Anti-Terrorism Law Passed

Saratoga C++ writes: "Today (Oct 25) was the day that the US Senate voted on if to pass H.R. 3162, the anti-terrorism law. I have the roll call for today from the Senate. The only person with a "Nay" vote was Russ Feingold (D-WI). Thanks Russ. The final turn out was Yes: 98, No: 1, No Vote: 1."

Comments

Terrorism declines?

[Xpilot]

Terrorist 1 : Hey, I'm bored. Let's commits acts of terrorism today

Terrorist 2 : But, that's illegal now!

Terrorist 1 : Oh darn. Oh well, let's go fishing instead.

Feingold's comments...

[Boone^]

on the Bill are here. Here's some snippits on why he voted no:

The Founders who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights exercised that vigilance even though they had recently fought and won the Revolutionary War. They did not live in comfortable and easy times of hypothetical enemies. They wrote a Constitution of limited powers and an explicit Bill of Rights to protect liberty in times of war, as well as in times of peace.
...

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 when the roll is called.

Protecting the safety of the American people is a solemn duty of the Congress; we must work tirelessly to prevent more tragedies like the devastating attacks of September 11th. We must prevent more children from losing their mothers, more wives from losing their husbands, and more firefighters from losing their heroic colleagues. But the Congress will fulfill its duty only when it protects both the American people and the freedoms at the foundation of American society. So let us preserve our heritage of basic rights. Let us practice as well as preach that liberty. And let us fight to maintain that freedom that we call America.

He voted no because he felt people were losing some of their basic constitutional rights in order to "shore up" our security. While I voted for the guy in the last election and don't agree with his Nay Vote on this Bill, at least the guy had the guts to stand up for what he believed in.

full list of provisions

[Alien54]

You can see the full list of provisions here on Fox News, at least the version that passed the House the other day

There's a lot of them. heck.

• Extends electronic surveillance periods to 120 days from 90 days and for searches to 90 days from 45 days.
• Creates two new crimes prohibiting certain persons from possessing a listed biological agent or toxin and prohibiting all persons from possessing a biological agent, toxin or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that is not reasonably justified by a peaceful purpose
• Limits delay of search warrants when this authority would result in flight or property seizure
• Requires a court application to obtain student records
• Grants authority to the president to restrict exports of agricultural products, medicine or medical devices to the Taliban or the territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban
• Increases to seven days the length of time an alien may be held before being charged with criminal or immigration violations
• Defines terrorist activities but makes exceptions for people who have innocent contacts to non-certified terrorist organizations
• Enhances the secretary of state's existing power to certify groups as terrorist organizations
• Enhances data-sharing between the FBI and the State Department/INS and between the State Department and foreign governments
• Clarifies CIA director's role to set overall strategy for collection of information through court?ordered FISA surveillance, but no operational authority
• Increases CIA authority to investigate "international terrorist activities"
• Encourages CIA to recruit informants to fight terrorism
• Requires attorney general to develop guidelines for disclosing to the CIA foreign intelligence information obtained in criminal investigations
• Requires the attorney general and CIA to provide training to federal, state and local government officials to identify foreign intelligence information
• Sunsets electronic surveillance laws after two years with the authority for the president to renew in two more years
• Limits the use of Foreign Intelligence Service Act court orders to investigations of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities
• Requires investigations of U.S. persons be based on more than just First Amendment activities.
• Allows roving wiretap authority on electronic equipment, including cell phones
• Allows pen registers/trap and trace on particular phone numbers but restricts content collection
• Increases the number of FISA judges from seven to 11
• Expedites the hiring of translators for the FBI
• Allows seizure of voice mail messages
• Does not allow the use of information collected on Americans by foreign governments when that information was collected in violation of the U.S. Constitution
• Authorizes nationwide service of subpoenas for electronic subscriber information
• Expands list of items subject to subpoena to include the means and source of payment for electronic subscriber information
• Authorizes electronic communications service to disclose contents of and subscriber information in case of emergencies involving the immediate danger of death or serious physical injury
• Allows sharing of grand jury and wiretap information for official law enforcement duties
• Allows sharing grand jury and wiretap information that involves foreign intelligence and counterintelligence
• Does not allow disclosure of tax return information by Treasury to federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies in responding to terrorist incidents
• Triples the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service and INS inspectors at the northern border
• Authorizes $100 million to improve INS and Customs technology and additional equipment for monitoring the northern border
• Requires an integrated automated fingerprint identification system for points of entry and overseas consular posts
• Authorizes a counter-terrorism fund to reimburse the Department of Justice for any costs related to investigating and prosecuting terrorism
• Expedites disability and death payments to firefighters, law enforcement officers or emergency personnel involved in the prevention, investigation, rescue or recovery efforts related to any future terrorist attack
• Increases benefits program payments to public safety officers
• Coordinates secure information sharing among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute terrorist conspiracies and activities
• Expands fraud and abuse laws to cover computers outside the U.S. used to affect interstate commerce or communications inside the U.S.
• Replenishes the Justice Department's antiterrorism emergency reserve with up to $50 million; authorizes private gift-giving to the fund; allows service providers to use reserve fund to expedite assistance to victims of domestic terrorism
• Creates a new criminal statute to punish for terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems
• Creates a list of offenses that will carry an eight-year statute of limitations for prosecution except where they resulted in, or created a risk of, death or serious bodily injury
• Defines maximum penalties for terror-related activities where appropriate, including life imprisonment or supervision
• Adds conspiracy provisions to some criminal statutes and provides that the penalties for such conspiracies may not include death
• Adds certain terrorism-related crimes to RICO and money laundering rules

I hope that everyone feels safer now

Re:Did the time limit make it in?

[limbostar]

The text of the bill as passed to the senate is posted on the site:

SEC. 224. SUNSET.

(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this title (other than sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222, and the amendments made by those sections) shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.316 2:

In particular, there is this:

SEC. 224. SUNSET.

(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this title (other than sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222, and the amendments made by those sections) shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.

(b) EXCEPTION- With respect to any particular foreign intelligence investigation that began before the date on which the provisions referred to in subsection (a) cease to have effect, or with respect to any particular offense or potential offense that began or occurred before the date on which such provisions cease to have effect, such provisions shall continue in effect.

IANAL, but I read this as 'Most of the stuff in this bill dies in 2006, unless it's actively being used at that time.'

The stuff that will not die includes:

• Authority to share criminal investigative information
• Employment of translators by the FBI
• Something about number of judges from somewhere being increased from 7 to 11 (no shit, read it yourself)
• what information can be reported about a suspect (I think, it's not clear)
• what agencies that information can be reported to
• THE DELAY OF WARRANT NOTIFICATION in the event it would cause 'adverse results'
• lots of stuff about wiretapping (section 216)
• single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism
• sanctions against the taliban (in particular! not just afghanistan in general) and Syria
• the assurance of compensation for compliance with federal officials

The warrant notice scares me the most. Does that mean that I can be arrested and then not be presented with a warrant, or that my house could be searched and I could not be presented with a warrant?

Ashcroft's speech

[dachshund]

I listened to Ashcroft's speech on CNN. Not only did it read as a how-to of what not to do if you're a terrorist in the US, it sounded pretty damn ominous for the rest of us (generally) law-abiding types. Ashcroft is not a sympathetic guy.

I can imagine what the more pragmatic law-enforcement agents are thinking right now: "gee, this probably won't do a damn thing to stop terrorism, but think how many marijuana dealers we'll pick up now. yippee."

Re:"Enemy of the State"

[kev-san]

Anyone who argues "Oh, I don't care if they invade my privacy, I'm not doing anything illegal." should watch the movie Enemy of the State. At first Will Smith has that exact same attitude, until the middle of the movie where he spins it around to "That's... None of your damn business! Leave me alone!"

