Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Des Moines Opposes Patriot Act
"Des Moines City Council members passed a resolution Monday that opposes the Patriot Act. A standing-room-only crowd asked city leaders to speak out against the act, which is a result of the terrorism attacks of 9/11." KCCI has this report.
Civil liberties group questions lawn sign limits
WTNH reports: "The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union has fired off letters to towns and cities about limits on political lawns signs that could violate free speech. The issue has cropped up because of a town law in Wesport which sets a 60-day limit on the posting of campaign signs on residential property."
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
FBI uses US Patriot Act against alleged "copyright infringer"
Vive le Canada reports: "The use of the US Patriot Act in the U.S.A. just gets crazier and crazier. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) sicked the FBI on the owner of a harmless fan website dedicated to the MGM TV show Stargate. The crime: 'Criminal Copyright Infringement.' The FBI used the US Patriot Act to obtain financial records from the website's Internet Service Provider (ISP) during the investigation."
Demonstrators Ignore "Free Speech Zone" in Boston, Say It Resembles An "Internment Camp"
From the New York Times: After the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Lawyers Guild filed suit against the (free speech) zone, Judge Douglas P. Woodlock of Federal District Court toured the site last week and said that while he intitially doubted the lawyers' claim that the site resembled "an internment camp," he concluded that the comparison was "an understatement." "One cannot concieve of other elements put in place to create a space that's more of an affront to the idea of free expression than the designated demonstration zone," he said in a ruling on Thursday. Nevertheless, Judge Woodcock said, there was no alternative. He told the lawyers: "There really isn't any other place. You're stuck under the tracks." Putting finishing touches on the area this morning, a workman, who asked that his name not be used, took in the fencing and the razor wire wrapped around the overhead track. "Does it look like a concentration camp?" he said. "I'm Jewish. It looks like a concentration camp." Later, as the demonstrators gathered on the common in a welter of speeches, posters and pamphlets, Robert Aili, 50, said of the Free Speech Zone: "I think it is obviously an obscenity and an insult to the First Amendment." Read the full story.
John Kerry's Monstrous Record on Civil Liberties
"For John Kerry, the specter of Attorney General John Ashcroft trashing Americans' civil liberties has been a useful campaign prop. In campaign stops, Kerry has promised to 'end the era of John Ashcroft and renew our faith in the Constitution.' In a Kerry administration, he promised the liberal group MoveOn in June 2003, 'there will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights.' In his 2004 campaign book, A Call to Service, Kerry accuses Ashcroft and the Bush administration of 'relying far too much on extraordinary police powers.' In contrast, Kerry positions himself as a civil libertarian—or at least as a proponent of a reasonable balance between liberty and security. "If we are to stand as the world's role model for freedom, we need to remain vigilant about our own civil liberties," Kerry writes in A Call to Service. He calls for "rededicating ourselves to protecting civil liberties.'" Kerry, like every other senator in the chamber except Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), voted for the USA PATRIOT Act in the wake of 9/11." Reason Online has this article.
Monday, July 26, 2004
Many cities react to provisions of USA Patriot Act
"In Soldotna, Alaska, (pop. 3,759) they painted the fire hydrants red, white and blue after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The students at the local school got involved in a letter-writing campaign to support the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. And last year, the City Council voted unanimously to oppose provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Some of the nation's most conservative cities have joined with its most liberal ones including, just last week, Pasadena in opposing the anti-terrorism act." Pasadena Star News reports here.
Checking out the Patriot Act
"The USA Patriot Act, which broadens the scope of records the federal government can request for counter-terrorism efforts, won't affect the Winona and La Crosse public libraries the way it could others. The federal law, passed soon after Sept. 11, 2001, allows a special court to grant the FBI access to 'any relevant tangible item' to a terrorist investigation, including books, papers, documents and library records. Earlier this month, an attempt to amend the act so it would not cover library use or book buying records failed in Congress." Winona Daily News has this article.
B.C. to guard privacy against Patriot Act
CBC News reports: "VANCOUVER - British Columbia has announced plans to stop any far-reaching effects the U.S. Patriot Act may have on the privacy of people in B.C. The province will introduce rules this fall to forbid Canadian subsidiaries of American companies from handing over private information to American law enforcement agencies."
