Anti-Civil Liberties Legislation Progresses

hillct writes: "The ACLU has a very good comparison chart of anti-terrorism provisions in legislation currently being considered by congress. It covers the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001, the House Bill (PATRIOT Act) and the Senate Bill (USA Act), comparing it all to current law. We've all seen pieces of this information but the ACLU staffers did a great job consolidating it all." CDT also has a very good pdf guide to these about-to-be-passed laws. But the Onion has the best commentary.

Comments

Scary Part

[gimmie_prozac]

The scary part about legislation like this is that once it is adopted, it tends to stay in place. Today's ant-terrorism initiaitve is tommorow's rationale of the cops to packet-sniff your ISP...

Martial Law

[Renraku]

How long before martial law is the norm? What will 'martial law' be like then? I've noticed instead of what don't we have the right to do, we now ask what do we have the right to do in the past century. Even under the strictest rules, if you want to bomb something, you're going to bomb something. Its up to intelligence agencies and police forces to find out who wants to bomb what, and then stop them. Laws are like fences. They sit there and hope to deter would-be criminals. But there isn't anything stopping someone who isn't deterred from breaking that law...We should just make bombs illegal. That would have about as much effect.

Are we at war?

[clovis]

The suspension of civil rights during a war is OK by me - it's an old tradition and a sensible one. Are we having a war with someone?

The problem I have is that Constitution reserves the right to declare war to Congress. If we need war powers, fine, declare war. It sure looks like one to me.
Otherwise, don't mess with my Bill of Rights.

Re:Are we at war?

[greenfly]

I suppose the problem is that, especially with these new definitions of war. We could be at "war" indefinitely. I mean, we didn't declare war on Afghanistan, we declared war on "terrorism" and have stated that this war will not end until all terrorists are stopped.

Now... these goals are kind of vauge to me. It is the kind of thing that could lend itself to a "war" that lasts for decades, all the while our civil liberties would be suspended "for the war". Say, while we are at it, why don't we suspend our civil liberties to help fight the "war" on drugs too. There's another war that I'm sure we will end in a month or two!

1984 allusions are running rampant at this moment, but "we have always been at war with Eurasia".

Re:Are we at war?

[poemofatic]

Problem is, we just got out of the Cold War, in which people were arrested for their political beliefs (socialists/communists), loyalty oaths were imposed, and a national security state descended upon us. Then, after our enemy rudely abandoned the game, we had the War on Drugs, with asset forfeiture laws, more wiretaps, and a bigger budget for the security agencies. Now we have the War on Terrorism, with more police powers, bad laws, and yes even more money for the security agencies. After that, you'll be laying down the bill of rights because of the War on Pollution.

Big Holes in Small Countries

[Renraku]

It will probably turn out that we're bombing camp grounds or something. Camp grounds, dirt roads, small runways...I don't see much of a need to take away our civil liberties. Life goes on, even without the WTC, and the people involved. Why should we all be less free? Might that have been bin Laden's real goal?

Nothing new

[alen]

While I don't agree with parts like holding indefinetly without warrants, these new proposals are nothing new. Only thing new is the technology.

It's always been US law that if a judge agrees you're a suspect the police and FBI can pick apart your whole life. They can come into your house and business and seize everything as evidence, tap your phone and etc. Only thing different now is they're only going to need one warrant. It'll save on paperwork and effort.

One last time

[SecurityGuy]

If there isn't a torrent of letters and phone calls while such things still matter, each and every one of us will deserve whatever we get. Get off your as^H^Hslashdot and get on the phone, get a letter written, and get it to the post office. Now. These guys are intent on "protecting" us no matter how much harm they do in the process.

This one's scary

[Red Aardvark House]

From the CDT summary:

Interception of computer trespasser communications (House 105, Senate 217)-
Allows ISP's, universities, network administrators to authorize surveillance without judicial order

Who left these entities to decide what's right or wrong? IMHO, this is too much power left to entities not expert in the field of law.

