Feds Win Right to War Protesters' Records

[Capitalism Forever]

I'd be interested in your opinions about the following story:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/.../020704353.html

[Anatole]

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I don't empathize too much with liberal war protestors. Nevertheless, the precedent that one's records can be subpoenaed purely based on appearances at a protest rally is not one I would like to see set.

[Capitalism Forever]

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I've always found this slogan a bit altruistic...

Objectivism recognizes only four rights: the right to life, and the three rights derived therefrom: the rights to liberty, property, and the pursuit of one's own happiness. A right to free speech exists only inasmuch as it is inherent in the right to liberty, and it should not be misconstrued as allowing you to say anything without any consequences. If you say that you promise something, for example, then you shouldn't be surprised if the promise is enforced. If you say that you hate the United States and love terrorists, you shouldn't be surprised if you are suspected of treason.

[danielshrugged]

I've always found this slogan a bit altruistic...

Then perhaps you would change it to: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it--and the right of others to suspect you of treason for doing so."

[Guest objectivist]

I reserve the right to do whatever I wish as long as I don't violate anyones rights. This includes saying that I love terrorists and hate the United States.

Of course, I have no liberty to threaten anyone, as it would be initiation of force. But saying I hate the US is hardly a threat.

My peers may not like me, but the police would have no right to arrest me for saying I hate the US as they would in such be initiating force.

We all hate terrorists and communist but if you try to argue that I'm not free to feel differently it makes YOU the traitors.

Limiting freedom of speech is the way of communism, not the way of capitalism.

[Marc K.]

We obviously don't know the whole story.

Hopefully the FBI wouldn't be seeking a subpoena based strictly on attendance at a protest rally, this would be irrational as there would be far too many people to investigate on those grounds alone. And presumeably no judge would issue a subpoena based strictly on the fact that someone attended a protest rally. This would be an unreasonable search.

Looking into someone's background or searching their library records or investigating their purchases is only illegal if it is unreasonable, this is what a judge is for. A judge wouldn't allow an investigation of everyone for any reason. I'm sure there is much more evidence, the last paragraph in the article is telling:

Several officials of Drake, a private university with about 5,000 students, refused to comment. A source with knowledge of the investigation said a judge had issued a gag order forbidding them from discussing the subpoena.

This is a good system and if it is abused then those that abuse it should be prosecuted or impeached. The one thing that opponents of the Patriot Act seem to ignore is that every use of it requires the consent of a judge and it may only be used in regard to terrorism.

The Constitution is not a death pact, it is designed to protect the innocent not the guilty.

There was a disturbing news story today about a document found in Iraq which communcates to Al Quida that sleepers are being washed through Europe for implantation into the US.

This unconventional war has only just begun and the best way for them to score a blow is not for them to attack our military but rather to use our freedoms against us. We can't allow that.

[Guest ginzershop]

"A judge wouldn't allow an investigation of everyone for any reason"

Thats rather a large presumption to make. MLK Jr. was investigated by the FBI for political purposes, as was his successor.

Due process exists because the power people give to the government is easily abused.

I'm sure there is much more evidence

What makes you so sure??? all the proceedings are secret. The persecution doesnt even need to show this evidence to the judge, they only have to certify that there IS evidence.

The one thing that opponents of the Patriot Act seem to ignore is that every use of it requires the consent of a judge and it may only be used in regard to terrorism

Good, Write your congressmen and tell them to Veto PATRIOT II which expands the definition of Terrorism so widely that most anything goes.

[Anatole]

The one thing that opponents of the Patriot Act seem to ignore is that every use of it requires the consent of a judge and it may only be used in regard to terrorism.

Wrong on both counts. According to Section 505, financial data does not require any kind of judicial oversight at all. And the Patriot Act has already been mis-used in the probe (unrelated to terrorism) of a Las Vegas strip club owner.

[Marc K.]

I stand corrected that:

the Patriot Act may only be used in regard to terrorism

However, Anatole, as your article clearly states, the Act has not been mis-used. It has been used precisely as the law makers who passed it, and intentionally included that particular provision, intended.

This usage of the Patriot Act may not be what you or I understood was allowed, and that may be a good reason to change it, but it apparently was not outside the scope of the law, as your article confirms.

