Ashcroft Rocks: Summer "Patriot Act" Tour (humor)

Josey1

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/patriot.html

The John Ashcroft Summer "Patriot Act" Tour. Must see, must share, too funny.

Requires Flash Player to view. If you don't have Flash Player installed in your browser, modernize here: http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_*_Version=ShockwaveFlash

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>

Josey1

U.S. attorney counters Patriot Act criticism
Elizabeth_Dorsey@TimesRecord.Com
08/29/2003
BANGOR - Maine's U.S. Attorney, Paula Silsby, was at the Bangor Public Library Thursday as part of a nationwide effort by the U.S. Department of Justice to educate the public about the U.S.A. Patriot Act.

Since its passage in 2001, certain sections of the act have drawn mounting criticism from citizens worried that the act erodes civil liberties by allowing secret searches and enhanced surveillance of activities such as Internet use and library borrowing habits.

Overwhelmingly passed by Congress just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the 340-page act aims to provide intelligence agents and prosecutors new and updated tools to investigate and prevent future terrorist activity. Much of the act, including measures to provide more patrol of borders and compensation for terrorism victims, has been relatively uncontroversial.

But even some members of Congress now think parts of the law went too far.

In July, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 309-118 to approve an amendment to the act. Sponsored by C.L. "Butch" Otter, R-Idaho, and approved by both of Maine's representatives, the amendment would cut off funding for so called "sneak and peek" warrants, which allow federal agents to execute a search warrant without first notifying the home or business owner.

Attorney General John Ashcroft promptly directed the country's 93 U.S. attorneys to reach out to the public to inform them about what the act does and does not do. The Department of Justice also launched a new Web site, www.lifeandliberty.gov, aimed at showing Americans that the act has gone far to prevent further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

Public reaction

Silsby's visit to the Bangor Public Library Thursday was one part of this larger effort to educate Americans about the act.

But many remain concerned.

"The Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that didn't even read it. Now many of them are having second thoughts. We're frightened as hell about what's happening with this country," said Ron Warner, a Bangor resident and one of about 20 people to attend Thursday's forum.

Mainers, joked Bangor Public Library Director Barbara McDade, are so concerned about their privacy, that they don't even use the turn signal in their cars because "it's no one's business which way they're going."

Joking aside, McDade said that she as a librarian and Mainers in general have serious concerns that the act overreaches.

Silsby countered by saying that the surveillance procedures contained within the act are bolstered by a strong system of checks and balances that prevent unilateral and arbitrary surveillance.

"As we look at the provisions, yes there have been some changes made, but they have not fundamentally tipped the balance of civil liberties," she said. "There is this concept out there that all these federal agents are walking into libraries and asking for records. That is grossly misleading. The Patriot Act does not apply to activities that are protected by the First Amendment. People who visit the library don't have to have a fear that their library records are being sought arbitrarily."

She added that prosecutors have always had access to library records through grand jury subpoena, and in many states, "sneak and peak" warrants were already legal. Under the Patriot Act, she said, the system of checks and balances has actually been strengthened in many ways because a federal agent seeking a warrant must show a judge that criminal activity is occurring, that the particular search is likely to provide evidence and that keeping the search secret would be vital to the integrity of the investigation.

"You can't just have investigators decide unilaterally that they're going to go in," she said. Nor can a federal agent keep a search secret indefinitely. The property owner will be notified eventually, she added.

Since the Patriot Act was signed into law, only 47 such warrants have been issued. None of them have been in Maine.

"It's not a common request, but it's a valuable tool if we need it," she said.

In Maine, certain provisions of the Patriot Act related to the searching of computers have been employed a few times in non-terrorism cases, she said.

Silsby said that while she will do all she can to explain the law, she cannot address the political aspects of the Patriot Act.

"The larger question is one that you are going to have to wrestle with when you come to exercise your voting rights," said Silsby.
http://www.timesrecord.com/website/main.nsf/news.nsf/0/46BC1C72FDBD2C3805256D91006436EA?Opendocument

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>

Josey1

Patriot Act imperils nation, says rights official

BY RACHEL GRACE TOUSSAINT
newsletter@seacoastonline.com


A HAMPTON Winter rental, 2 bedroom
furnished apartment, cable, parking, all
utilities included. $900/month. Call
(603)926-8581.

