BS: Patriot Act Report

Subject: RE: BS: Patriot Act Report
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:08 PM

Thank you, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Patriot Act Report
From: Amos
Date: 10 Aug 05 - 08:48 AM

[[applause]]

A

Subject: RE: BS: Patriot Act Report
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 10 Aug 05 - 02:19 AM

This song should be delivered like a talkin' blues with the basic G/C/D progression transposed into the minor key of your choice. I prefer Em because it affords more bass runs and moods.

                      POLICE STATE: DO NOT CROSS
                copyright 2004 by Stephen Lee Rich

Way out on the edge of town
Where the grass and corn still grow
There's a little bitty coffeehouse
Where caffeine and ideas flow,
Opinions freely spoken        
Great poems and songs composed.
But, when I got there last Tuesday
The coffehouse was closed.
The owner stood in the parking lot
His face a paniced frown.
He said, "Homeland Security buffaloed in
And shut the whole place down."
Then he pointed to the doorway
And that explained the loss.
It was blocked by big, wide yellow tape that said,
"Police State! Do Not Cross!"

He said, "They rounded up the patrons
And took them all away.
They trashed trashed my new espresso machine
Burned the books and magazines
Said we all were traitors
And we'd burn in Hell some day."

Then he just went silent
And stared down at his shoes.
I said, "We can't just sit here!
Ain't there something we can do?"
"It's way too late," he said at last.
"They've gone and lost their senses.
While we were building bridges
They were out there building fences.

Between Homeland Security
And the USA Patriot Act,
The Bill Of Rights is no longer
What you'd call a solid fact."
We had our chance to change it
But, we threw that away
And the loss of all our freedoms
Is the price we had to pay."

This tale, of course,is fictional.
But, let me ask you this,
Which way do we move
Here at the edge of the Abyss?
Do we finally get angry
And show our "leaders" who's the boss
Or stare at yellow tape that says,
"Police State! Do Not Cross"?


Stephen Lee

Subject: RE: BS: Patriot Act Report
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Aug 05 - 08:55 PM

Here's a rather interesting problem posed by the Patriot Act...


"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A secret legal opinion has cleared the way for the Bush administration to help Colombia to fund the disbanding of a far-right paramilitary army despite a U.S. ban on "material support" to groups on the State Department's terrorism list, administration and congressional sources said.

The Justice Department's legal opinion could have significance beyond Colombia, setting a precedent for the United States to participate in future efforts to disarm other banned "terrorist organizations.

It still faces hurdles on Capitol Hill, however, from lawmakers who say the demobilization process is too lax on top drug traffickers and terrorists.

Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who met last week with
President Bush at his Crawford, Texas ranch, wants Washington to help fund his demobilization program, under which former members the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia give up their weapons and disband in exchange for job retraining and in some cases pay.

But proposed U.S. assistance for the effort has been stalled for more than a year because some administration lawyers warned that any U.S. assistance to ex-combatants would violate a strict ban on providing "material support" to groups on the State Department's terrorism list."

More here

Subject: RE: BS: Patriot Act Report
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:45 AM

I am unclear as to the status of the Patriot act reathorization.

It is my understanding that it was authorized without any sunset provisions. In other words what was designed to be a temporary emergency act is now permanent.

Subject: RE: BS: Patriot Act Report
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 12:27 PM

In Alaska we elect some strange ducks. It would be interesting to see a study on just why. We hold on to them for years too: Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski as senators and Don Young as Representative. (Since then we have elected Murkowski as Governor; he then turned around and installed his daughter Lisa Murkowski in his Senate seat).

Don Young, however, recently gets cut a little slack: He voted FOR ending the Patriot Act!

Subject: RE: BS: Patriot Act Report
From: Amos
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 10:52 PM

Some slight improvements have been reported in the renewal phase of this Act:

ate on Friday, July 29, the final day before its summer recess,
the Senate passed S. 1389 (the USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005) on unanimous consent (no debate, no
amendments, no roll call vote). The bill adds to the USA PATRIOT
Act many of the safeguards for library and reader privacy that
have been sought by the library community since the passage of the
law in 2001, including tougher requirements for searching library
records under Section 215.

The vote was a surprise, coming just one week after the Senate
Judiciary Committee passed the S. 1389 and the House passed H.R.
3199 and just when everyone thought the Senate was rushing out the
door for its summer recess. The two bills will now need to be
reconciled by a Conference Committee. We will get back to you with
message and contacts. For now, here is a brief comparison of the
bills.

Sunsets
Both bills reauthorize sections of the PATRIOT Act that would
expire at the end of this year. The House bills extends the sunset
period for Section 215 to 2015; the Senate to 2009. The shorter
sunset is preferable because it will cause more oversight by
Congress.