Friday, July 23, 2004
Despite federal assurances, critics still worry about Patriot Act's reach
Minnesota Public Radio reports (text): "St. Paul, Minn. — Federal government officials say a contentious section of the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act won't result in the FBI snooping into your library borrowing and bookstore purchases, but critics in Minnesota and nationally remain convinced that someday it could. Those concerns exist in part because federal officials have said little, if anything, about how and when the 2001 law might be used. If the FBI were to search a library or bookstore, it's not clear what it would be looking for and, given the different practices of booksellers and libraries, what it might find. 'There was never any need for libraries to be included in the Patriot Act,' said Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the American Library Association's Washington, D.C., office. In fact, the law makes no mention of libraries or bookstores. But the U.S. Justice Department has acknowledged that libraries are among the organizations whose business records might come under scrutiny, Sheketoff said."
Library complies with Patriot Act
"Barry Shear of Springfield looked up from reading at a table in the Central Library yesterday and had nothing nice to say about the USA Patriot Act. 'I think it's disgusting,' said Shear, who works as an evaluation team leader with the state Department of Education. In response to the Patriot Act, the Library Commission June 15 established a policy under which staff must cooperate but also immediately contact city lawyers if government agents inquire about a patron's reading list." The (Massachusetts) Republican has this article.
Patriot Act forum set
The Grand Rapids Press reports: "HOLLAND, MI -- A forum will be held at 6:30 p.m. Thursday at Holland City Hall to discuss the USA Patriot Act and review a resolution demanding sections of the act be amended. The resolution will be forwarded to Holland City Council with a request for adoption. The forum is being sponsored by The Bill of Rights Defense Committee, City of Holland Human Relations Commission, Holland Peacemakers, Latin Americans United for Progress, Lakeshore Ethnic Diversity Alliance, American Civil Liberties Union and Noviolent Ways Project Inc."
Thursday, July 22, 2004
9/11 Commission Report Takes on Patriot Act, Government Secrecy
Truthout.org reports: "The official 9/11 Commission report, released today, takes aim at the USA Patriot Act and the excessive amount of official secrecy in the Bush administration. 'Regarding civil liberties, the 9/11 Commission report essentially says that the Justice Department and White House have not made a compelling case for either the administration’s obsession with secrecy or its Patriot Act,' said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. 'This bipartisan report should serve as a wake-up call for Congress that it must maintain the sunsets in the Patriot Act.' As the report states on page 394, 'The burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the executive’s use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use.'"
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Candidates on the Issues: The Patriot Act
NPR (audio) reports: "Just the name of the USA Patriot Act, the controversial measure enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, stirs raw emotions in the debate over civil liberties vs. national security. Both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry support the law. But the presumed Democratic presidential nominee says some changes are needed to protect individual freedoms."
Patriot Act has historical precedent
"Following the 9-11 terrorists attacks on New York and Washington, the Patriot Act was passed as a temporary legislation restricting certain civil rights for certain people. Now that it is up for extension for another temporary period, it has been discussed and cussed by many. There have been periods in past history where such legislation has been a major issue." The Leesville Daily Leader has this article.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Council majority expresses reservations
"PASADENA -- The City Council joined Monday night with more than 300 other cities across the country in expressing opposition to portions of the USA Patriot Act. The council voted 6-2 along party lines, with the council's only two Republicans Sid Tyler and Steve Haderlein voting no." The Pasadena Star News reports here.
Searches of Convention Protesters Limited
The New York Times reports: "A federal judge has barred general searches of protesters' bags at the Republican National Convention and ruled out the use of closed four-sided pens to contain the protesters. But in a ruling issued Friday and released yesterday, the judge, Robert W. Sweet, did not entirely ban the controversial pens, requiring only that demonstrators be able to move freely in and out of them."
Monday, July 19, 2004
Ridge Brings New Equipment, Defends Patriot Act
Last Thursday, Pittsburgh's Channel 4 reported: "The Bush administration has been on Capitol Hill this week, defending the Patriot Act from those who say it does more to harm civil liberties than to protect the nation. Ridge rolled up his sleeves on that issue today, while saying hello to some old friends. It was a roomful of familiar faces -- the emergency first responders from 13 western Pennsylvania counties, an area these folks call Region 13. Ridge came bearing gifts: $2 million worth of federally funded gadgets designed to prevent or deal with a terrorist attack. And he continued to voice the message he first uttered last week about the current threat to the U.S."