Also, I don't know what section 505 says, perhaps you could quote it, but in both instances cited here judicial oversight was used:

"The FBI last week used the act to obtain subpoenas from a federal judge ..."

ginzershop, perhaps you could tell us what the definition of terrorism under Patriot 2 would be so that we can judge the validity of your last statement.

Also MLK Jr. isn't "everyone" and political purposes isn't "any reason" you miss the point of my statement and the article at the beginning of this thread entirely.

I said it is irrational (illogical) for the FBI to investigate everyone who attended a rally. They would be investigating mostly innocent people and wasting their time.

Both of you miss the reality of the situation. We actually were attacked on 9/11. Terrorists are still trying to kill Americans. Not everything is a conspiracy theory. Even trials conducted in secret have judges. Do you think all judges are corrupt?

As I said before actual abuse should be prosecuted. Potential abuse should not prevent us from protecting ourselves.

[Guest ginzershop]

Mac. K.

g

inzershop, perhaps you could tell us what the definition of terrorism under Patriot 2 would be so that we can judge the validity of your last statement.

"Sec. 2331(1)((ii) ["to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion"] by adding the phrase "or to retaliate against government conduct."

what the hell does it mean to "retaliate against government conduct???" is that supposed to be a terrorist act?

"USC 2331(1) ...involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State"

what does "dangerous to human life" mean??? Sounds slippery to me. It seems that normal criminal conduct charges would apply if the activities were indeed "dangerous to human life"

As I said before actual abuse should be prosecuted. Potential abuse should not prevent us from protecting ourselves

How will you know when this is being done correctly??? The judge wont even know as he doesnt even have access to the actual evidence, just a certification that there is evidence.

Also MLK Jr. isn't "everyone" and political purposes isn't "any reason" you miss the point of my statement and the article at the beginning of this thread entirely.

Apparently I did miss the point of the statement. What is the point? how is MLK Jr different from "everyone"? and political purposes isnt just "any reason" it is however one of the most dangerous ones.

We actually were attacked on 9/11. Terrorists are still trying to kill Americans.

Thanks for enlightening me I didnt know that.... But seriously, My brothers close friend was killed in those attacks. Its kind of a low ball game to try to insinuate that I dont recognize the threat of attacks like 9-11.

"Even trials conducted in secret have judges. Do you think all judges are corrupt?"

of course not. But there needs to be checks on corruption, and paranoia for that matter.

[Marc K.]

giz,

Working backwards.

I guess you are agreeing with me that your fears of the Patriot Act are irrational since the definition of paranoia is irrational suspiciousness.

I suppose sarcasm has its place but please lets not bring ad hominem or straw men or whatever you are trying to do here:

Thanks for enlightening me I didnt know that.... But seriously,  My brothers close friend was killed in those attacks. Its kind of a low ball game to try to insinuate that I dont recognize the threat of attacks like 9-11.

My point is that you are letting your paranoia about the irrational use of power by a long gone executive cloud your judgement about the rational use of power when it is warranted (after 9/11). Don't you agree that some change was warranted? Don't some trials need to be conducted in secret if you don't want the enemy to know who you have in custody or what information they have disclosed?

How will you know when this is being done correctly??? The judge wont even know as he doesnt even have access to the actual evidence, just a certification that there is evidence.

I don't know if what you say here is accurate. But I do know that issuing subpoenas and conducting trials require different standards of proof and I'm quite sure that no judge, doing his job properly, would convict anyone without seeing evidence.

Lastly, I would have to see the whole, or at least more of this, definition of terrorism in order to judge its validity in context.

[Old Geezer]

Marc K.

Youll have to excuse the different tag Im not a comp expert and something went screwy, so I just opened up a different Tag

I guess you are agreeing with me that your fears of the Patriot Act are irrational since the definition of paranoia is irrational suspiciousness.

I was reffering to irrational suspiciousness on the part of the components of the justice system. The reason I mentioned paranoia is because it is entirely within the realm of possibilitty that a judge or a plaintiff could be irrational. (e.g. Alabama 10 commandments guy for instance)

Do you deny that it is possible for Judges to be irrational? If not, how do you intend to maintain quality oversight of their behaviors???

