unparalleled magnitude of the danger to the United States and its people posed by acts of terrorism, and because terrorism is typically engaged in by groups – many with international connections – that are often in a position to help their members flee or go into hiding.”

Section 501, “Expatriation of Terrorists”: This provision, the drafters say, would establish that an American citizen could be expatriated “if, with the intent to relinquish his nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated as a ‘terrorist organization’.” But whereas a citizen formerly had to state his intent to relinquish his citizenship, the new law affirms that his intent can be “inferred from conduct.” Thus, engaging in the lawful activities of a group designated as a “terrorist organization” by the Attorney General could be presumptive grounds for expatriation.

The Domestic Security Enhancement Act is the latest development in an 18-month trend in which the entrenched, US Department of Justice bureaucracy has sought expanded powers and responsibilities for law enforcement bodies to allegedly help counter the threat of terrorism, but in fact, expand control over the American people and their democratically elected government.

The USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 26, 2001, gave law enforcement officials broader authority to conduct electronic surveillance and wiretaps, and gives the president the authority, when the nation is under attack, to confiscate any property within U.S. jurisdiction of anyone believed to be engaging in such attacks. The measure also tightened oversight of financial activities to prevent money laundering and diminish bank secrecy in an effort to disrupt terrorist finances.

It also changed provisions of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was passed in 1978 during the Cold War. FISA established a different standard of government oversight and judicial review for “foreign intelligence” surveillance than that applied to traditional domestic law enforcement surveillance.

The USA Patriot Act allowed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to share information gathered in terrorism investigations under the “foreign intelligence” standard with local law enforcement agencies, in essence nullifying the higher standard of oversight that applied to domestic investigations. The USA Patriot Act also amended FISA to permit surveillance under the less rigorous standard whenever “foreign intelligence” was a “significant purpose” rather than the “primary purpose” of an investigation.

The draft legislation goes further in that direction. “In the [USA Patriot Act] we have to break down the wall of foreign intelligence and law enforcement,” Cole said. “Now they want to break down the wall between international terrorism and domestic terrorism.”

In an Oct. 9, 2002, hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher testified that Justice had been, “looking at potential proposals on following up on the PATRIOT Act for new tools and we have also been working with different agencies within the government and they are still studying that and hopefully we will continue to work with this committee in the future on new tools that we believe are necessary in the war on terrorism.”

Asked by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) whether she could inform the committee of what specific areas Justice was looking at, Fisher replied, “At this point I can’t, I’m sorry. They're studying a lot of different ideas and a lot of different tools that follow up on information sharing and other aspects.”

Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy Viet Dinh, who was the principal author of the first Patriot Act, told Legal Times last October that there was “an ongoing process to continue evaluating and re-evaluating authorities we have with respect to counterterrorism,” but declined to say whether a new bill was forthcoming.

Former FBI Director William Sessions, who urged caution while Congress considered the USA Patriot Act, did not want to enter the fray concerning a possible successor bill.

"I hate to jump into it, because it's a very delicate thing," Sessions told the Center, without acknowledging whether he knew of any proposed additions or revisions to the additional Patriot bill.

When the first bill was nearing passage in the Congress in late 2001, however, Sessions told Internet site NewsMax.Com that the balance between civil liberties and sufficient intelligence gathering was a difficult one. “First of all, the Attorney General has to justify fully what he’s asking for,” Sessions, who served presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush as FBI Director from 1987 until 1993, said at the time. “We need to be sure that we provide an effective means to deal with criminality.” At the same time, he said, “we need to be sure that we are mindful of the Constitution, mindful of privacy considerations, but also meet the technological needs we have” to gather intelligence.

Cole found it disturbing that there have been no consultations with Congress on the draft legislation. “It raises a lot of serious concerns and is troubling as a generic matter that they have gotten this far along and tell people that there is nothing in the works. What that suggests is that they’re waiting for a propitious time to introduce it, which might well be when a war is begun. At that time there would be less opportunity for discussion and they’ll have a much stronger hand in saying that they need these right away.”

#3

July 14, 2000

The FBI's Carnivore is on the loose -- and your e-mail could be its next meal

WASHINGTON, DC -- A new FBI cyber-snooping device code-named "Carnivore" -- which can scan millions of e-mails a second and could already be scanning yours -- may be the biggest threat to Americans' digital privacy ever, the Libertarian Party warned today.

"Carnivore threatens to make dead meat out of our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director. "Unless this Carnivore is killed, it will not only take a huge bite out of your online privacy, it threatens to completely devour any Constitutional limitations on the government's ability to conduct online surveillance."

Carnivore is a hardware/software device the Federal Bureau of Investigation is already installing in Internet service providers' offices around the country. Dubbed Carnivore because of its ability to find "the meat" among millions of e-mails, its existence was publicly revealed this week for the first time.

Once in place, Carnivore scans every incoming and outgoing e-mail message on a network looking for telltale words or names, and saves those messages for later retrieval by law enforcement. It can also track instant messages, visits to websites, and Internet relay chat sessions.

The FBI said Carnivore will only be used with a valid court order, and promised to limit surveillance to messages from suspected hackers, terrorists, and drug dealers.

The problem with those promises -- and with Carnivore in general is that it gives the government unlimited power to spy on every American who has an e-mail account, said Dasbach.

"The FBI acknowledges that Carnivore will scan millions of e-mail messages from innocent people to find a tiny number of messages from people suspected of crimes," he said. "That's no different than if the FBI rummaged through bags of mail looking for letters from criminals, or listened in on millions of phone calls in hopes of hearing a crime being discussed. In other words, Carnivore treats every American like a criminal."

In addition, noted Dasbach, once Carnivore is in place, there is no guarantee that the FBI will just collect the e-mail of criminal suspects -- and no way to check on this, since such investigations are usually shrouded in secrecy.

"The only guarantee the FBI will give that the privacy of innocent people won't be violated is the reassurance: 'We're from the government; trust us,' " he said. "But let's remember: This same government has used the IRS to harass its enemies, spied on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and allowed confidential FBI files to pop up in the White House. Why should we trust them to eavesdrop on our e-mail?"

The government has also acknowledged there has been a "growth in the rate of requests" by the FBI to use Carnivore in recent months -- which is why law enforcement must immediately be banned from using the device, said Dasbach.

"The fact is, there is no way to make a device that monitors every e-mail message comply with the Fourth Amendment," he said. "Carnivore is hungry -- and our privacy and civil liberties are its next meal. That's why we need to pull the plug on this Carnivore before our e-privacy becomes x-privacy, and before the government has turned us into a nation of suspected criminals under constant surveillance."