Interviews Of Muslims To Broaden
The Washington Post reports: "FBI agents have launched a series of interviews of Muslims and Arab Americans in the Washington area and across the country, hoping to glean information that could prevent a major terrorist attack during this election year. A few dozen voluntary interviews of community leaders, students, businesspeople and others have been conducted so far, according to attorneys and Muslim activists. Authorities said they do not know how many people will be contacted, but the effort is expected to expand significantly in the next week or so."
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Our Opinion: Patriots beware
"The Tucson Citizen writes: The Patriot Act is anything but. So we oppose Attorney General John Ashcroft's effort to renew infringements on our civil rights. In his Tuesday report to Congress, Ashcroft ignores serious concerns about the Patriot Act, which was enacted hurriedly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
Congress must act so Americans won't remain in the dark about Patriot Act
"Our position is: Congress must require more information on the Patriot Act and its effects on terrorism and civil liberties. As an assistant U.S. attorney prosecuting terrorism cases in Indiana's Southern District, Mark Massa bristles at what he calls 'mischaracterizations' and 'falsehoods' of the Patriot Act. The three-year-old law is not 'some sort of creeping Big Brotherism,' but a toolbox, he says, that helps cops, prosecutors and spymasters nail aspiring bin Ladins." The Indianapolis Star has this editorial.
More Patriot Act Games
"WITH PRESIDENT Bush calling on Congress to pass a permanent version of the USA Patriot Act and many liberals demanding the bill's repeal, the Justice Department's report last week on implementation of the law was an opportunity to inject a dose of empirical fact into a stale and often uninformed debate. Key authorities in the controversial legislation will expire next year, so the discussion of the legislation's merits is deeply important. Yet public debate over the law's fate has fallen victim to election-year demagoguery. Critics talk about it as though it were a comprehensive menace, while President Bush and Attorney General John D. Ashcroft often treat skepticism of it as softness in the war on terrorism." The Washington Post has this editorial.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Shelving civil liberties
"By the sheerest coincidence, five days after the House of Representatives broke its rules to save a portion of the Patriot Act, Attorney General John Ashcroft produced a report that he said demonstrated the effectiveness of the Patriot Act. In fact, many of the more than 300 people whom the government has charged under the law -- which Congress passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks -- were guilty only of immigration violations and presented no terrorist threat. While most people support key parts of the Patriot Act, such as new powers for law enforcement to tap wireless calls and e-mails of legitimate terrorism suspects, lawmakers from both parties favor changes that would keep the government from needlessly and dangerously infringing on civil liberties." The Palm Beach Post has this editorial.
Life After Death for CAPPS II?
"The government's controversial plan to screen passengers before they board a plane is dead -- but it may return in a new form with a new name. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge bluntly told a reporter Wednesday that the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System II, or CAPPS II, was effectively 'dead' and jokingly pretended to put a stake in its heart. His comment went far beyond Tuesday's statement to members of Congress by the Transportation Security Administration's acting chief, Adm. David Stone, who said the program's main components were being 'reshaped.'" Wired reports here.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Photo student draws attention of authorities
The Seattles Times reports: "On Monday night, the volume of Internet traffic to Ian Spiers' Web site — www.brownequalsterrorist.com — crashed his server. Strangers from Chicago and New Zealand offered him space on their servers to get his story back online. Spiers, a Seattle freelance graphic designer and amateur photographer, has been amazed at the outpouring of international support he's received since posting a tale of two run-ins, the first with Seattle police and the second with agents from the Department of Homeland Security, for taking photos at the Ballard Locks, one of the most popular tourist spots in Seattle. Spiers gave this account: He was taking landscape photos at the Locks on April 5. Someone apparently thought he was suspicious and called Seattle police, giving them Spiers' license-plate number. Two officers later showed up on Spiers' Ballard doorstep to question him."
Sun should set on part of Patriot Act
"Defeat in Congress of an effort to exempt libraries and book stores from a troubling section of the USA Patriot Act is disappointing. Thursday's near miss in the U.S. House shows a substantial skepticism that should inform Congress when the act's Section 215 sunsets at the end of 2005. Under the section, law-enforcement officials can get warrants for library and bookstore records using a lower standard than the probable cause required for criminal warrants. The amendment would have restored the higher standard. For librarians especially, confidentiality of patron records is a philosophical underpinning. It is the law in 48 states and a policy statement in two — but federal law rules." The Seattle Times has this editorial.
At Work: The Patriot Act
"Attempting to highlight uses of the USA Patriot Act, the Justice Department has disclosed new details about a bizarre 'cyberattack' on the U.S. government’s South Pole research station. Officials say that Eastern European hackers penetrated the station’s computer system and threatened to sell research data to a foreign government." Newsweek reports here.
Patriot Act used to investigate child pornography case
WKYT27 reports: "LEXINGTON, Ky. -- Federal officials used a controversial federal law passed to help combat domestic terrorism in an investigation into a child pornography case in Kentucky. A report from the U.S. Justice Department this week said the Patriot Act helped authorities bring down suspected child molester Terry Adkins and his wife. Both were convicted of possession and receipt of child pornography, and both have been sentenced to federal prison terms."
Boston Will Search Subway Riders to Secure Convention
"Boston is expected to soon become the first city in the nation to conduct random searches of passengers on its subway system. The transit authority says the measure is needed to thwart potential terrorist attacks targeting the Democratic National Convention later this month. Civil liberties groups strongly oppose the searches." NPR has this report (audio).
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
ACLU criticizes Patriot Act report
The Washington Times reports: "The American Civil Liberties Union Tuesday criticized the Justice Department's report to Congress on the Patriot Act, saying it left questions unanswered. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft delivered the report to Congress Tuesday. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero issued a statement saying, 'The attorney general has sidestepped some of the most serious concerns raised about the Patriot Act for partisan purposes.'"
New skirmishes in the Patriot Act battle
"US Attorney General John Ashcroft mounted a strong defense of the Patriot Act Tuesday. The Washington Post reports that Mr. Ashcroft gave Congress nearly three dozen examples of how the Patriot Act had been used to prosecute terrorists and other criminals. Ashcroft's statement comes as the administration tries to prove the act doesn't harm civil liberties, and a week after a controversial provision in the Act was nearly overturned in Congress. The White House is also hoping to stop a move to let key provisions of the act expire in 2005." The Christian Science Monitor has this article.
Placer County gently urges Patriot Act scrutiny
The Sacramento Bee reports: "Placer County lawmakers joined more than 320 cities and counties nationwide Tuesday when they called upon Congress to revisit the USA Patriot Act. Placer County supervisors and dozens of county residents spent more than an hour debating four widely different resolutions: At one end was a proposal urging the Sheriff's Department not to participate in domestic spying programs, and at the other was a resolution directing county agencies to comply fully with the Patriot Act. After impassioned discussion, the board voted 3-2 to approve the least-pointed of the four, which asks federal legislators simply to consider the civil liberties implications of the controversial anti-terrorism bill."
Smith backtracks on vote opposing Patriot Act change
"Tacoma Congressman Adam Smith got a heap of abuse back home after he sided with the Bush administration last week to block proposed changes to the USA Patriot Act — one of just four Democrats to do so. Now Smith says he may have made a mistake in voting against an amendment that would have barred authorities from using the controversial law to get records of library patrons, Internet users and book buyers." The Seattle Times has this article.
Bishop downplays flip-flop on vote to modify Patriot Act
"As irate Democrats chanted 'Shame! Shame! Shame!' Rep. Rob Bishop joined a handful of colleagues who switched their votes and doomed an effort to block a Patriot Act provision that allows the government quick, secretive access to library records, business documents and medical data. Conservative Republicans and House Democrats had united against Section 215 of the Patriot Act, calling it an unlawful infringement on privacy. Bishop originally backed Rep. Bernie Sanders' amendment to block the use of Section 215. It appeared bound for passage last Thursday despite President Bush's threat to veto the entire Justice Department budget bill if it is included. But as the vote dragged on, House leadership persuaded Bishop and other Republicans to snap into line and change their votes, and the 219 supporters fell off one by one until the amendment failed on a tie, 210-210." The Salt Lake Tribune reports here.
Ashcroft releases report saying Patriot Act has helped solve crimes
Kinght Ridder reports: "The Patriot Act has helped law enforcement officials nab terrorists and solve crimes, according to a Justice Department report sent to Congress on Tuesday in an attempt to shore up wavering support for the law. Attorney General John Ashcroft called the Patriot Act 'al-Qaida's worst nightmare.' But the 29-page report showed that the law - an expansion of police and surveillance powers touted as a cornerstone in the Bush administration's legal war on terrorism - also has been used in regular criminal cases, such as child pornography and kidnapping."
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Justice Department Details Uses of Patriot Act
"Seeking to bolster support for the Patriot Act, the Justice Department provided Congress on Tuesday with details of numerous cases in which the anti-terrorism law has been used. The 29-page report is part of the Bush administration effort to prevent Congress from weakening the law, which critics say threatens civil liberties by giving law enforcement authorities more latitude to spy on people." The Associated Press reports here.
U.S.'s Snow Says Patriot Act Key to Financial War on Terror
Bloomberg.com reports: "U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow called for the USA Patriot Act to be renewed so as to maintain a chokehold on terrorism financing, rebutting calls from Democrats who want to roll back a law the Bush administration touts as essential to its war on terror."
Monday, July 12, 2004
USA Patriot Act survives challenge, but nation still is ambivalent
"The war on terrorism and making America a safer nation are important parts of President Bush's re-election campaign. When he visited Kutztown University on Friday, he didn't hesitate to stress these points. 'I will not relent in my quest to make sure that America is safe and secure,' he told the appreciative crowd. Being a 'war president,' as he likes to call himself, isn't just being aggressive toward terrorism overseas. Shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, his administration persuaded Congress to overwhelmingly grant the federal government sweeping powers to investigate terrorism—the USA Patriot Act. We have doubted the wisdom behind parts of it ever since. Last week, the U.S. House was on the verge of scaling back one objectionable sections of the act. There have been other efforts by Congress to shorten the reach of the Patriot Act, and all have failed. By the same token, President Bush has failed to broaden federal powers under the act. This time, however, it looked like Congress had found a conscience and was ready to use it." The Morning Call reports here.
Former US defence lawyer urges Jamaica to oppose Patriot Act
The Jamaica Observer reports: "A former United States defence attorney Friday urged the Jamaican Government to oppose the US Patriot Act, saying it had severely limited the constitutional protection of foreigners and Americans, if they were classified by the US as supporting terrorist activities. 'The Jamaican Government should oppose this Act either by demanding treaties with the United States or say, for instance, that no Jamaican charged under this statute will ever be extradited to the United States,' said David Baugh, who has worked as a US Government defence lawyer for more than five years. At the same time, Baugh called on the US Government to repeal the Patriot Act which was passed after the 9/11 attacks on the US."
Ashcroft: Patriot Act no threat to citizens’ rights
"U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft defended the Patriot Act on Friday during a visit to the Valley, saying it presents no danger to the rights of lawabiding citizens. 'The Patriot Act itself is replete ... it is overlapping with protections against abuse,' he said. Speaking in Phoenix, Ashcroft said most of the authority granted to the government under the law generally requires a court order by a judge who has considered the facts and circumstances. He also said there are provisions for congressional oversight. The East Valley Tribune has this article.
15 of Patriot Act's sections expected to fade into sunset
"Fifteen of the 158 sections in the USA Patriot Act will expire at the end of 2005 unless Congress votes to enshrine them as permanent law. The parts that will expire are contained in the act's second chapter titled 'Enhanced Surveillance Procedures.'" The Providence Journal reports here.
The Act that nobody read: "What they got was all of the powers and none of the safeguards," says Rep. Barney Frank.
The Providence Journal reports: "The USA Patriot Act is so complex that even legislators who voted for it do not understand some of its fundamental components. Rhode Island's four delegates to Congress voted for the Patriot Act. As recently as last month, Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Sen. Lincoln Chafee said they believed the entire 342-page text of the Patriot Act would expire or "sunset" at the end of next year. 'The whole thing is sunset,' Kennedy said on June 22. 'The whole act is sunset.... End of story, goodbye. In order to do anything forward you have to start from scratch.' 'It expires,' Chafee said on June 16. 'I thought it was almost all the act [that sunsets], but I'll have to find that out.' In fact, only 15 of the Patriot Act's 158 sections will expire on Dec. 31, 2005."
