Deconstructing the Patriot Act PR Campaign

Aaron writes "The Center for Democracy and Technology offers up an interesting point for point rebuttal to the the claims made via the 'rah-rah-esque' DOJ's website, part of the PR campaign (including Ashcroft speaking tours) to convince the public the Act is good for them. I think this Broadband Reports article also brings up a good point: among the groups attacking the Act, why do so few of them bring up Echelon? It already gives the government much of the surveillance ability they claim they're lacking, and without congressional oversight. The UN this year even launched an investigation into the use of the system to spy on UN diplomats without much fanfare."

Comments

The USA PATRIOT Act

[Kris_J]

"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". I don't think the article gets it right once.

Re:Ben Franklin quote

[smack_attack]

They do support the 2nd ammendment ass:

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

Re:Ben Franklin quote

[DAldredge]

FROM: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNews Plus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=307

"he ACLU takes this odd position on the 2nd Amendment for two primary reasons, along with a fall back stance. First, they have decided that the term "the people" that is contained in the 2nd Amendment does not apply to "the people" as it does in all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they take the position that this is a collective right and can only be assigned to a militia group, such as the National Guard, which means that Congress can limit or remove gun ownership as they see fit. Secondly, they cite the 1939 Supreme Court case of US. vs. Miller, as proof that the Supreme Court agrees with their beliefs. And finally, they take the fall back position that even if their first two reasons do not hold water, the 2nd is now outdated because the founding fathers could not have envisioned the type of arms that are currently available and the dangers of a few using firearms in criminal activity outweigh the value of this right to society.."

Re:Ben Franklin quote

[beatnitup]

Actually Benjamin Franklin said

"Those who would give up essential liberties for a measure of security deserve neither liberty nor security."

Benjamin Franklin is a national jewel,

I would think it would be best to at least remember his words correctly

Re:My take

[blamanj]

It's clearly being used beyond is "intended" purpose, i.e., to track down terrorists. As this article describes it has been used in hundreds of non-terror cases already.

And if you think that every one it has been used on was guilty, look up bridges in the want ads.

Thankfully, most Americans do not agree with you

[unassimilatible]

According to Gallup, a majority of Americans believe the federal government exerts either the right amount of power or not enough power. It's over 70% total.

Most Americans Don't Feel Government Threatens Civil Rights,

It seems, thankfully, most people would prefer the government actualy do something about terror, rather than complaining about being watched while surfing the Net in libraries, before the next 9-11 happens.

why not rely on Echelon?

[Muttonhead]

...why do so few of them bring up Echelon?

Because the use of Echelon in this country is clandestine and illegal according to the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act is the attempted rollout of the legal use of Echelon. If U.S. citizens accept the Patriot Act it makes things like Echelon more useable. Sure they can use Echelon now, but they cannot use the results in a U.S. court as a basis for prosecution. The Patriot Act would change that. We're sort of between the right to privacy and the state in which the Patriot Act would invoke.

The Patriot Act is a horrible thing and we should reject it. It continues the trend of concentrating power into fewer hands.

Echelon

[Loki_1929]

"among the groups attacking the Act, why do so few of them bring up Echelon? It already gives the government much of the surveillance ability they claim they're lacking, and without congressional oversight."

While Echelon is problematic, its purpose and use appears limited to threat analysis and corporate espionage. The potential for abuse is absolutely astounding, but it isn't something that's legal, and it isn't something that (so far as we know) has been used to gather evidence against anyone for a court case. Echelon is a difficult and touchy issue to bring up, partly because it would appear so integral to the member-nations' security, but mostly because so little is known about it.

What it comes down to is this: you can't attack every single problem at once. You go after the big stuff first, and then you come back for the rest as you can deal with it. Echelon is blatantly unconstitutional and violates so many international laws and treaties, it would take a pack of lawyers years to determine the totality of its illegality. The main problem these people have is the 'legal' (as per current law) violations of individuals' rights, or the potential thereof. If the FBI were illegally searching peoples' homes or records, or were illegally seizing all sorts of objects or information without probable cause, then it would be up to government oversight to reign them in. In this case, agents of the government are legally doing these things, and that's why these groups are jumping all over it.

Re: ACLU Stance (From a Card-Carrying Member)

[cpt kangarooski]

The old "fire in a crowded theater" argument regarding the limitations on rights is constantly misused. This example refers to the rights of a property owner to make use of that property. By yelling "fire", you deprive the owner of the rights to own and operate his/her theater as he/she sees fit. That is purely a civil matter.

No.

You're correct that the 'falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater and causing a panic' argument is widely misused. It dates back to Schenk, which is no longer good law, having been replaced by Brandenberg. And no one ever remembers to quote the part about it being a _false_ cry of 'fire,' though it is perfectly legal and quite commendable to cry 'fire' if it's for real, nor that it is only objectionable should it result in a panic. (given the inflammability of theaters in 1919, a panic would likely result in people being injured or even killed)

BUT you're wrong as wrong can be when you get into this nonsense about property. That's just stupid.

The reason put forth for that type of limit on speech is that it results in grevious physical injury to people, and thus shouldn't be permitted. Similarly, if someone spoke to a mob causing it to lynch someone, or someone spoke to an assassin, causing him to murder someone, though the speaker has engaged in nothing more than speech, the immediate effect of that speech is harmful, and that's why he's not free to do so.

I STRONGLY suggest that you read Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which is the CURRENT law on the subject, or at least read the decision in the case that the fire example dates back to, Schenk v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919).

'Cos right now, you just look foolish.