What's even worse is that there is no expectation of privacy for "unauthorized use" although that term is not defined. So it's up to the individual interpreter of the proposed law. Even the downloading of an unauthorized mp3 can allow the tapping of all communications by that individual, with no time limit!

The effects could be far-reaching, from unnecessary accusations of terrorism, to less privacy in the workplace.

How many times must this happen.

[jellomizer]

Although America brags about its cival liberities. But when there is a threat Americans are so ready to give them up. It seems to be that real Americans are the ones who stand up in times of threat and disaster and say to the law makers that what they are doing is wrong. And like many times in the past history will look down on your desisions. Like gathering asian americans in WWII. Blacklisting "Comunists" during the Cold War. What ever happened to the addage Although I dont agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

Re:How many times must this happen.

[HiThere]

Americans are willing to give them up? I haven't encountered anyone who was much more willing than usual. What we have here are a bunch of power mad *** at the top of the hierarchy. (Never mind about how they got there. Gore wasn't much better.)

And we have an age distribution that's peaking at over 40, so there are fewer people who are willing to take chances to defy the government.

And we have a centralized control of the major media, by people that are inclined to go along (or even push a bit) in any plan to centralize control.

And we have politicians who depend on large corporate sponsors to be able to afford to campaign for election.

So it's a bit difficult for the average american to find out what's really going on, much less to do anything about it. (Individual people are, on the average, quite a lot easier to control than a mob. Sometimes this is good. Sometimes not.)

In the current situation, without any reference to external entities, we would naturally tend to drift in a more centralized and authoritarian direction. But we have a *** at the top who doesn't have the patience to wait for a drift. And then there's a (probably) external "cause celebre" to take advantage of. And ...

I would wager that a lot of people are looking for a way out.

One thing that's missing here

[poemofatic]

is any sort of justification. For instance, increased wiretap auhtority. Just how would it have prevented the attack of Sept. 11? What sorts of nasty things are terrorists doing that we can't combat with the current system? How would required back doors make us safer?

I'm beginning to see a purely visceral response: terrorism => we are in danger => police need more powers.

On another note, where is the debate? I keep hearing that there will be one, but has anyone seen a member of the administration make a reasoned defense of these bills? Outlined why they are needed? Responded to criticism? Has there even been any criticism in the major media? (links would be appreciated)

Re:One thing that's missing here

[poemofatic]

Reading the article, my impression is that it provides an example of FBI bungling.
The article only states that the Justice department must approve the request, not that they didn't have enough evidence from the French Intelligence and the testimony of the flight school people. It seems that the FBI's answer to this problem, rather than trying to improve the coordination between the two agencies, is simply to ask for power to not be required to seek Justice dept. approval at all.

This might actually make us less secure, if it leads to less cooperation between the agencies.

But thanks for the link. I think that before *any* legislation is introduced, the FBI needs to perform a thorough audit of where it failed, and then really see if the best way to fix its bugs is to increase its power. It may be mostly a matter of improving its policies/communication/training. After all the other options have been eliminated, then it can introduce some new bills to expand its authority. Only then. What's happening now is that Ashcroft is just presenting the same wishlist he himself attacked after the Oklahoma bombings.

btw, I agree that roving wiretaps are a good idea, since the person, and not his communication device, needs to be monitored. That's about the only reasonable provision I see so far.

Finally, as to the police-state crack, well people have reason to be suspicious of government. Remember the shoot-outs and assasinations of black panther groups in the 60's. Nixon's "enemies" list, the fbi files on Martin Luther King, clinton's "filegate" scandals. racial profiling. Recently, police infiltrators in the Genoa demonstrations wrecked violence in an attempt to justify a crackdown. Before that, police in Seattle seized a copy of indymedia.org's server logs, and put in place a gag order to prevent the site from reporting this. These were purely political acts, not fights against terrorism. They used the gag order to release public statements against indymedia which the site was forbidden from replying to. So the moral of the the story is that govt. has and will use its police powers to attack legitimate political dissent. Perhaps that's why so many are suspicious of giving them greater authority, especially without a demonstrated need for it.