Friday, July 09, 2004
Nat Hentoff: On Putting Bush In His Place
We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens. — Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, June 28, 2004
Columnist Nat Hentoff, a tireless defender of the Constituion, writes about how the Supreme Court succeeded in stripping the president of unconstitutional authority, a fact that the mainstream media has not emphasised nearly enough. Writes Hentoff:
"On June 28, ruling on American citizen Yaser Hamdi, held without charges for two years, incommunicado, in a navy brig in South Carolina as "an enemy combatant"—put away solely by the president—the Supreme Court vigorously instructed George W. Bush:
"We reaffirm today the fundamental nature of a citizen's right to be free from involuntary confinement by his own government without due process of law."
No president, said the Court, is above the Constitution, and while George W. Bush is commander in chief of the armed forces, he is not commander in chief of the rest of us.
The decision that Hamdi has the right to appear personally before a court or some other "neutral decision maker" and rebut the government's evidence against him was 8-to-1. Only Clarence Thomas is still willing to trust the government."
Read Nat Hentoff's column, Putting Bush in His Place
Effort to Curb Scope of Antiterrorism Law Falls Short
"An effort to bar the government from demanding records from libraries and booksellers in some terrorism investigations fell one vote short of passage in the House on Thursday after a late burst of lobbying prompted nine Republicans to switch their votes.
The vote, a 210 to 210 deadlock, amounted to a referendum on the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act and reflected deep divisions in Congress over whether the law undercuts civil liberties. Under House rules, the tie vote meant the measure was defeated.
The outcome led to angry recriminations from House Democrats, who accused Republicans of 'vote-rigging' by holding the vote open for an extra 23 minutes to get enough colleagues to switch votes. Frustrated Democrats shouted 'Shame, shame!' and 'Democracy!' as the voting continued, but Republicans defended their right as the majority party to keep the vote open to 'educate members' about the dangers of scaling back government counterterrorism powers.
'We're more interested in catching terrorists who are trying to kill Americans than we are in leaving the Capitol in time for happy hour,' said Stuart Roy, a spokesman for the majority leader, Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas." The New York Times has this article.
Patriot Act's bum rap
"How ironic that the primary law intended to protect Americans from terrorism has been subjected to countless attacks. Indeed, you would never know the U.S.A. Patriot Act passed with overwhelming support in Congress right after the September 11, 2001 attacks (commonly known as '9/11'). Many have backpedaled on their support. And if two amendments to an appropriations bill, pending vote this week, manage to succeed, lawmakers will seriously weaken the Act and increase the dangers to the citizens they represent." Edwin Meese III has this commentary in the Washington Times.
Lawrence, NJ Council critical of PATRIOT Act
The Lawrence Ledger reports: "The council passed a resolution Tuesday reaffirming its conviction that security measures should not infringe on civil liberties, and also calling upon Congress to allow provisions of the act to expire and to thoroughly evaluate it through public hearings. Mayor Mark Holmes, Deputy Mayor Pam Mount and Councilmen Michael Powers and Greg Puliti — all Democrats — voted for the measure without comment. Councilman Rick Miller, a Republican, cast the lone dissenting vote. As a member of a family that lost a relative in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Mr. Miller said he believes the PATRIOT Act is a critical tool in ensuring future terror attacks can be prevented."
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Your financial information is available on demand
Part 5 of The Providence Journal's coverage of the Patriot Act: "The average American is most likely to come in contact with the USA Patriot Act in the world of finance. If you apply for a bank account or a credit card, the bank or card company may tell you that under Section 326 of the Patriot Act, they must now run your name against a secret list of terrorists or terrorist organizations provided to financial institutions by government agencies to determine whether your name appears on any such list. There is no way of knowing whether your name appears on such a list and, if it does, on what grounds it was put there and by whom. In 1978, Congress passed the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which limited government prying into an American's financial affairs. 'A legitimate law enforcement agency' was the only arm of government that could demand your records from a consumer reporting agency. Section 358 of the Patriot Act adds a new section to the Financial Privacy Act that expands the branches of government that may demand consumer reporting records from law enforcement agencies to include intelligence agencies, such as the CIA."