EXETER - "The first thing I want to do is scare the hell out of you; the second thing I want to do is empower you to do something about what's going on."

These blunt words came from Clare Ebel, executive director of the New Hampshire American Civil Liberties Union, who led a forum at the Exeter Library earlier this week on the Patriot Act - initiated by Attorney General John Ashcroft, and passed by Congress six weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, in an attempt to tighten security against further terrorist attacks nationwide.

Yet, Ebel said she doesn't feel safer under the Patriot Act, or under any other measures taken since Sept. 11, for that matter. Rather, she said she believes that Americans' First- and Fourth-Amendment rights have been torn to pieces in the wake of 9/11.

"I led one of these forums at the University of New Hampshire just after Sept. 11, and at that time, I wasn't sure that we, as a nation, were going to survive," said Ebel. "Now, I'm pretty sure we are, I'm just not sure what form we'll take; and that's your job - to make sure, as citizens, that the U.S.A. we hand to our children and grandchildren is the one we created, not the one created by the Patriot Act."

She said that in Section 802, the Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism, stating that the term means activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of criminal laws; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Under this section, Ebel said she believes that groups such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals could be considered domestic terrorists.

"If groups engage in acts that break the law, First Amendment rights should have nothing to do with it, and attempts to coerce and intimidate have to be allowed or we're ignoring the First Amendment," said Ebel.

Although she admitted it sounded like an exaggeration, Ebel said the Patriot Act, virtually repealed the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing "the right of the people to be secure . against unreasonable searches and seizures . and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

"There are sections in the Patriot Act that permit the federal government to gather enormous quantities of information on every person in this room, and in this country, without a warrant," said Ebel.

Section 213, which Ebel called "the sneak and peek act", allows the government to search for and seize property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense without a warrant if: the court finds cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result; or the warrant prohibits seizure of any tangible property.

"Section 213 allows the government to go in and search your house without notifying you that they're coming or that they've been there," said Ebel. "And if they don't give notice, there's no provision that they only search for what they're looking for and only get information they're entitled to."

"They put the Fourth Amendment in the shredder when they made this law," said Ebel.

Section 215 is another part of the act that angers Ebel.

"Section 215 allows the government to get our medical history records; look at every library book we've checked out or purchased; obtain our financial records - where our money is coming from, our interest rate, if we're sending money to someone abroad; and our educational records," said Ebel.

Section 215 states that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation "may make an application for an order requiring the production of tangible things (including books, papers, documents and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism."

Section 215 also allows the collection of educational records from educational agencies or institutions relevant to an authorized investigation.

"We collect enormous amounts of private and personal information on students who apply for federal student aid, and now all of that information can be surrendered to the government," Ebel said. "And they aren't asking about Johnny Jones; they want information on everyone with an Arabic-sounding last name or everyone who says they are Muslim, or affiliated with a Muslim-sounding group."

Ebel said Harvard University gave the government that information, no questions asked. Yet, she knows of other universities that refused. Refusal, she said, can be brought up as a felony.

"After the forum at UNH after Sept. 11, a woman came up to me who I recognized but couldn't place," said Ebel. "What she said gives me goose bumps to this day. She said, `They asked me for information, and I said no'."

The woman, Ebel said, turned out to be Dr. Joan Leitzel, former president of the University of New Hampshire.

Ebel said she believes there are ways to make the United States safe without repealing people'srights.

"I think the government believes that it can't protect us unless it knows everything about us," said Ebel.

When asked how she would have responded to the attacks on Sept. 11, she said she would have turned to the United Nations.

"I would have gone to the United Nations on Sept. 14 and said, `This is not a United States problem, or a Belfast problem, or an Afghanistan problem, this is our problem. If we do not work as a community of nations, we will never drive terror from our nations.'

"We had so much support after Sept. 11 and we squandered it. We could have gone to the United Nations and asked for help instead of doing it ourselves, acting alone, acting like cowboys.

"X-Ray machines and guns in the cockpits don't make us safe. We'll be safe when everyone (in the world) looks at terrorism as a threat," she said.

"You can make a difference; you can make your voice heard. Talk to your local representatives, your selectmen. You owe it to yourself and your children," said Ebel.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/exeter/08292003/news/47398.htm


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>

Josey1

Pilots Call on Bush to Speed Up Gun Training
8/29/2003



Email

Print

Subscribe



Angered that training to arm commercial pilots is moving too slowly, a coalition of pilot groups has requested that President Bush step in and order the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to move more quickly, the Washington Times reported Aug. 26.

"It's been almost two years since the attacks of September 11, and we have less than 150 pilots approved to carry a firearm," said Capt. Bob Lambert, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance.

Lambert said that at least 10,000 pilots should have been trained by now. "The president has it in his power to invoke an executive order to allow volunteer airline pilots to carry lethal weapons to defend the cockpits of our nation's airliners with expedited training," Lambert said. "We call on President Bush to end the delay and take steps to make our skies safe again."

In response, TSA officials said they are moving as quickly as budget constraints allow. "The great majority of those who have volunteered will be trained within a year," said John Moran, who heads the TSA's pilot training program.

To accommodate larger training classes, the TSA plans to open a new facility in Artesia, N.M. The current facility in Georgia allows for 50 pilots each week to graduate from the training classes.

TSA officials said classes are filled through the end of September, but the number of classes will double in January.

Pilots have also complained that administrative barriers created by the TSA, such as background and psychological checks and requirements to carry guns in lockboxes, have discouraged some pilots to volunteer for the flight-deck officer program.

"We estimate 40,000 pilots would volunteer if it were properly managed by the TSA," Lambert said.

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,566536,00.html

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>

Josey1

Crapo defends his Patriot Act stance



co06BDcarb50

TWIN FALLS, Idaho (AP) - U.S. Sen. Michael Crapo contends that the news media have not accurately portrayed his stand on search and seizure provisions in the Patriot Act.

Crapo, a Republican from Idaho Falls, spoke about his position during a meeting with The Times-News' editorial board and in an appearance before the Twin Falls Kiwanis Club. He said he does not approve of every aspect of the law, but he does not believe it the so-called ''sneak and peek'' warrants are unconstitutional.

He said most people seem to have only a surface understanding of the act and its successor, Patriot Act II, which is pending before Congress. If members of the media and the public would take a closer look at the search and seizure provisions, he said, they would understand why the phrase ''sneak and peak'' is not accurate.

''People don't understand what the act says,'' Crapo said.

The law itself does not indiscriminately allow law enforcement and intelligence officials to break into law-abiding people's houses without notification to search for evidence of terrorist activities, he said.

To use the provisions under the act, the investigating agency would first have to prove to a judge that certain provisions of the act were being met. For example, there would have to be proof of the possibility of significant loss of life if an investigation had to be halted as a result of not being allowed to search someone's residence without notification.

Next, law enforcement would have to go to a court a second time before conducting the search in order to be given a certain period of time in which to do it, or to delay notification, Crapo said.

The issue of when searches and seizures are appropriate has been getting national attention recently, in large part because of U.S. Rep. C.L. ''Butch'' Otter's move to rescind parts of the law.

Rather than expand the government's ability to spy on suspected terrorists, Otter wants to eliminate the warrants that let investigators search suspects' homes without notification.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft spoke on Monday to an invitation-only crowd of Idaho law enforcement officers and prosecutors in Boise. The event, protested by about 200 people, is part of a three-week, taxpayer-funded trip around the country to shore up support for the law. Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden was the only statewide elected official to attend.

Crapo argued that searches without prior notification have been used for decades in other areas of law enforcement, such as in drug busts and organized crime activities.

He said the test for him in determining if a search is appropriate has to do with constitutionality; it must conform to the Fourth Amendment. It would be ridiculous to notify someone before setting up a wiretap, he said. It would also be a waste of time to tell a suspect beforehand of a pending search of his or her residence.

Also, in times of war, the government has a right to tighten surveillance on likely suspects, the senator said.

''The war on terrorism, I believe, is a war every bit as much as World War II was a war,'' Crapo said. ''I believe the threat to the United States today for terrorism is extremely high.''

Crapo added he does not necessarily buy into everything the U.S. Justice Department is proposing for the second Patriot Act. For example, he would not support allowing the FBI to collect databases for the purposes of profiling average law-abiding citizens. He would, however, vote for court-approved collection of library information on likely suspects.

In addition, Crapo said he does not favor getting rid of the five-year sunset clause on the Patriot Act, as is being proposed by Ashcroft and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.


AP-WS-08-29-03 1809EDT
http://www.trib.com/AP/wire_detail.php?wire_num=167952

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>

Josey1

More prisoners, less crime
By Jeff Jacoby, 8/28/2003

MAJOR CRIME in the United States is at a 30-year-low, and The Christian Science Monitor can't understand it.

In a story this week headlined "A drop in violent crime that's hard to explain," the Monitor's Alexandra Marks reported on the latest data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an agency of the US Justice Department. According to the bureau, there were 23 million instances of violent and property crime last year -- 48 percent fewer than the 44 million recorded in 1973. (The numbers don't include murder, which is measured separately by the FBI.) In just the past 10 years, the violent crime rate has plummeted by a stunning 54 percent, from 50 crimes per 1,000 US residents in 1993 to 23 per 1,000 in 2002.

ADVERTISEMENT

The plunge in serious crime is pervasive; it crosses racial, ethnic, and gender lines and shows up in every income group and region. But welcome as they are, the new data are only the latest extension of a downward trend that first appeared in the 1980s, not long after the nationwide crackdown on crime got underway. The dramatic drop in criminal activity followed an equally dramatic boom in prison construction and a sharp surge in incarceration rates. The conclusion is obvious: Stricter punishment has led to lower crime.

But it isn't obvious to the Monitor. Marks's story makes no mention of prisons or prisoners. It claims that criminologists are actually "quick to list the reasons" why crime should be going up, such as the soft economy, cuts in local government spending, and the diversion of police from walking neighborhood beats to guarding public facilities against terror.

The only explanation Marks can offer for the continuing reduction in crime comes from Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University, who speculates that post-9/11, Americans may be treating each other more considerately. "The only thing I can think of," Blumstein says, "is some sense of cohesion that's emerging as a result of the terrorist threat."

To be fair, Marks and the Monitor aren't the only ones with a blind spot for the nexis between crime and punishment. In the Associated Press story on the Justice Department data, there is no mention of incarceration until the 11th paragraph. "Some criminologists," the AP grudgingly notes, "say tougher prison sentences and more prisons are key factors."

None of those criminologists is quoted; instead, the point is dismissed as "political rhetoric" by the Justice Policy Institute, an anti-imprisonment advocacy group.

No one disputes that more criminals are being locked up in this country or that they are spending more time behind bars. The Justice Department reported in July that the nation's prison population had reached an all-time high of 2.1 million in 2002, with violent criminals accounting for most of the increase. At year's end, 1 of every 143 US residents was in a state or federal prison or jail.

That is a much higher level of imprisonment than is found in other modern democracies, a fact liberal critics point to it as evidence of American vengefulness. "The price of imprisoning so many Americans is too high . . . 5 to 10 times as high as in many other industrialized nations," admonished The New York Times in a recent editorial. "Locking the door and throwing away the key may make for good campaign sound bites, but it is a costly and inhumane crime policy."

Actually, keeping known criminals locked up is a sensible and effective crime policy. The Times laments that it costs $22,000 per year to keep each inmate in custody, but that is not an exorbitant price for preventing millions of annual murders, rapes, armed robberies, and assaults. The cost to society of a single armed robbery has been estimated at more than $50,000; multiply that by the 12 or 13 attacks the average released prisoner commits per year, and $22,000 per inmate looks like quite a bargain.

While crime has been tumbling in the United States, it has been soaring elsewhere. "Crime has recently hit record highs in Paris, Madrid, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Toronto, and a host of other major cities," Eli Lehrer wrote in The Weekly Standard last year. "In a 2001 study, the British Home Office found violent and property crime increased in the late 1990s in every wealthy country except the United States. American property crime rates have been lower than those in Britain, Canada, and France since the early 1990s, and violent crime rates in the European Union, Australia, and Canada have recently begun to equal and even surpass those in the United States. Even Sweden, once the epitome of cosmopolitan socialist prosperity, now has a crime victimization rate 20 percent higher than the United States."

Not every inmate belongs in prison. Petty drug offenders, for example, are better suited to intense probation and treatment than to jail. But on the whole, America's policy of locking up large numbers of criminals for long terms is doing just what it was meant to do: making us safer. Maybe the Europeans should follow suit.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/08/28/more_prisoners_less_crime/

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>