Re:One thing that's missing here

[poemofatic]

You have made my point.

I argued that we should be hesitant to expand state power, because historically this power has been used to stifle dissent and political opposition.

About the Indymedia incident, the police obtained the supena fraudulently,

claiming that Bush's travel plans were posted to the web, thereby hurrying the supena through on national security grounds.
(no such itinerary was posted).

requiring the source of a news media story requires personal review by the Attorney General and proof that alternative methods wont work. None of this was done in this case.

the gag order on Indymedia was an abuse of govt. authority, since it requires at least that US laws be violated (no US law was violated). The gag order was later repealed on these and other grounds.


Lefties seem to have trouble realizing that the law is the law, and if you want to fight it, do it properly from within the system.

It seems that you don't think that the laws need to be followed, or at least that the govt. need not follow its own regulations. This is the kind of abuse of power that those of us who care about freedom of the press are worried about.

BULLSHIT. Even some of the anarchists and communists there acknowledged that any "infiltrators" were few and far between, and that THEY were responsible for trashing the city.

oh..so only "a few" infiltrators are ok, huh? I don't want any infiltrators, thank you. Because I don't think that the govt's job is to break up protests it doesn't agree with. Are you beginning to understand why some of us are suspicious of state power?? Btw, the 600 neo-nazi infiltrators were videotaped talking with the police. They wore black uniforms and gas masks and were widely reported to commit most of the violence. Details here.

I have no doubt those carabinieri would have been killed by those thugs if the police hadn't DEFENDED themselves.

I'm sure you have no doubt of many things, but a G8 inquiry into the killing as well as eyewitness accounts contradicts you. In fact most of the violence was perpetrated by the police on the demonstrators (see above or do a simple google search. Le monde also has good coverage.)

Typical lefty doublespeak..

If you think that the Genoa protest was about "smashing the state," then I am horrified at your ignorance. There were 300,000 mostly peaceful demostrators there, who were attacked, beaten with baton clubs, tear gassed, and infiltrated by black masked police agents. They were protesting serious issues of our day, such as what power private investors have to nullify local laws, wether nations will be forced to adopt new IP laws, what power a nation has over its currency, and wether committees of beaurocrats will be able determine how a govt. chooses to spend its money. If you have any idea of the nature of the protests, of the NGO's, working groups, or organizational drives which went on during Genoa, then you would be embarrassed by your accusation.

But my post was not really relevant to which side of the "globalization" debate you fall on, although I seem to have pushed a hot-button with you with that example. I was citing examples of abuses of state power (you were unable to counter any of my other examples). Specifically, the dangers of the ATA in expanding the definition of "terrorist" to include civil disobedience and protest. You just made my point perfectly in this line:

This is why you're seen as terrorists - because you are

First of all, Mr. Anonymous Coward, I am not a terrorist, and the fact that you can so blithely call me one, in these times, because of my words illustrates exactly what we are fighting against. The 300,000 in genoa were not terrorists. "lefties" -- whom you know so well -- are also not terrorists.

.. you like to throw around justifying the Taliban sheltering of bin Laden while his followers kill THOUSANDS. .

I've never justified the Taliban in sheltering bin laden. It seems that if I don't agree with whatever war rhetoric you happen to favor, then I must automatically be on the side of the enemy, in your mind. Maybe, like Bush's press secretary said, I had better "watch what I say". Is a twinkle of revelation entering your mind why many of us are concerned about the lack of debate or endagerment of our freedoms?

Just be lucky you live in AMERICA, the land of the FREE, where you can spew your totalitarian bullshit with impunity, while right-thinking people freely ignore and refute your sick ideology.
Yes, America *is* the land of the free and the home of the brave. But we have to share this country with you, Anonymous Coward. And you are trying to make it less free, with your "totalitarian" rhetoric:

You attack as terrorist those whose politics you don't agree with.

You defend police violence because the "lefties" "deserve whatever happens" to them.