Shhhhhhhhhhhh.

It's not that I don't agree with you. I do. But, for the love of all that is good and holy, don't base your philosophical opinions on Enemy of the State.

"we are different"

[mj6798]

The missing piece in the argument is that the American democratic republic is radically different in several key areas from other democracies and republics, especially European ones. Americans historically have a very high sense of self-preservation.

And you think Europeans didn't? Come on, what kind of argument is that?

The main historical difference is that until the mid-20th century, the US was an agricultural frontier society: if you didn't like goverment, you could move or change your identity (as long as you were white and male). Europe at the time already was densely populated and had a well-functioning administration in place.

It's only over the last few decades that the US has gotten the technology to track, supervise, and control its population. But now that it's here, the US political system has not caught up with it, and neither have the political sensitivities of the US population.

And even in its earlier periods, the US managed to almost completely exterminate American Indians, deny democracy to the majority of its citizens, and enslave blacks. The US does not have a stellar record of democracy, individual freedoms, or justice. And unlike those European countries, the US still has the same political and legal systems in place that allowed those abuses.

If abuses start, the public will speak out, and this bill will be quickly curbed.

If people risk their jobs, credit records, government surveillance, and being thrown in jail for being "suspected terrorists", "the public" will quickly become quiet.

No, it's already so bad that any worse...

[Chasing Amy]

We've reached a plateau with this legislation, really. It's so bad that if it were worse, it would only still be at the same level of bad. Or something like that...

This legislation makes it legal for the FBI to read every line of every header on every packet that ever goes out on the Internet, without a warrant. That means that the FBI can legally quite easily maintain lists of who visits what websites, who sends whom e-mail, etc. This is analogous to how the FBI used to send people to follow dissidents and people with political beliefs they didn't like, and wait for them to do something they could exploit publicly to embarrass someone, or privately to blackmail someone (like they did to Martin Luther King, Jr., with his affair). Do you ever do anything at all online that you wouldn't want everyone in the world to know about? Then don't speak out too loudly against whatever ever-more-draconian things the FBI wants, or you may get on their radar. Ever do anything that's technically illegal, or can otherwise get you into trouble, even though whether it should is debatable? Like, gamble, protest (just ask the WTO protesters how often they get arrested for exercising this *right*, even peacefully), visit European or Asian pr0n sites where some of the models are 16 because it's perfectly legal in that given country, be gay and in the military, tear the tag off the mattress at the store, write literature or have performances that get deemed a violation of your community's standards, etc.? Just don't say anything about it or e-mail anything about it or visit any sites related to it, on the Internet.

Oh, and if you ever gamble online, you're helping terrorists to launder money, BTW, and don't be surprised if it gets you into a lot of trouble. Granted, no one has ever maintained that any major online offshore gambling houses are actually being used by terrorists to launder anything; this was just moralizing rightwingers using terrorism as an excuse to foist their morality on everyone else. And that is despicable.

And don't ever visit online boards filled with political dissidents and prograssives, like the Independent Media Center which is somethimes the only source of good information on and from protests--unless you want to get on a McCarthyesque list or get detained for questioning by the FBI. After all, they served the IMC with a search warrant this year after the WTO/IMF protest in Canada, which would have forced them to turn over all server logs so that the FBI could find out who was posting updates from the protest so that they could interrogate those people about some documents or somesuch which were taken from a police car (IIRC), and a gag order to prevent them from revealing it to site visitors. They warrant was quashed, being unconstitutional and all. But now, THEY DON"T NEED A WARRANT. They have license to gather all that data for themselves by directly bugging the Internet backbone. And if something they want slips through, or is encrypted and has its path scrambled by something like a Mixmaster remailer, then this legislation makes it very easy for them to get a warrant and search logs or install password sniffers while you're away without even telling you they were ever there.