The rest of the Journal's series on the Patriot Act is here.
Libraries uphold privacy; Law student may sue for information on patrons
The Detroit News reports: "Librarians across the state are crying foul over a widespread request for library cardholder information, and some argue the query amounts to an attack on privacy rights. Law student Caleb Marker, a clerk at the firm of Flory & Associates in Okemos, has demanded libraries hand over patron names, addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses from at least 85 Michigan libraries. Marker’s request is made under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, which allows the public access to documents created or held by a public body. Library directory information, however, is considered private and is exempted from disclosure by the state’s library privacy laws."
New Legislation to Make Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection a Priority at the Department of Homeland Security
Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ron Wyden (D-OR)have joined in introducing the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 (S.2536). The Collins-Wyden bill makes the protection of civil liberties and civil rights an institutional priority for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by ensuring that the Department's Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer, as well as its Privacy Officer, play key roles at senior levels in the development and implementation of Department programs and policies.
According to a DHS Mission Statement, "The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties was created by Congress to review and assess allegations of abuse of civil rights or civil liberties, racial or ethnic profiling, by Department of Homeland Security Personnel. The Office is required to report annually to Congress on any such abuses committed by DHS personnel, how much money was required to resolve such complaints, and how such complaints were resolved."
To resport a violation of civil rights or civil liberties, or racial or ethnic profiling, visit the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: Comments and Concerns page.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
'Combatant' Padilla Sues Again
"Jose Padilla, who the government alleges was part of an al Qaeda plot to set off a radiological bomb, has refiled his lawsuit against the federal government.
Padilla, who is being held at the Navy brig near here, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court here after the U.S. Supreme Court in a narrow ruling last week decided Padilla's original case should not have been brought in federal court in New York, his attorney Donna Newman said.
'We have to just move forward. It's just a matter of time now,' said Newman, who filed the lawsuit Friday." CBS reports here.
Patriot Act's surveillance contentious issue
"The USA Patriot Act, passed just six weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, is a controversial law that strengthens the hand of federal law enforcement agencies and weakens some individual rights. But, opponents of the Patriot Act generally do not attack all 158 sections of the law. Instead, they object to specific areas that they say could abridge civil rights. The American Civil Liberties Union, for example, lists 10 sections that it finds objectionable. One of its most controversial sections widens the government's powers to conduct secret surveillance." The Providence Journal reports here.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Poll: Most northwest Nevadans support Patriot Act
The San Francisco Chronicle reports: "Most northwest Nevadans support the Patriot Act and don't think it infringes on American rights, according to a poll. A poll commissioned by the Reno Gazette-Journal and KRNV News 4 found 60 percent support the Patriot Act as a tool needed to fight terrorism. Thirty-two percent oppose the federal act and 8 percent were unsure."
Monday, July 05, 2004
One Eye on Principle, the Other on the People's Will
"In three terrorism decisions last week, the Supreme Court decisively rejected the Bush administration's argument that judges should play no role in supervising the president's conduct in the war on terror. Many legal scholars praised the court's decision that Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen seized in Afghanistan, could not be indefinitely detained as an enemy combatant without access to lawyers and courts.
'The court affirmed adherence to due process at a time of grave and truly legitimate concerns about national security,' said Walter E. Dellinger, a professor at Duke Law School. 'That's historic.'
But some scholars expressed concern about the practical consequences of the court's ruling that citizens and aliens held as enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, could challenge their detention in federal court. 'If we're supposed to take it all seriously - and I'm not sure we can - we would have lawyers on the battlefield, which I consider to be insane,' said Charles Fried of Harvard Law School." Jeffrey Rosen has this article in the New York Times.
The Patriot Act puzzle
"The USA Patriot Act requires controversial civil rights concessions. Namely, the act allows federal agents to covertly examine library, business and medical records of anyone suspected of terrorism. And it gives the government the power to detain indefinitely noncitizens suspected of terrorism and creates the new crime of 'domestic terrorism.'
Prosecutors say the new powers are essential to clamp down on terrorists, who are more well-funded, well-educated and more sophisticated than any previous threat to American security.
