Slashdot Mirror

"These included roving phone taps and secret warrants for documents from businesses and hospitals, and for records of library books taken out by private citizens."

Delayed notification search warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography

DA's have been seizing library records for years, and roving wire taps just make sense. If a terrorist walks into Best Buy and can buy 10 pre-paid phones, we should be able to keep tapping him.

The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant." In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous." Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979)

SEATTLE -- National Guard Spec. Ryan Anderson, 27, was sentenced to life in prison after his conviction on charges he tried to aid al Qaeda by detailing ways to destroy U.S. weapons and kill soldiers to undercover agents, the Army said. Anderson, a convert to Islam, was convicted of passing on diagrams of tanks and their vulnerabilities to undercover agents posing as al Qaeda operatives.

# Terrorist cells across America have been broken up, in cities including Buffalo, Seattle, Tampa and Portland (Oregon);

# 368 individuals have been criminally charged in the United States in terrorism investigations;

# Already, 194 individuals have been convicted or have pled guilty in the United States, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid and "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; and

# Over 515 individuals linked to the September 11th investigation have been removed from the United States.

I disagree with this view. You seem to think that if things just get a little worse, if we just invade another country or two, if the economy just goes a little further downhill, if civil liberties are just rolled back a little more, then Joe Sixpack will rise up in a fit of Libertarian outrage. That's just not a likely outcome.
If you spend your time reading Slashdot and similar forums, you might not realize that most Americans actually support the Patriot act*. Repeal of civil liberties is always sold as security; and recent history has shown us that the public is by and large willing to make that trade. Especially when they don't think they are losing liberty - hence Bush being able to claim in the debates that the Patriot act doesn't restrict civil liberties without being laughed off the stage. If a second Bush administration, as you suggest, were to stage another terrorist attack (unlikely, do you think they want to get caught doing that? why stage it when you can just antagonize the world and egg terrorists on), Patriot II would pass easily, with public support.
Increased repression will be just that - it won't cause a "Master Reset and a reboot" unless it is done carelessly and incompetently. And the one area in which the Bush administration has shown extreme competency is the shaping of public opinion.
So, while the feature article does make me even more uneasy about Kerry than I already was, I say getting Bush out is A Good Thing.

*Didn't have time to find more recent polls. This is from 2003.

And I don't think any less of you for having a differing opinion, because you express it rationally and without belittling me personally.

I do agree with you that the government went too far classifying Padilla and the Chicago case (which I have not previously heard of) as enemy combatants in those circumstances. I don't believe that either of those was actually taken to Guantanamo, however. Even the Afghani who was born in my hometown of Baton Rouge was transported out of Guatanamo to the continental U.S. after his U.S. birth was uncovered.

And I doubt that you will accept this as any more convincing than I will accept the ACLU as authoritative concerning the Patriot Act.

Right, I forgot. Ashcroft took away the freedom of press, they are forcing us to convert to protestant christianity at gunpoint, and soldiers are bunking in our houses without our permission. What a time we live in!

Get a life. Freedoms are as prevelent as ever before. Michael Moore put his movie out and is making tons of money. Hollywood & CBS are bashing Bush on a daily basis.

The patriot act gave the government the exact same power to deal with terrorists as they currently have in dealing with the mafia.

If you dont believe me, RTFM (or in this case, read the friggin law)

Actually, when the Patriot Act was passed there was considerable discussion regarding this exact issue, and assurances were made that the PA wouldn't be used except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.

Here's an excerpt from the Patriot Act Myths government site:

Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act "expands terrorism laws to include 'domestic terrorism' which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy." They also claim that it includes a "provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as 'domestic terrorism.'" (ACLU, February 11, 2003; ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor in "UnPATRIOTic," National Journal, August 4, 2003)

Reality: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. "Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy" without breaking laws cannot be targeted. Peaceful political discourse and dissent is one of America's most cherished freedoms, and is not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of "domestic terrorism" is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Therefore, peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy will obviously not come under this definition. (Patriot Act, Section 802)

If the Patriot Act were invoked in this case, it is a clear abuse that should be quickly corrected. The FBI personnel involved should be severely reprimanded or fired. That is, I suppose, unless viewing SG1 DIVX movies is potentially fatal... ;-)

However, this is an obvious example of the "slippery slope" problem the Patriot Act represents. Once new repressive legislation is enacted, people get used to it. Then the government starts to push the envelope. As long as this process is gradual, the public will be too caught up in "bread and circuses" (what is Jessica Simpson doing today, eh?;) to notice...at least that's the theory. Are you asleep?

Remember, Income Tax was originally supposed to be temporary. The government is not your friend. This is the case whether it's controlled by Republicans or Democrats.

"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF

REPORT FROM THE FIELD: THE USA PATRIOT ACT AT WORK

Evidently the Patriot Act is working on a scale not yet approaching:

~ 3000 murdered on 9-11

American Victims of Mideast Terrorist Attacks approximately 700 Americans have been killed and 1,600 wounded in terrorist attacks since 1970. This list also includes injured Americans since Oslo 1993

120,000 Americans of Japanese origin who were detained (not tortured a la Saddam, not abused a la frat party hijinks in Iraq) in American concentraion camps during WWII

I have read through the actual act. It's 132 pages, but it reads fast, so anyone really interested could do likewise in a couple of hours. I have not read all the other laws and regulations it refers to. I have read through the 'Life and Liberty' summary of them though.

To answer your other question, it is my understanding that no, the FBI can not obtain library and customer records without a warrant. An investigator can ask but not demand the records without a warrant. There is something called a 'secret warrant' however, which does allow the investigator the ability to obtain the records and prevent the person(s) from whom they obtained the information from disclosing to the party whom they requested the documents on that they obtained the records. This is so that the person being investigated is not 'tipped off' that they are being investigated. It allows the investigator the chance to observe the person being investigated and further their investigation. These types of warrants have been in place at least since the 1970s (the USSC upheld their use in 1979)

There was a Draft proposal that never went before congress that would allow investigators the ability to obtain records without a warrant. That bill never became law and as I read it only applied to foriegners. I've read some very misleading statements on many sites that claim what you thought to be true. In the end, if you read the text and later interpretations of the act, a warrant is still needed. In the past couple of years the USSC has stated that a search of person or other material (read important to a case) is acceptable IF the material found would have been found anyway (such as a library willingly turning over the records upon being asked) or if a warrant would have been issued in any event and to obtained the warrant would have done irreparable and immediate harm to the investigation. In the case of library or customer records this could not be the case as the information would have been available after a warrant was obtained.

In reading some of the comments on this story it seems to me that most people have not actually read the PATRIOT Act.

First of all, the full title is the USA PATRIOT Act and it's an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". Second, there was no new law created for the act. All it did was extend current laws that were only used against drug dealers and the mob. It would have been illegal for the FBI or other investigative body to use those tools against a terrorist. So, a law was needed that would allow that. Plain and simple. How many of you created the same uproar that is now created for the PATRIOT Act when those laws applied to drug dealers and mobsters? I expect that some will say 'but anyone could be considered a terrorist' but the same argument could be made about being a drug dealer or mobster.

The other important factor to remember is that the tools allowed under the act can not just be applied randomly to any U.S. citizen. The act states that a court can only issue orders "after the government demonstrates the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a U.S. person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment." It does NOT say that they can obtain a warrent for just anyone to see what pops up. The key words there are "international terrorism" and "clandestine".

Since these laws have existed for a long time (well before 9/11) and we did not see an errosion of our liberty, I can not see what is the problem of applying these same laws to terrorist. If the laws were so bad why didn't people give the same arguments they give now to the PATRIOT act to them? I suspect that because it was Bush who was President at the time it was passed? Even if they voted for the act to exist for 5 years, both Kerry and Edwards voted for the act. As someone quoted elsewhere regarding Franklins statement about giving up temporary liberty and then went on to say that is why it is bad, remember that Kerry and Edwards voted for that so they are guilty of that as well.

You have to remember that our government has three prongs. One leads and proposes laws to lead us in a direction, another creates and passes the laws and still another checks those laws against our constitution. Perhaps some of you forgot that the Supreme Court recently ruled that you can not be held as an enemy combatant without trial? So the system does check itself. Ordinary Joe will not be searched or investigated for no reason and will not be arrested without being charged and will not sit in a prison without going to court.

I just had to comment because everyone seems to be running their mouths off as to how much of our freedom has been taken away. That is simply NOT the case.

Heres some Goodies:
(many are PDFs)

• PUBLIC CHARITY CLASSIFICATION AND PRIVATE FOUNDATION ISSUES:
• DOMESTIC ORGANIZATIONS WITH FOREIGN OPERATIONS
• LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES AS EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS

The law should really be amended to keep up with this, IMHO. We have many other laws that were to "catch up with the times". Why not one to recognize collaborative efforts of this nature?

Not to mention, this is the same government that partially defends the USA PATRIOT act by claiming that previously it was illegal for computer service providers to report security incidents to law enforcement officials (here, under "Section 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications"), something which I *know* cannot be correct.