Slashdot has already carried a story about the FBI's proposal to concentrate all Internet traffic at a few key points to that it can do just that sort of broad monitoring of every Internet user everywhere. Funny thing is, it's an idea which came to the FBI 2 years ago. Interesting how something the FBI has been secretly lusting after for years is now the answer to the present situation, eh? They're just opportunists who have been wanting this power, and the current situation gives them an excuse for circumventing the Constitution with only a single senator voting against their power grab.

And once the FBI has its closed boxes installed throughout the Internet backbone, is there any way to really prevent them from looking at more than just the header data that they can now get, legally, without a warrant? Recent studies indicate that there are thousands of illegal telephone wiretaps performed by law enforcement agencies each year in the U.S. With the power to instantly see what anyone is doing on the Net, probably with no one ever being the wiser, that is an even greater temptation to abuse. They will implement such capabilities into their closed and secret boxes under the auspices of needing the capabilities for when they get search warrants to read the data itself, not just its headers; and then no one is there looking over their shoulders to make sure they don't take peeks whenever they want, without warrants, or with a warrant that's just a rubber stamp from a judge in their pocket who makes it a secret warrant under this new law, that no one ever need know about?

And what is the FBI if not an agency which has proven its capacity to abuse power, along with its sister agencies like the ATF? The entire Reno administration in the DOJ was one long abuse of the people, from using pyrotechnic devices at Waco and lying about it for 8 years until it was proven by their own photographs and documents which had been conveniently misplaced, to the murder of two innocent people at Ruby Ridge (the man they came to arrest won a million+ dollar lawsuit against them), to deporting a minor child on very dubious grounds while his custody proceedings were still moving forward in a state Court, just to prove a political point, to lying to the U.S. Army to get military training for agents under a law that says agents can get military training only when preparing for an international drug bust, when those agents were serving a warrant for 1 count of selling a shotgun with a too-short barrel, to inventing allegations of child abuse in several cases which were later disproved, for the purposes of making a defendant who would have been vindicated look bad. And the Ashcroft DOJ is looking at least as bad.

Don't forget that Hoover may be dead, but his training and indoctrination methods are still very much alive at the FBI, where new agents are still taught according to principles he established. Terrorism isn't the greatest threat to freedom in this country; the DOJ is.

Ponder this Vietnam-era quote:

"The mushrooming of surveillance has been explained by the sense of panic
and crisis felt throughout the government during this period of extremely
vocal dissent, large demonstrations, political and campus violence, and
what at the time seemed the inauguration of a period of wide- spread
anarchy. While officials... suggested that these crises justified the
surveillance, they failed to recognize that the rights guaranteed by the
constitution are constant and unbending to the temper of the times..."
--Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, 1973

And how about these old stand-bys:

"Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those
values and ideals which set this Nation apart... It would indeed be
ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the
subversion of one of those liberties... which makes the defense of the
Nation worthwhile."--Chief Justice Earl Warren, U.S. Supreme Court, US v Robel

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."--William Pitt to the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

"Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor
to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better
secured."--Thomas Paine, 1791

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty
when the government's purposes are beneficient . . . the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."--Justice Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you."--Sam Adams

"When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty."-- Thomas Paine

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get
yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is
to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding
fathers used in the great struggle for independence."--Charles Austin Beard, 1874 - 1948

These are my "stock quotes" that I drag out on discussion boards and on USENET whenever I see a well-intioned post which goes against these words of wisdom from men greater than you or me, men who established or defended and defined the rights which we now enjoy as proud Americans. But I am not proud of my country at this. We have set a precedent which is terrible, and tommorrow when the President signs the bill into law we will have lost rights which it may take generations to recover--if we ever do. Sure, it's meant to be temporary--but it can be passed again, permanently, after we've gotten used to having no more 4th Amendment rights the moment we turn on a computer. Remember that the income tax which we now all pay so copiously was passed as a temporary measure to fund the Spanish-American War. Remember that Social Security, which we all still have to pay with no opt-out option, was a temporary measure to help soften the Depression.

