PATRIOT Act reaches further than you think.

[G_j]

The USA PATRIOT Act reaches further than you think.
http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10283

Sneak And Peek


Kim Zetter covers privacy, security, cyberterrorism and public policy for Wired News.


When Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it granted law enforcement authorities unprecedented surveillance powers. Lawmakers approved the act not only because of the crisis of 9/11, but because it was aimed primarily at foreign nationals.

Most Americans believed the powers would never be applied to them, according to Georgetown University law professor David Cole. But Cole says history shows that once the American government goes after foreigners, it's only a matter of time before it turns the same laws on Americans.

A graduate of Yale Law School, Cole is a volunteer staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights and teaches at Georgetown University Law Center alongside Patriot Act author Viet Dinh, who has called Cole "the Clarence Darrow of his generation" for his defense of underdogs.

Wired News spoke with Cole about his new book, Enemy Aliens, and efforts to revise the Patriot Act.

Wired News: Critics have accused the government of overreaching with the Patriot Act. The government in turn has accused critics of misinterpreting and mischaracterizing the law to generate fear about it. Have critics overreacted?

David Cole: The Patriot Act has become a symbol for a much broader range of concerns about this administration's abuse of civil liberties in the war on terrorism. Many of those are real abuses that warrant real concern, but don't stem specifically from the Patriot Act. Rather, they stem from initiatives that the Bush administration undertook outside the authority of the Patriot Act, such as the mass preventive detention campaign that John Ashcroft undertook after 9/11, which to date has led to more than 5,000 foreign nationals being detained.

..lots more..and disturbing..:-(
http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10283

[icymist]

1. There's a case currently in Idaho that challenges the Patriot Act,

Espically in the provision noted in your article:

<snip>

"I can give you one example that's exactly contrary to what John Ashcroft says. In January, a federal district court in California, in a case that I have argued —Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft —declared unconstitutional a provision of the Patriot Act that makes it a crime for people to provide expert advice or assistance to any organization that has been designated a terrorist organization."

The case, which is pending, in Idaho can be found:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=512820&mesg_id=512820

[DarkPhenyx]

2. They tried to use the USA PATRIOT act here in NC...

...to arrest and prosecute crystal meth manufacturers.

and remember it's "USA PARTIOT act" not Patriot act". IT is an acronym and the USA part stands for something.

[icymist]

3. So, some of the more controversial parts of this act....

were put in it because some law enforcement people(s) are too lazy to abide by the 4th Amendment?

<snip>
"For example, the probable-cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment—which requires you to have some objective suspicion of criminal activity before you search somebody's home or take them into detention—requires the government to develop good evidence on individuals, to do the hard work of investigation rather than to, in a lazy way, sweep broadly and pick lots of people up without good reason. Those kinds of measures have not proven to be very successful in identifying terrorists."

Obviously, this act was put together hastily and Ass-croft is having a hay-day with it!

God forbid that another terrorist act causes our politicians spines to turn to jello and vote for the Patriot Act II!

edit for spelling.

[G_j]

6. and it seems like the 9-11 commission

has spent half it's time cheerleading for the USA PATRIOT act.
I fear they are setting the stage for PATRIOT II.

[revcarol]

4. AND Sections 213 and 215 do not expire!!

They have to be specifically REPEALED.

The infamous "sneak and peek" provisions are in here.

[thinkingwoman]

5. the best defense against sneak and peek...

is a big angry dog.

[Trillo]

7. Big angry dog

does nothing against electronic monitoring of computer use. Or using technology to "see" through walls.