Slashdot Mirror


The Continuing Hunt for PATRIOT Act Abuses

Throtex writes "Orin Kerr, Associate Professor of Law at George Washington University writes at The Volokh Conspiracy that the Department of Justice is having trouble finding abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act. This follows from the fact that what the media originally aired as abuses were merely allegations of abuse at the time. Could it be that there has just been a lot of fuss over nothing?"

7 of 1,182 comments (clear)

  1. Re:One place to look by mirko · · Score: 5, Informative

    Guantanamo is outside of the US, so it's not officially under US juridiction. So it's not illegal to detain these people there even if it's indeed a concentration camp for deported war prisoner, except that the Geneva Convention is not respected there.

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
  2. Re:One place to look by WombatControl · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except the detentions at Camp X-Ray, regardless of one's opinion about them, have nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act has to do with domestic anti-terrorism, not the treatment of detainees obtained in military operations.

    That being said, there have been some questionable uses of PATRIOT Act provisions for non-terrorism cases that should be investigated. The PATRIOT Act is an anti-terrorism act, and if the Justice Department wishes such powers for conventional cases they should go through the legislative process to get them. The PATRIOT Act should be limited to use only in anti-terrorism prosecutions.

  3. Re:One place to look by jallen02 · · Score: 5, Informative
    And a pretty good argument can be made that the terrorists we have down there are outside of the Geneva convention as they aren't members of any regular army backed by a real country. They are terrorists.

    Article 4. Section 2.

    2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

    • (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

    • (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

    • (c) That of carrying arms openly;

    • (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

    Jeremy
  4. How about the expansion of the Patriot act? by illumin8 · · Score: 5, Informative
    What about all of the abuses that are taking place in the name of the Patriot act? I'm specifically talking about the DOJ taking the Patriot act on a road show in 2003 and giving state and local law enforcement lessons on how to apply the Patriot act to local drug offenders. I couldn't find a link to an article talking about this, but I did find this that was similar:

    http://www.bushpresident2004.com/ashcroft.htm

    From the article:

    In the Spring of 2003, Ashcroft's PROTECT Act was signed into law limiting judges' discretion in sentencing criminal offenders below the Justice Department's sentencing guidelines. While each individual case carries with it countless unique circumstances that a judge uses to form a fair and appropriate sentence, John Ashcroft acted bravely to prohibit judges from considering the individuality of cases for fear of being black-listed by the Justice Department.

    This caused uproar among judges across the nation including conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Members of Congress inspired by Ashcroft's success are proposing the VICTORY Act to employ tactics similar to the Patriot Act on suspected drug offenders.

    The Bill of Rights Amendments specifically affected by the Patriot Act and other Bush Administration efforts are the following:

    The First Amendment: The Patriot Act allows the search of libraries' and religious organizations' records without cause. This might infringe upon the First Amendment's declaration that the government may not abridge freedom of speech nor prohibit the "free exercise" of religion.

    The Fourth Amendment: The Patriot Act allows searches and seizures of U.S. citizen's property without probable cause and without a specific warrant. This is expressly prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

    The Fifth Amendment: The Bush Administration claims it may designate Americans as "enemy combatants" and detain them without conviction in court. This is in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment stating that persons may not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Supreme Court has regularly upheld the "due process" requirement even in national security crises.

    The Sixth Amendment: With the claim to designate Americans "enemy combatants", the Bush Administration also states that it may imprison persons indefinitely without trial, without access to an attorney, and without any means to challenge their detention. The entire Sixth Amendment is essentially shredded in this case.

    [End of quoted article]

    I don't think that's a lot of fuss about nothing. I can think of several abuses already, including Jose Padilla, who has been held for years now and has never been charged with anything. He's a goddamn US citizen for chrissakes. If you don't think that's scary that the Feds can come lock you up in a military brig indefinitely without charging you with any crime, then you need to pull your head out of the sand and take a look at what's going on around you.

    --
    "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
  5. Re:One place to look by Tassach · · Score: 5, Informative
    Guantanamo is outside of the US, so it's not officially under US juridiction. So it's not illegal to detain these people there
    Guantanimo is a United States military base, operated by the United States Government. The Constitution applies to the GOVERNMENT, not the people -- it's a list of what the GOVERNMENT can do and can't do.
    Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    It says ANY PERSON. That means anyone, anywhere, at any time. It's not limited to apply only within the US borders nor only to US citizens. It's an injuction prohibiting the US GOVERNMENT from depriving ANY person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  6. Re:ACLU Approves Of Overwhelming Majority of Patri by badmammajamma · · Score: 5, Informative

    The ACLU has NEVER stated that the entire Patriot Act was wrong or bad. There's so much crap in there that it would be near impossible for them to not agree with at least some of it. The problem is that the 10% of it they don't like, THEY REALLY REALLY don't like. So arguing that they are ok with 90% of it is really no argument at all.

    The ACLU even has a video where they say they don't disagree with the entire patriot act (this video is typically given free to new members of the ACLU). The same video also documents abuses of the patriot act that the government, surprise surprise, can't seem to find.

    --
    Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
  7. Re:One place to look by Jurph · · Score: 5, Informative
    Article 5. Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

    Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

    (HOWEVER)

    In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power as case may be.


    (emphasis mine)

    It appears that the State gets to decide when to give them rights, but is obligated to give them their Geneva Convention rights, regardless of whether they're lawful soliders of a signatory nation.