Temporary things have a habit of becoming permanent in this country. Just ask the people who had to foment a Revolution to get out from under the burden of so many "temporary" taxes the English imposed upon their Colonies.

This is the sort of invasion of liberties which, historically, has slowly caused armed revolutions. Three hundred years from now, they may be studying this and similar events in high schools much as we study the small erosions of freedom which by themselves were considered nothing, but which together are considered the genesis of the American Revolution. Strong words? No, strong legislation. At best, history will judge the next years under this law as being not unlike a new McCarthyism.

Re:The Constitution

[cosmosis]

Wow an idealist! They do exist! Haven't you read history? Even recent American history? Or are you one of those guys who slept through class? Where do I begin? Lets look at some recent historical precedents to see where unchecked power gets abused.

1937: J. Edgar Hoover becomes head of the FBI. Within 25 years Hoover had so much dirt on everyone that even Presidents were afraid of him. Ever wonder why he stayed in power for over 30 years? J. Edgar Hoover ran this country for the entire period. He had more dirt on Kennedy alone to fill several books.

1950: Senator Joe McCarthy declares was on domestic communism. Over the next 5 years thousands, repeat thousands, of people were harrassed, intimidated, arrested, imprisoned and deported. In the entire time not one single communist was ever uncovered. Never mind that in a so-called free country we allegedly have the right to free speech, the press and assembly. Yet all these people were oppressed for exercising that very right.

1933: Hitler becomes Chancellor. Over the next 6 years he gains so much power, in large part by hunting down and executing anyone daring to disagree with him. This included hundreds of german students caught passing out anti-nazi flyers in libaries. They were arreseted and immediately shot! I don't have to remind you what happened next after he finished eliminating any remaining opposition do I?

Today: Congress hands the Executive branch the most power it has ever been given since the countries inception in 1776. The traditional balance of power that has up to this point kept the government in check is eliminated with the USA ACT, now giving the Executive Branch all the power it needs to fight domestic "terrorism" without Judicial oversight.

So ask yourself this. If the governments fight against terrorism is a just cause, then why does it need to eliminate parts of the constitution and the normal checks and balances to pull it off? One Answer: Because its real agenda has nothing to do fighting real terrorism. Now they have the power to eliminate any remaining dissent against their power base. A powerbase that gained power suspiciously if not downright illiginately. If Bush really had won the election, then why did the New York Times decide to *not* publish its poll findings? Becasue Gore actually won. We have an illigimate president in power who in less than a year has managed to take us headlong into war that may erupt into WWIII and the effective elimination of Constitution protections to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now they have the freedom to compile complete dossiers on everyone. Ever subscribed to 2600 magazine? Ever got a catalog from Loompanics? Ever baught a "alternative" book from Amazon? Are you a registered Libertarian? Are you a member of the Green Party? If so you have now been targeted. Lets just hope they don't try to paint you as a "suspected terrorist". Even the most harmless acts of computer intrusion could give you life in imprisonment - LIFE!

Assuming soneone manages to challenge these new laws in court, don't you think these anti-democratic croonies running our country will the case to get anywhere? Give me a break! They will harrass, intimidate, incarcerate anyone they deem a "threat" to National Security - read Threat to their power. This is a classic power play people! The most sinister one ever carried out in History. Assuming we make it through this - this will time will go down as one of the darkets in human history. Chinese curses indeed! History has repeatedly shown that once the balance of power is tipped too far in one direction (as it is with the USA ACT) it is never regained, excpet with the downfall of the regime itself - coup's, revolution or internal decay. Either way we are now in for a very long, dark and opressive time in this country. If you had any doubt before - We are now living in a Totaltarian Police State. Who is going to save us? The Russians? The Chineese? The Canadians?