You equate those who disagree with you as "justifying the Taliban."


But some of us actually want to preserve the bill of rights, specifically, "freedom of assembly" and "freedom of the press". You may be ignorant of how much this country has benefitied from public protest, from the Boston Tea Party (property was destroyed! Terrorism!) to the civil rights marches, to the Pullman strike and 8 hour work days. That's a big part of why we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. But I wont accuse you of being a terrorist, nor will I claim to understand everything in that angry head of yours. All I can do is pray that you are in no way connected with govt. or a law enforcement agency. Also, I can ask of you this:

Don't wrap your totalitarian rhetoric in our Old Glory. It's hard enough trying to care for her with the ATA and DMCA to worry about.

You need not set your flamebait to her stars.

This legislation...

[Mister Black]

This is the kind of knee-jerk, reactionary legislation that scares me most. "We need to destroy our freedom in order to save it." If we're going to just trample all over the Constitution of the United States, we might as well just merge the FBI and CIA into a new organization called the KGB and call ourselves the Soviet Union 2.0

Unfortunately for the ACLU...

[Anonymous Coward]

...racial profiling in this case would have proven an effective technique.

Ummm...PETA/ELF

[Wyatt Earp]

"The definition of "terrorism" is too broad, permitting the special surveillance powers granted in this legislation to be applied far beyond what is commonly thought of by the term. Under the definition proposed by the Administration, even acts of simple civil disobedience could lead organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to become targets of "terrorist" investigations."

Well, I might get flamed for this, but...

While I do not support laws that infringe on any of the Amendments to the Constitution...

Some of the things that groups like the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) do...is terrorism.

http://www.nationalreview.com/search-results/con tr ibutors/kurtz071701.shtml

"Eco-terrorism, sponsored by loosely knit groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, began in earnest in 1998, with the burning down of a mountaintop ski resort in Vail Colorado, the release of 10,000 minks from an Oregon mink farm, and the burning of a slaughterhouse. Eco-terrorism has proliferated since then, although, until recently, fear of provoking further retaliation has prevented targeted businesses from publicizing the problem. Biotechnology projects are the latest targets, with a fire set to the offices of a global biotech project at Michigan State University in Lansing and various experimental crop sites destroyed."

Events like that, terrorizing people that wear fur or leather, it's not right. In a society based on Common Law, like the US, those things that are not illegal are legal, wearing leather or fur, or raising minks for fur, isn't illegal and it's not right for a private citizen to attack that property. Many of the *LF groups are starting down the same path as Hezbollah and Hamas did in the 60s and 70s. If those domestic groups practice the same kind of distributed terror as Aryan Nation or Hezbollah, the Police and FBI should go after them with the same tools as they go after other "hate" groups.

PETA branding people for a choice of calories is no more right than Aryan Nation branding people for a choice of mate or church.

Re:Please Sign This Petition

[MediumWare]

Well, that is exactly what they are hoping, that you have been affected enough by the attack for them to pass what they want from under your nose, with you thinking it's the right thing to do.

"Remember, the government wouldn't be watching you if it didn't have suspicions about you doing something wrong in the first place"

Suspicion is not enough to strip you of more and more of your civil rights. What if you are innocent, which is very possible, then you would have lost your privacy and few other civil rights because of "suspicion".

And if you are an associate of a terrorist, tough. You should be shadowed too, until proven innocent

Does that translate to "You should be guilty, until proven innocent"? No, a terrorist is another criminal, some might argue that it's on another level, but that's not the point here. And what you are saying is that everyone associated with a crimial qualify to loose their civil rights!

Re:ACLU and Technology: All Civil Liberties?

[revscat]

But, given that ACLU has a mission, stating the obvious, to promote liberties, why has the ACLU long been absent on issues related to technology?

What are you talking about? The ACLU has a long history of defending tech rights, and were the first organization to challenge an Internet-related federal law and have it heard by the Supreme Court. Check out Reno v. ACLU if you haven't done so before. This case was heard way, way back in 1997. The ACLU has also worked in conjunction with the EFF and/or EPIC on numerous occasions.