"My point is that you are letting your paranoia about the irrational use of power by a long gone executive cloud your judgement about the rational use of power when it is warranted (after 9/11). "

My concern isnt with the irrational use of power by a "long gone executive". (I was naming one example do I really need to name others???) My concern is with a strategy for containing the use of the power to the rational and the moral. I suppose you might reply that the strategy is "trust" But how does one establish trust?? either from a record of accountability, or from the knowledge that one can intervene if the trust is broken.

"I don't know if what you say here is accurate"

Section 215 of the Patriot Act specifies this.

Lastly, I would have to see the whole, or at least more of this, definition of terrorism in order to judge its validity in context.

I would love for more Americans to see the whole definition of terrorism under the Patriot Acts as well as other parts of that law.... (or even congressman for that matter) I didnt mind when the PATRIOT act was buzzed by post 9-11 without scrutiny that was completely justified

But now on the eve of new legislation which will further strengthen the governments powers, it seems prudent to really look into the PATRIOT Acts and see what needs to be changed, and what needs to stay. That can not be done unless people are very familiar with the legislation and the proposed legislation.

" Don't you agree that some change was warranted?"

Of course... For instance the part of the PATRIOT Act which adapted to technological changes by making wiretapping warrants apply across media (cell phones, email, regular phones, smoke signals) was extremely rational and incredibly justified

Also the changes in those rules which formerly limited our Human Intelligence to Politically Correct informants to one which was based on the ability of informants to deliver.

also, most of the PATRIOT ACT is full of many common sense security adjustments

[Marc K.]

Do you deny that it is possible for Judges to be irrational? If not, how do you intend to maintain quality oversight of their behaviors???

Moore (10 commandments guy) -- completely irrational and look what happened to him: removed from the bench.

Now, I can't quote the source, so my numbers may not be precise, but I did hear or read from a legitimate news source that Congress has complete oversight of every use of the Patriot Act. Further, that of over 3000 (approx.) uses of the Patriot Act there were something like 34 complaints. The Inspector General of the Justice dept investigated all and dismissed out of hand 28 of them and most of the rest were complaints lodged against individuals (at least one a prison guard) for physical abuse. So no systematic abuse found.

As far as trust in the justice system, I think it is imperitive that we trust it, without it there would be anarchy. And I think that trust has been earned. Of course there are innocent people in jail and many more guilty people free and some irrational judges. But, taken as whole it works quite well.

I am interested to know if you think secret trials (to keep intelligence secure) should be allowed?

[Old Geezer]

Moore (10 commandments guy) -- completely irrational and look what happened to him: removed from the bench.

Yeah, thanks to the ACLU. huh??? Anyway, it took about two years for him to be removed, and the case is still under appeal. His is a perfect example of how a transparent government is has corrective mechanisms.

that Congress has complete oversight of every use of the Patriot Act.

a) every 6 months congress receives a report of how many requests were made, and how many were granted, thats not very informative.

the oversight they do have is important now because of whats known as "sunset clauses" and this is precisely why I feel they should be pressured to go back and read what they voted for.

that of over 3000 (approx.) uses of the Patriot Act there were something like 34 complaints

The primary reason for this discrepency is because the PATRIOT act doesnt require anyone to be informed. They can detain people secretly, they can track my library reading secretly they can investigate you secretly, they can try you secretly, they can confiscate evidence secretly, they can walk through your house secretly and you would never know, why would you complain?? and in the case of some US citizens, HOW would you complain?

"As far as trust in the justice system, I think it is imperitive that we trust it, without it there would be anarchy. And I think that trust has been earned"

I think its imperative to, however recognizing a need is not proof that something exists.

And I think that trust has been earned

how did the federal government earn that trust? If you say that the trust has been earned to the extent that its transparent, I would have to agree. But if you say that it has been learned by trustworthy behavior, the history books would have to disagree. In any event, even if the trust has been earned, one need only look at countries such as egypt or Iran to see what happens when checks are removed.

I am interested to know if you think secret trials (to keep intelligence secure) should be allowed?