But some of the law's critics, such as Bethlehem resident Peter Crownfield, fear that handing over too much power to law enforcement, even in the name of national security, can only lead to abuses of power." The Express Times has this article.
Americans increasingly unwilling to surrender civil liberties
"The last three years have been difficult for thinking patriots - for those of us who believe that this grand democratic experiment demands dissent; for those who believe their duty is to form a more perfect union; for those who cannot forsake liberty in pursuit of security. We frequently have been denounced as traitors." Cynthia Tucker has this op-ed.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
How candidates stand on the Patriot Act
"President GEORGE W. BUSH, REPUBLICAN: According to Bush’s campaign spokeswoman: 'Almost 21/2 years ago, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act. That essential law, supported by a large bipartisan majority in the Congress, tore down the walls that blocked America’s intelligence and law enforcement officials from sharing intelligence.'" The Reno Gazette-Journal has this article.
Friday, July 02, 2004
Ashcroft: Terrorists Gaining Rights
"Attorney General John Ashcroft said Wednesday that the U.S. Supreme Court gave more rights to terrorists in three recent decisions, and Justice Department lawyers are poring over the rulings to determine their consequences.
The orders issued Monday on Guantanamo detainees and enemy combatants Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi indicate 'that certain terrorists have more rights,' Ashcroft said after a meeting with a regional anti-terrorism advisory council.
'The Supreme Court accorded to terrorists, in a variety of cases this week, a number of additional rights,' he said. 'We're digesting those opinions in terms of making sure that we adjust or modify what we do, so that we accommodate the requirements as expressed by the Supreme Court.'" AP has this report.
High court protected liberties by limiting presidential power
"Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States' reputation as a guarantor of individual liberties has taken a series of hits.
The Bush administration's open-ended detentions of captives in the war on terrorism have been denounced worldwide, as have the president's moves to designate two U.S. citizens as 'enemy combatants' and hold them incommunicado, without hearings.
In recent months, the abuse of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad has led critics to accuse the White House of flouting international laws that ban torture.
But during its annual term that ended this week, the U.S. Supreme Court offered several reminders that American democracy allows the court to protect civil liberties by limiting presidential power--even during wartime." USA Today has this article.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
E-mail Service Providers Now Free To Monitor E-mails, Court Says
An appeals court in Massachusetts has ruled that e-mail service providers can copy and read e-mails before they reach their customers, a decision that has privacy advocates up in arms because it could lead to expanded e-mail monitoring by businesses and the government.
According to a Washington Post article, “The court ruled that because e-mail is stored, even momentarily, in computers before it is routed to recipients, it is not subject to laws that apply to eavesdropping of telephone calls, which are continuously in transit. As a result, the majority said, companies or employers that own the computers are free to intercept messages before they are received by customers.”
"This puts all of our electronic communication in jeopardy if this decision isn't reversed." said Jerry Berman, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a public interest policy group with whom The Rutherford Institute recently co-signed a petition(PDF Link) objecting to the FBI’s request to the FCC to extend the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) to the Internet and to Internet telephony, which would require ISPs and other technology companies to design Internet applications to allow the FBI to easily wiretap them.
One judge on the three-panel appeals court strongly disagreed with his colleagues. In dissent, Judge Kermit V. Lipez said the ruling "will have far-reaching effects on personal privacy and security “and "would undo decades of practice and precedent regarding the scope of the Wiretap Act and would essentially render the Act irrelevant to the protection of wire and electronic privacy."
The Terror Cases: Are There Now More Questions than Answers?
"On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court decided Rumsfeld v. Padilla, Rasul v. Bush, and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, cases that all involved U.S. detainment of suspected terrorists. When the opinions were initially reported, various news agencies hailed them as a substantial victory for the Bush administration, but by later in the day, had reversed their position and were describing the decisions as a setback to the war on terror. Parties on opposite sides of the issues at stake sent equally confusing messages, as both claimed a win. Those that support the right of any American citizen to seek legal redress, like The Rutherford Institute as well as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, declared the cases a victory for the rule of law, while the chief counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the government in Hamdi, contended the cases reinforce the government’s detainment powers in wartime situations. Even Attorney General John Ashcroft greeted the Hamdi ruling with praise." Read more of the new Rutherford Institute Legal Feature.
|
|