More recently they have filed amicus briefs in cases regarding anonymous speech on the net, as well as in the DeCSS case.

To state that the ACLU has "no argument" with laws such as the DMCA or the SSSCA is to argue from simple ignorance. Both of those laws directly conflict with the values that the ACLU tries to advance and preserve.

I think Benjamin Franklin said it best

[bubblegoose]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Judicial review

[Animats]

Everything the Administration wants to do, it can do right now if a judge approves. Yet the FBI isn't complaining that judges are turning down their requests for search warrants or wiretap orders in terrorism cases. So there's no problem. All this is just Ashcroft on a power trip. He should be replaced.

what the constitution protects

[johngaunt]

The Constitution is supposed to protect us from the government spying on us in our private lives. The Bill of Rights reiterates this, saying "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (Amendment #4). The bills currently going through would violate these ideas
On a side note, I must point out that the Constitution does not protect you from your ISP or other access/content provider spying on you or your activities. If they determine you are being bad and then go to the authorities, you could be investigated further, and probably legally.
Our best hope here is that after these laws pass (and they probably will) that a relatively benign case makes its way to the Supreme Court, and that they will strike the law down as unconstitutional.

Freedom must be protected at all costs

[Ghoser777]

"Freedom is like a rope made of several strands.
Weaken or remove one strand, and the rope is
weakened... There are bad people in the world,
ever watchful for opportunities to seize dominance
over others. For good people to stand idly by is
to welcome the erosion and eventual collapse of
all our freedoms." David F. Linowes

At the point where all freedoms are up for grabs, so is everything America stands for and is embeded in the Constiution. These crisis brings us incrementally closer to more rights losses, many of which are covert in the eyes of average Americans. If we want to protect are freedom, we must act now and set a precedent: under no circumstances will we give up our rights for utilitarian ends.

F-bacher

Re:freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Security is a myth. It doesn't exist in nature.
--Helen Keller

Enough said....

The Constitution is not a suicide note

[dgroskind]

Obviously the best restriction on traditional liberties is no restriction. However, given the terrorist threat, the ACLU would be more helpful by saying what restrictions it thinks are acceptable or useful or even necessary rather than dismissing them all as if nothing changed on Sept. 11.

For instance, it says: "Few of the provisions being discussed are needed for the current terrorism investigations, so Congress should take the time to do it right." But it does not say which of the "few" it feels are necessary and that Congress should therefore act on expeditiously.

In addition, all of these acts are subject to judicial review under the Constitution. No Constitutional right can be removed by an act of Congress. If there is a problem, it is that some of the so-called rights we take for granted are not protected by the Constitution.

The ACLU only says a few provisions explicitely violate the U.S. Constitution: (1) Nationwide pen register/trap and trace orders and roving wiretaps, and (2) Criminal evidence uncovered using an intelligence (FISA) wiretap. It doesn't mention a Constitutional test for the others, which should be the first objection raised.

One question is whether the terrorists pose a greater real and immediate threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than the provisions mentioned by the ACLU. If so, the laws that are providing shelter for the terrorists are going to have to be changed.

For the Nth time - Privacy isn't the concern

[DunbarTheInept]

The problem isn't the privacy itself. It's the utter lack of respect for the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. It's the "seizure" part of "search and seizure" that bothers most people. If someone wants to waste their time spying on me I don't care. But if that someone wants to take my possesions based only on "suspicion" without any checks and balances to control that power, then I'm damn well gonna complain. I don't want to be the next Steve Jackson Games.

If all they did was observe passively I wouldn't care. But it doesn't *stop* with mere observation.

Re:Every Citizen a Criminal

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok hon, if the government actually tortures or kills Bill Maher, maybe I'll listen. Maybe you don't remember the Cold War, but the government issued many more of these sort of ill-considered slapdowns without our slipping into the world of 1984. Not saying it's a good thing, just that you seem to be exaggerating just a tad.

