Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

Feedback and Administration >> Shroomery News Service

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 2,956
Loc: Russia
Dispelling Some of the Major Myths about the USA PATRIOT Act
    #2642485 - 05/05/04 07:07 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

From lifeandliberty.com:

Dispelling the Myths
Dispelling Some of the Major Myths about the USA PATRIOT Act


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)


Myth: The ACLU has claimed that ?Many [people] are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the ?thought police? can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit.? (ACLU, July 22, 2003)

Reality: The Patriot Act specifically protects Americans? First Amendment rights, and terrorism investigators have no interest in the library habits of ordinary Americans. Historically, terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. If terrorists or spies use libraries, we should not allow them to become safe havens for their terrorist or clandestine activities. The Patriot Act ensures that business records ? whether from a library or any other business ? can be obtained in national security investigations with the permission of a federal judge.

Examining business records often provides the key that investigators are looking for to solve a wide range of crimes. Investigators might seek select records from hardware stores or chemical plants, for example, to find out who bought materials to make a bomb, or bank records to see who?s sending money to terrorists. Law enforcement authorities have always been able to obtain business records in criminal cases through grand jury subpoenas, and continue to do so in national security cases where appropriate. In a recent domestic terrorism case, for example, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that a suspect had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying the suspect as the bomber.

In national security cases where use of the grand jury process was not appropriate, investigators previously had limited tools at their disposal to obtain certain business records. Under the Patriot Act, the government can now ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), if needed to aid an investigation, to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas. This federal court, however, can issue these orders only 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.

Congress reviews the government?s use of business records under the Act. Every six months, the Attorney General must ?fully inform? Congress on how it has been implemented. On October 17, 2002, the House Judiciary Committee issued a press release indicating it is satisfied with the Department?s use of section 215: ?The Committee?s review of classified information related to FISA orders for tangible records, such as library records, has not given rise to any concern that the authority is being misused or abused.?


Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act provision about delayed notification search warrants ?would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. . . . This provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States.? (ACLU, October 23, 2001)

Reality: 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. The Patriot Act simply codified the authority law enforcement had already had for decades. This tool is a vital aspect of our strategy of prevention ? detecting and incapacitating terrorists before they are able to strike.

In some cases if criminals are tipped off too early to an investigation, they might flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses, cut off contact with associates, or take other action to evade arrest. Therefore, federal courts in narrow circumstances long have allowed law enforcement to delay for a limited time when the subject is told that a judicially-approved search warrant has been executed. This tool can be used only with a court order, in extremely narrow circumstances when immediate notification may result in death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or serious jeopardy to an investigation. The reasonable delay gives law enforcement time to identify the criminal?s associates, eliminate immediate threats to our communities, and coordinate the arrests of multiple individuals without tipping them off beforehand. In all cases, law enforcement must give notice that property has been searched or seized.

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)

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 3 days
Re: Dispelling Some of the Major Myths about the USA PATRIOT Act [Re: TinMan]
    #2644849 - 05/06/04 12:00 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

> The Patriot Act simply codified the authority law enforcement had already had for decades.

In other words, the Patriot Act simply made it legal for law enforcement to do what they had alrady been doing, illegally, for decades.

Just another spore in the wind.

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Doctor ofShroomology
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/31/04
Posts: 4,130
Loc: florida
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
Re: Dispelling Some of the Major Myths about the USA PATRIOT Act [Re: TinMan]
    #2649906 - 05/07/04 02:23 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

I disagree with the notion that peaceful groups won't be targeted... if a person affiliated with say Greenpeace decides on his own to "get militant", how do the terrorist-hunters distinguish between actions taken on ones own behalf and actions taken on behalf of the group?

branding any organisation as a "terrorist" simply criminalizes every member of the group for the actions, or even bad intent, of a few or even one of the group...

its also a helluva way to quench support for any new group that becomes prominent...

and as happened in Seattle during the world trade protests, Govt. operatives wearing masks can and will commit crimes and spread messages detrimental to the group, so the public believes that the peaceful group is really a militant masked terrorist org...

We got Nothing!
we're no longer selling jars.  :laugh:

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 11 years, 26 days
Re: Dispelling Some of the Major Myths about the USA PATRIOT [Re: Seuss]
    #2665546 - 05/11/04 11:16 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)


In other words, the Patriot Act simply made it legal for law enforcement to do what they had alrady been doing, illegally, for decades. 

ROFL :grin: :thumbup:

People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,284
Loc: oakland
Re: Dispelling Some of the Major Myths about the USA PATRIOT [Re: TinMan]
    #2673379 - 05/13/04 01:58 PM (12 years, 5 months ago)

I remember reading a leaked document in the NYTimes that was from FBI officials to police in Florida (where there was a NAFTA meeting taking place)... saying that there were concrete links between the protesters and "terrorist cells" and that they should not hesitate to use force in dealing with them...

I would post the link but the freaking NYTimes charges for articles that are old... :frown:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Feedback and Administration >> Shroomery News Service

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* House makes Patriot Act Permanent myndreach 789 6 07/24/05 01:51 PM
by Jim
* Patriot Act Used in Drug Case; Lawyer Riled (US) Le_Canard 1,832 8 03/28/08 09:10 PM
by jeverden
* Patriot act 2 who woulda knew Dreamer987 920 5 01/03/04 09:22 PM
by chodamunky
* 2 Patriot Act Provisions Ruled Unlawful Techno_Raver 1,011 8 09/27/07 05:58 AM
by Visionary Tools
* eBay's PayPal Accused of Violating Patriot Act LanaM 1,544 4 04/05/03 02:09 AM
by Karen
* Cline rips Patriot Act to shreds motamanM 892 3 10/07/03 02:57 AM
by lowercase
* Dispelling myths about drug use veggie 2,214 18 06/21/08 09:05 AM
by numonkei
* Patriot Act Used in Marijuana Bust Anonymous 634 1 08/02/04 02:48 PM
by Randolph_Carter

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: motaman, karode13, Alan Rockefeller, naum, Mostly_Harmless
1,063 topic views. 0 members, 11 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
High Mountain Compost
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.066 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.