Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

ACLU Smacks Down Bush's Unconvincing Patriot Act

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 06:02 AM
Original message
ACLU Smacks Down Bush's Unconvincing Patriot Act
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18433&c=206

The president claimed that under the Patriot Act, ‘terrorism’ charges have been brought against more than 400 suspects. A study by Syracuse University, however, found that the vast majority of these were minor, non-terrorism offenses. These individuals posed such little threat to national security that most served no jail time. More importantly, while many of these people were prosecuted under terrorism statutes, these were not all the result of the Patriot Act - they were cases that the government deemed as being related to terrorism. In fact, at recent hearings government witnesses said there had been only a dozen or fewer terrorism prosecutions in the past four years.

"The most offensive portion of the President’s remarks was his claim that the Patriot Act is constitutional. The ACLU is actively involved with litigation challenging the constitutionality of the Patriot Act and the powers it expanded. Some expansions the Patriot Act made to the law have already been ruled unconstitutional. Other challenges are still being considered by the courts."

"The president stressed the role of judges as a check against abuse, but let’s look at the facts. Under section 215 of the Patriot Act, judges who sit on a secret court must approve a request for records about people’s health, wealth or the transactions of their daily life if the law enforcement agents say they want it for a foreign intelligence investigation. None of these requests has ever been denied and the order includes a permanent gag order. And the White House has refused the common sense requirement that there be specific facts connecting the records sought to a foreign agent. And, at the same time, the White House is now pushing for ‘administrative subpoenas,’ which would allow the FBI to issue and sign its own search orders - without prior judicial approval. If this became law, we would go from diminished judicial approval to none at all: this is the administration’s idea of checks and balances.

"The president repeated the claim that there have been no reported abuses of the Patriot Act. Brandon Mayfield would certainly disagree. His wrongful arrest based on faulty police work and the secret search of his home and DNA is but one example - given the government’s refusal to disclose how key parts of the Patriot Act is being used as well as the permanent gag orders in the act, it remains highly likely that many more abuses remain out there. Also the president acknowledged that the Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the very mechanism designed to track any abuses of the Patriot Act, remains unfilled and unfunded. It’s no surprise that the administration hasn’t admitted any abuses."

more ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Theres-a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. Blank check,no balance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spectral Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. " vast majority of these were minor, non-terrorism offenses"
YES. This is the point.

Thanks for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boo Boo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
3. Recommended, and
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
4. there was a Wall Street Journal talking head on Olbermann last night
playing down the Patriot Act, saying it had huge bi-partisan support and only a few radical liberals had a problem with it. Ugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Well, it's 1 way to get Muslim fundies to stop hating us for our freedoms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spectral Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Well, The Wall Street Journal is VERY conservative, yes?
:donut:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyberpj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
7. ACLU Patriot Act Cartoons and E-CARDS for educating others here:
Urge Your Friends to Learn More about the Patriot Act

Dozens of newspapers and independent journalists have commented on the Patriot Act. These editorial cartoons depict some of the criticisms of the Patriot Act.

Interested in telling your friends and family what's wrong with the Patriot Act? Send them an e-card with one of these cartoons.

http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=General_PatriotAct_Cartoon

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
8. I am ever suspicious of this
"Patriot Act". What a clever little acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."

Who would vote against such a "patriotic" bill after 9/11? (Well Russ Feingold did and got death threats)
It was theoretically a response to 9/11. Hello? A 300+ page bill was written and finalized, passed and signed the month after the attack?

I could be wrong but that seems impossibly fast...unless such a time in our nation was expected. Do bills generally go from an idea to hundred of pages that are passed (mostly unread) at nearly that rate? Even when it is something that matters? I am really asking that question if anyone knows.

It's like one way or another they had things lined up to take away rights in a way no one would really question.

Are they reading it this time? Are they taking the time to amend the parts that go too far? I understand some things, like the CIA and FBI sharing information make a lot of sense but why are they even talking about making it permanent as a whole and even adding to it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-05 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. They didn't read it through the first time.
I don't hold out much hope for anyone reading the damned thing in its entirety unless we hold their feet to the fire, and even then.

We need Michael Moore with his ice cream truck reading the PATRIOT act over the loudspeaker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC