Bill number H.R. 3162
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
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.
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
Burglars with Badges: Police can sneak
into someone's house or office, search the contents, and leave without
ever telling the owner. This would be supervised by a court, and the
notification of the surreptitious search "may be delayed" indefinitely.
(Section 213). Not only is this a gross invasion of privacy, but
it allows for abuse by planting false evidence. This section will
NEVER expire. It is not written limiting use to fighting potential
terrorism. Essentially, this
provision trashes the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Any U.S. Attorney or state Attorney
General can order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore
surveillance system (now renamed DCS1000). They can record addresses of Web pages visited
and read e-mail correspondences from virtually anyone -- without going to a judge. Previously,
there were stiffer legal restrictions on Carnivore and other
Internet surveillance techniques. (Section 216). Nobody in
their right mind actually believes that terrorists would openly
communicate using easily snatched email. But this long sought
after USDOJ power to infiltrate our lives intimidate free and open
communication and eventually censor the internet has received a big
boost. The government now has authority to gather information on the Web-surfing
habits of any user, suspect or not, if authorities convince a judge that the
information obtained could be relevant to an ongoing investigation.
Additionally, the law permits "roving'' wiretaps, opening the door to the
placement of bugs in telephones of individuals not suspected of any
This section has a lifespan
"Sunset Provision" of four years although the US Senate wanted it to
The law also makes it easier for the FBI and CIA to obtain a person's
medical, financial and student records. It grants the FBI the authority to
obtain library and bookstore records in its pursuit of terrorism. As opposed
to the usual search warrant, law-enforcement authorities don't have to show
that evidence of wrongdoing is likely to be found. Librarians and
booksellers are prohibited, under threat of prosecution, from informing
anyone that his or her records were seized.
Terrorism Redefined as Criticism of government or a government
agency: According to Sec. 802, (a)(5)(B)(ii), "the term ‘domestic
terrorism’ means activities that appear
to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation
or coercion." And this applies to any government and not just that
of the United States. The definition of "intimidation" is left
open ended and undefined. This could be used to censor both the
printed and electronic press. The ability to ensnare and round up
Americans includes virtually anyone critical of any abuse or policy.
For a full download of the USA Patriot
Act as a PDF file, right click: h.r. 3162 USA Patriot Act
Download . Then left click on "Save Target As"
to the folder where you want it to go. It should be noted that
this legislation will now be interpreted by various agencies
(including the USDOJ) in any way they wish unless challenged in
court. Any hope of a successful challenge costs a minimum of $500,000 in legal fees
and will be fought savagely by the US Attorney's Office with as much
of our taxpayer money as needed to kill the citizen's
challenge. It will become part of the CFR (Code of Federal
Regulations). The CFR is what runs our lives.
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
"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
Government Creating a New Legal System for American
Citizens without Constitutional Guarantees
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.
Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003
Justice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Anti-Terrorism Act
"Patriot Act II" Legislation
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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.”
Undoubtedly, Congress will water down
this USDOJ proposal. But the very nature and secrecy of this US
Department of Justice action supplies a glimpse of their grasp for power