There are degrees of secrecy. For instance, Bush/Ashcroft could be a helluva lot more forthcoming about the "procedures" they plan to use in Military Tribunals. Without even having precise details on the procedure, how can we judge if the Tribunals are a proper mix of security and due process? (not that I think non citizens should have as much due process, I dont think they have the same entitlements, but since PATRIOT ACT II now aims to include US citizens, it is an issue of convern)

OF COURSE there needs to be some limitations on public terrorism trials.. But right now getting Ashcroft to accurately describe HOW MANY trials there are , is like pulling teeth. It seems to me that the central problem now is not publicity but secrecy.

as far as expanding government powers, several organizations including congress have come to the conclusion that it wasnt lack of powers that screwed up being able to stop 9-11, but good old fashioned government beuracracy and idiocy.

[Marc K.]

Yeah, thanks to the ACLU. huh??? Anyway, it took about two years for him to be removed, and the case is still under appeal. His is a perfect example of how a transparent government is has corrective mechanisms.

It was a panel of judges, probably fairly conservative judges at that, that removed him and no appeal will help a guilty man.

Old Geezer or ginzershop or whoever you are today:

I am a little reluctant to continue this discussion as we are just going in circles. I agree that all legislation should be monitored but I am much more inclined to eliminate social and tax legislation which has been demonstrated to be immoral than legislation designed to protect our lives, our country, and by extension, our freedoms on no evidence at all. I'm sure you could go on all day quoting numerous phrases and words from the Patriot act with which you disagree but I have seen nothing eggregious in anything you have quoted so far and I would be disinclined to scrap the Patriot act on a paranoid, unsubstantiated fear of abuse.

You seem to be evading, or perhaps just missing, the point. The issue is trust, either you trust our system or you don't. I say you should trust judges to do their job and that their trust has been earned. You point out a few examples of corrupt behavior as reasons to not trust any judges. The fact is that the system has demonstrated that 99% (or a similarly large percentage) of people in jail are guilty and that a similar percentage of judges perform their jobs honorably and competently. No amount of pointing to the 1% can change the reality of the 99%.

There is nothing in the article which started this thread that would lead to the conclusion that anything illegal or corrupt has occurred in this instance. Even the ACLU tacitly acknowledge such in the article. And yet every instance of the Patriot act's usage seems to foment irrational fears, all evidence to the contrary, that Nazis have taken over not just the executive branch but the legislative and judicial branches as well. Yes, and perhaps Johnson killed Kennedy too.

The primary reason  for this discrepency is because the PATRIOT  act doesnt require anyone to be informed. They can detain people secretly, they can track my library reading secretly they can investigate you secretly, they can try you secretly, they can confiscate evidence secretly, they can walk through your house secretly and you would never know,  why would you complain?? and in the case of some US citizens, HOW would you complain?

I have been trying to point out the irrationality of this argument to you. That yes the FBI could look into your library records but why would they? They would have to have other evidence implicating you in terrorism first and then ask a judge for a subpoena. It would be irrational for them to look at everybody's library records or investigate everyone who attended a rally because they would just be spinning their wheels. The only logical way to hunt down terrorists is by following a trail of actual evidence.

In any event, even if the trust has been earned, one need only look at countries such as egypt or Iran to see what happens when checks are removed.

There are degrees of secrecy. For instance, Bush/Ashcroft could be a helluva lot more forthcoming about the "procedures" they plan to use in Military Tribunals. Without even having precise details on the procedure, how can we judge if the Tribunals are a proper mix of security and due process? (not that I think non citizens should have as much due process, I dont think they have the same entitlements, but since PATRIOT ACT II now aims to include US citizens, it is an issue of convern)

as far as expanding government powers, several organizations including congress have come to the conclusion that it wasnt lack of powers that screwed up being able to stop 9-11, but good old fashioned government beuracracy and idiocy.

- So it is apparent that you don't trust our system because you degrade it by comparing it to Egypt and Iran, there is no comparison, this is silly.

- I am fairly certain that Rumsfeld has published the procedures on military tribunals.

- None of the detainees in Guantanamo should be tried unless for war crimes. They are combatants captured on the battlefield. We would be insane to release anyone who could return to the battlefield and kill American soldiers or citizens. Most of those who aren't dangerous have already been released.

- In the same sentence you cite the idiocy of the govt bureaucracy and then agree with a govt bureaucracy's conclusions?!?!?

[Old Geezer]

"You point out a few examples of corrupt behavior as reasons to not trust any judges." Marc K

No, I point out examples of corrupt behavior as reasons to maintain checks and balances.