Section 215
The House legislation allows the FBI to obtain library records of
anyone whenever they are "relevant" to a counter-terrorism or
counter-espionage investigation. The Senate bill requires the FBI
to give facts showing reason to believe that the records sought
are "relevant to" counter terrorism or counter intelligence
investigation, and that items "pertain to" a foreign power, agent
of a foreign power, or person in contact with a suspected agent or
are "relevant to" the activities of a suspected agent who is the
subject of the investigation. It also requires the FISA Court to
"find" these facts (i.e., not just rubber-stamp the request). The
Senate bill also requires records or other things to be described
with "sufficient particularity" to allow them to be identified -
reducing the danger that that the FBI will engage in fishing
expeditions in library or bookstore records.

The House legislation requires the Director of FBI to personally
approve any request for records from a library. The Senate
legislation requires the personal approval of Director or Deputy
Director of the FBI for library, bookstore, firearms or medical
records. Both bills allow disclosure of receipt of a Section 215
order to "any person necessary to produce the tangible things
pursuant to an order under this section" or "an attorney to obtain
legal advice." The Senate version allows a recipient to consult an
attorney to obtain legal advice "in response to an order under
this section;" the House version only "with respect to an order
under this section."

Both bills allow the recipient of a Section 215 order to challenge
the order. The House version allows this only in special "petition
review panel" of the FISA court and only to determine "legality"
of the order. The Senate bill gives recipient of the order the
right to challenge both the order itself (on same basis as for a
grand jury subpoena) and the secrecy/gag order, but only in the
FISA court.

The Senate bill improves the reporting required of the Justice
Department. It requires that the DOJ report annually on the total
number of applications made for Section 215 orders approving
requests for the production of tangible things, and the total
number of orders either granted, modified, or denied, when the
application or order involved the production of tangible things
from a library (as defined in section 213(2) of the Library
Services and Technology Act), or the production of tangible things
from a person or entity primarily engaged in the sale, rental, or
delivery of books, journals, magazines, or other similar forms of
communication whether in print or digitally, as well as records
related to the purchase of a firearm, health information (as
defined in section 1171(4) of the Social Security Act), taxpayer
return information.

Section 505
Both the Senate version and the House version allow a recipient of
a National Security Letter to challenge the request in a U.S.
District Court. The House version allows the court to set aside if
it is "unreasonable" or "oppressive." The Senate version permits
the court to set it aside if "unreasonable" or "oppressive" or it
would violate a constitutional or legal right.

In regard to the gag order, both bills allow a challenge to the
gag order in a U.S. District Court. In the House bill, the gag
order is no longer automatic but is based on a certification that
disclosure would harm national security, interfere with diplomatic
relations, harm an investigation or endanger life or physical
safety. In the Senate version the court can set it aside unless
doing so would harm national security, interfere with an
investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger
life or physical safety. In both bills ,if the government
certifies this would result, certification must be treated as
"conclusive." In the House bill, if a year has elapsed since
issuance of the order (or previous challenge), issuing official
must re-certify but certification is still conclusive.

Both bills allow the government to go to a U.S. District Court to
seek enforcement of the NSL. The Senate stops there. The House
bill makes violation of the enforcement order punishable as
contempt. It establishes new penalties for violating the gag
order of up to 1 year in prison, or up to 5 years if committed
with intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial proceeding.

******
ALAWON (ISSN 1069-7799) is a free, irregular publication of the
American Library Association Washington Office. All materials
subject to copyright by the American Library Association may be
reprinted or redistributed for noncommercial purposes with
appropriate credits.

Subject: RE: BS: Patriot Act Report
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 04 - 05:14 PM

I posted this news in another thread, thanks.

See Bush -- Repairing the Damage.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Patriot Act Report
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jan 04 - 04:42 PM

Ahhhh, just a side bar but just yesterday, and for the first time, a federal judge "declared unconstitutional a section of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foriegn terrorist organizations".

You ougtta be up on this, Amos, since the judge, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled on the case out there in SoCal...

One unconstitutional piece down, 999 to go...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Patriot Act Report
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 04 - 03:00 PM

Well, Rapaire, don't underestimate the influence of Alcoa and Reynolds on government processes. They're big business, and every single aluminum skullcap made in this whole country means profits to them. Imagine!!

A

Subject: BS: Patriot Act Report
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jan 04 - 02:52 PM

The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice has released a report to Congress on human rights violations under the Patriot Act.

Apart from having a fox judge another fox, I'm intrigued by footnote 5. The OIG has to spend time investigating such complaints, I guess.