I think the worst aspect of Patriot Act I is its broad "interpretable" definition of domestic terrorism (see section 802):
"A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act 'dangerous to human life' that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." (Source:
http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=11437&c=111 )
I think we're all comfortable with saying the acts of, say, Timothy McVeigh were an example of domestic terrorism. See clause (iii), above. But sliding down that slippery slope of clauses (i) and (ii) we find the possibility of some "future" tyrant wrongfully using the language of this act to indict dissidence when (through twisted logic) the act of dissidence can be construed as "endangering life". An ACLU illustration:
"One recent example is the Vieques Island protests, when many people, including several prominent Americans, participated in civil disobedience on a military installation where the United States government has been engaging in regular military exercises, which these protesters oppose. The protesters illegally entered the military base and tried to obstruct the bombing exercises. This conduct would fall within the definition of domestic terrorism because the protesters broke federal law by unlawfully entering the airbase and their acts were for the purpose of influencing a government policy by intimidation or coercion. The act of trying to disrupt bombing exercises arguably created a danger to human life – their own and those of military personnel."
As the ACLU page points out, once the Vieques Island protestors is declared to be "terrorists", all sorts of non-constitutional powers can be brought to bare on them. For example, the entirety of their personal property can be seized without prior hearing (section 806). In fact section 806 allows for the seizure of assets from anyone simply expressing support for the purported "domestic terrorists". So what's the problem? In the words (again) of the ACLU:
"The civil asset forfeiture power of the United States government is awesome. The government can seize and/or freeze the assets on the mere assertion that there is probable cause to believe that the assets were involved in domestic terrorism. The assets are seized before a person is given a hearing, and often without notice. In order to permanently forfeit the assets, the government must go before a court, but at a civil hearing, and the government is only required to prove that the assets were involved in terrorism by a preponderance of the evidence. Because it is a civil proceeding, a person is not entitled to be represented by an attorney at public expense if they cannot afford to pay an attorney. The time between seizure and forfeiture can sometimes be months; meanwhile, organizations or individuals whose assets are seized are forced to make do without the assets. Only the most financially flush non-profit organizations would be able to successfully defend themselves against government forfeiture. In short, without the full due process afforded in criminal cases, the U.S. government can bankrupt political organizations it asserts are involved in domestic terrorism."
I recommend you read the rest of the aforementioned ACLU page to learn more about what's wrong with the Patriot ACT. I also recommend that you google up "'Patriot ACT' definition terrorism" for reams of additional pages that will alert you to the threats to civil liberties that this act represents.
Patriot II, thwarted by a very patriotic leaking of its text before it could be made into law, would empower an AshKKKroft to strip a purported "domestic terrorist" of his citizenship -- and note, without those forfeited assets, it could be very hard to defend against this. Worse, it would expand use of the federal death penalty. Going back to the Vieques example, those citizens of conscience who sought to influence public policy by protest could find themselve in Gitmo stripped of all constitutional rights -- and, worse, possibly even stripped of their lives.
Patriot II is still on the agenda -- as stealth legislation, bits and pieces to be introduced as riders on other bills. If another major terrorist act occurs in the U.S. you can bet much of it will be rushed through just like Patriot I -- that is, only if Tommy Franks was wrong and we don't then make the leap to martial law.
The illusion of freedom in America will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre.
---Frank Zappa
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