Are we doomed ?

[q-soe]

God help us

The suspension of civil rights during war is ok ? what is happening here for christs sake.

Suspension of civil rights is NEVER acceptable. Full stop. What happened a month ago can happen again today or next week or next year, all the talk of rhetoric and sabre rattling and bombing will never ever change the simple fact that one or 2 determined people who believe in their actions can get around almost any security.

After vietnam one would think that the US would have learned this fact of life.

Terrible things happen in this world and innocent people die - horrific acts of pain and suffering, murder, torture, rape etc.

Allowing the government to take away ANY of your rights because in the heat of anger you think it its a goos idea is not only insane its EXACTLY how Hitler gained power in Germany with minimal real support, how Lenin took Russia etc.

We need to be vigilant today and toomorrow and forever to ensure that the democratic process is never circumvented for any reason - we choose the government and the government should always be answerable to the public - NO EXCEPTIONS

What do we do in years to come if we give up civil rights now and the government decides that in a state of emergency to suspend elections and habeas corpus, to declare martial law or other actions ?

All the planes in the sky and the troops on the ground cannot prevent this sort of action happening again and throwing away civil liberties and democratic processes show those in the world who claim the US is a bully that they have a point.

We should always ensure that the power this nation and its allies wield is applied fairly and honestly with restraint and compassion - there is no need for innocent people of ANY race to suffer in the pursuit of any group of people - and this includes the millions of innocent Afghanis who have suffered through nothing but war for almost 30 years.

Lets not give away our freedoms, not now not ever.

Technology is part of the key

[Ghoser777]

In the 1940's the gov't didn't have the kind of technology that we do know. What George Orwell invisioned was a future with advanced technology that we have now for monitoring "inapproptiate behavior."

Also, George Orwell never said that a translation like this would happen over night. In fact, that would be impossible as long as we have people who are very enthusiastic about their rights. It will take genertations to get them out of the gene pool. But the threat of terrorist attacks on the US, on it's own soil (If Russia had tried to invade the US, we would have been in the same situation, but only magnified by 100), has made the transition process a little easier. You won't wake up tomorrow with Big Brother watching your every move. It will come incrementally over time, so you don't even notice the transition.

F-bacher

The War on Drugs was just the beginning

[loosenut]

The War on Drugs has been responsible for massive amounts of federal asset seizures. I can't remember if it was Bush or Reagan, but one of 'em enacted a law that gave the federal law enforcement agencies the abillity to seize your goods if they even SUSPECTED you were involved in some form of drug trade or possession, and they don't have to disclose the "evidence" that led them to believe you were guilty. This resulted in a lot of innocent people taking it in the bung.

I see a parallel here in recent events. The government has just come up with another way to criminalize otherwise innocent people. We already have a greater percent of the population incarcerated than any nation (but, hey, it's good for the economy!).

The scariest thing, to me, is that if the government spent as much time and money trying to educate us about drugs, rather then spend it on propaganda, we might not have so many lives destroyed. Similarly, if we spent as much time and money on finding a peaceful solution to the terrorist problem, instead of bombing the hell out of people and whittling away at US Citizens' civil liberties, maybe we could get somewhere.

Meanwhile, I'm a bit scared that my political beliefs will get me thrown in a jail. Please, you may not agree that we shouldn't be bombing Afghanastan, and you may not agree with my politics, but every single American is in danger of losing our freedoms. And that's what we are supposed to be fighting for in the first place, isn't it?

Speak out!

USA becoming a dictatorship?

[Shaba-kun]

This is complete nonsense. It is crazy to think the suspending civil rights can help the fight against the terrorism. It would be to get rid of what America should be most proud of. And people must be aware that the fight against terrorism is one that cannot be won. UK and Spain must still fight with IRA and ETA after several decades, and in conditions incredibly easier that the present case. This eagerness from the government about suspending civil rights means most probably the the terrorist attack is just a pretext. People should remind that the Dark Side is just easier, not more powerful!