And yet every instance of the Patriot act's usage seems to foment irrational fears

If they are so irrational, then how come I can point to cases where the fears have been realized?

That yes the FBI could look into your library records but why would they?

A million reasons... Political Embarrasment (If I wanted to embarass a political rival the easiest thing for me to do would be to obtain information about his purchases, what he reads, most anything personal would be helpful)

The only logical way to hunt down terrorists is by following a trail of actual evidence.

Quite right... so why not invest more funding into our lack of Human Intelligence instead of checking out if I have read Mein Kompf or not?

So it is apparent that you don't trust our system because you degrade it by comparing it to Egypt and Iran, there is no comparison, this is silly.

I didnt "compare" them, I contrasted them,... our system has checks and balances, theirs doesnt...

None of the detainees in Guantanamo should be tried unless for war crimes. They are combatants captured on the battlefield

A) not necesarrilylegally true... you should check out the new definitons of "enemy combatants" these days.

even if that was the case you wouldnt know, would you?

"- In the same sentence you cite the idiocy of the govt bureaucracy and then agree with a govt bureaucracy's conclusions?!?!? "

A)In our unionized bureaus, you cant get fired, (without a shitload of paperwork) congress men can and often do get fired. Congress is not a bureau and I havent actually critisized their "idiocy" within the context of this discussion at all.

several NGO's have agreed

[Marc K.]

- We agree (and I already stated) vigilance is needed. But the Patriot act shouldn't be changed without proof of abuse.

- I told you pointing to the 1% doesn't eliminate the reality of the 99%. It would be irrational to scrap law enforcement measures needed, particularly in a time of war, without proof of systematic abuse.

- Political embarrasment would be a signal that something has been abused and it is an abuse which should be punished.

- We are investing in human intelligence and, as stated before, the FBI wouldn't be investigating you just because you read "Mein Kampf" -- and if they did, they would drop the investigation once they found out you weren't a terrorist.

- You compared us to Egypt and Iran in an attempt to show that passage of the Patriot Act makes us like them because it removes checks and balances.

- Enemy combatants 1%, 99% -- all or almost all were caught on the battlefield, armed, trying to kill americans -- most have already been released that weren't or aren't dangerous.

- Congress is part of the biggest bureaucracy there is, and do you think they are going to blame themselves? Suffice it to say they felt guilty enough to pass the Patriot Act.

[Capitalism Forever]

I reserve the right to do whatever I wish as long as I don't violate anyones rights. This includes saying that I love terrorists and hate the United States.

Was this in response to my comment "If you say that you hate the United States and love terrorists, you shouldn't be surprised if you are suspected of treason" ? If it was, you were not paying attention to me. I didn't say I supported throwing anyone in jail for saying such things. What I did say was that it makes it reasonable to suspect you of collaborating with terrorists. suspect != convict.

[Capitalism Forever]

We obviously don't know the whole story.

Correct. The subpoenas were linked to an investigation of trespassing onto military grounds and have actually been dropped by now:

http://www.theiowachannel.com/education/2833197/detail.html

[Old Geezer]

But the Patriot act shouldn't be changed without proof of abuse.

A) Where do you expect this proof to come from???

Why wait for proof of abuse?

" Political embarrasment would be a signal that something has been abused and it is an abuse which should be punished."

Just how will we tell when the Political Embarassment is a result of the PATRIOT ACT versus a leak?

" We are investing in human intelligence "

clearly not enough

"as stated before, the FBI wouldn't be investigating you just because you read "Mein Kampf"

not if they are rational they wouldnt... but I wouldnt expect much from agencies that..when they were given intel by israel regarding something potentially happening on 9-11 instead they investigated Israel.

" You compared us to Egypt and Iran in an attempt to show that passage of the Patriot Act makes us like them because it removes checks and balances."

no... its to show what CAN happen... In fact egypts descent into a corrupt government was largely the result of its decision to remove what checks and balances they had left.

"- Enemy combatants ...most have already been released that weren't or aren't dangerous."

A)How do you know? Its not as if you have any tribunal results to go by, or any access by the media, or reporting by the red cross.

B)The argument that 1% of people (although that is an arbitrary number I dont know how you derived it since none have had tribunals yet) is not a "large percent of people" reaks of consequantialism.