That sort of thing tends to make me distrust everything they are telling us.

This makes sense since the US feels like China in the 1950s.

It will be oh so much more an easy task to stop a tanker for hijacking and uses seen fit by radicals. This is a stupid idea that goes beyond excessive control on the government's behalf. If satellites still cannnot be secured, what makes them think they can secure the easiest way to stop a heavy fast moving truck.

I hear you, fair enough, lets run with the idea this is supposed to stop a truck already hijacked because nobody would ever be able to figure out or aquire the knowledge to remove or disable this device. I'm so glad they were able to stop this truck full of high explosives and radioactive material because now since it's not moving there would be no way those explosives could be detonated and even if so there would be no way radioactive material would spread into the wind I mean...they turned the engine off using a satellite.

Mod it Overrated, mod it Troll, mod it Flamebait.

The assumed ignorance "That will never happen" is why shit like 9/11 was *allowed* to go down. A better investment would be to address the hatred that inspires such acts not start choking the targets of it and removing their liberties .

They passed a law that made everything an act of terrorism. It's called the Patriot Act.

Ashcroft just did a 'round-the-country tour promoting the fact that it's being applied to stuff like computer crime.

The Bush Administration seems to be having public relations trouble. Besides the creation of LifeAndLiberty.Gov, the administration has also created Freedom.Gov, a site dedicated to glorifying Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I believe that the creation of these sites indicates that the Bush Administration is taking a new approach to their critics. Instead of answering their critics directly, the administration is using websites to bypass them and sell their propaganda to the American Public. By wrapping their issues in pseudo patriotism, they believe that the average American will overlook the opposition and support the administration because it is the "American thing to do".

I also believe that the administration is starting to see opposition in Congress. On the LifeAndLiberty.Gov site, there are two sections dedicated to Congressional Opposition. I believe this indicates that the PATRIOT Act is starting to see more criticism from Congress.

The Bush Administration seems to be having public relations trouble. Besides the creation of LifeAndLiberty.Gov, the administration has also created Freedom.Gov, a site dedicated to glorifying Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I believe that the creation of these sites indicates that the Bush Administration is taking a new approach to their critics. Instead of answering their critics directly, the administration is using websites to bypass them and sell their propaganda to the American Public. By wrapping their issues in pseudo patriotism, they believe that the average American will overlook the opposition and support the administration because it is the "American thing to do".

I also believe that the administration is starting to see opposition in Congress. On the LifeAndLiberty.Gov site, there are two sections dedicated to Congressional Opposition. I believe this indicates that the PATRIOT Act is starting to see more criticism from Congress.

These folks make the case far better than I can:

EFF's position paper
The American Library Association
Joe Barr mentioned a couple good points in his article at Creative Loafing.

Here's the DOJ's take. When you read it, ask yourself who defines a terrorist, and would you be willing to believe them?

Finally, the USA PATRIOT Act
(Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Hell, with a cool ass acronym like that for a name, how could you possibly be against it ;)
(read: How could you possibly not be against it. Tortuously clever acronyms are often a sign of bad policy)

And Senator Feingold was one of 67 members of Congress to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act, but the only Senator to do so.

This information is primarily collected for statistical analysis and technical improvements to the site. This government computer system uses software programs to create summary statistics, which may be used for such purposes as assessing what information is of most and least interest, determining technical design specifications, and identifying system performance or problem areas. In certain circumstances, however, we may take additional steps to identify you based on this information and we may share this information, including your identity, with other government agencies.

...and take it into the voting booth in November, 2004.

Agreed. And remember, Congress voted 357-66 in the house, and 98-1 in the senate. Which means, despite the rhetoric of Democratic presidential candidates - at least 69% of Democratic representatives (and 96% of Democratic senators) voted for it as well. So be sure to print off this sheet as well (pre-emptive google cache: here)

Give all these assholes the boot: vote against the incumbent!

The real reaction to this act from conservatives is more interesting and diverse. Some share the views of Attorney General Ashcroft. Others oppose it just as strongly as the geek community -- many of the articles about the act on the conservative National Review site describe it with terms like the "so-called", "wrongly-termed" or "misnamed" Patriot Act. A director of the Cato Institute raised many interesting questions about the act, to which the Justice Department wrote up a reply.

Also worth looking at is the Justice Department's own Patriot Act Web site. From here you can view the text of the act itself as well as all the arguments for it and rhetoric used to justify it. A valuable resource for any of us trying to formulate counterarguments about why this act needs to go away.