Kucinich wants to repeal parts of Patriot Act

[FlutePlayer]

Democratic Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich has introduced legislation that would repeal more than 10 parts of the Patriot Act. Parts that would be repealed include warrantless searches and detentions & deportations of people. Kucinich has promised that if he's elected, he'll repeal the Patriot Act entirely.

 

[Bry]

Very good for him. Thanks for the info and for my part, welcome.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by FlutePlayer
Democratic Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich has introduced legislation that would repeal more than 10 parts of the Patriot Act. Parts that would be repealed include warrantless searches and detentions & deportations of people. Kucinich has promised that if he's elected, he'll repeal the Patriot Act entirely.

That's great... we need fewer deportations in this country. [/sarcasm]

 

[DKSuddeth]

warrantless searches, great. get rid of them.

deportations? I look at it this way. I'm already having to compete with people in India, Russia, Singapore, and Mexico for jobs that used to pay decent, I don't need to continue competing with illegals in this country too.

 

[Psychoblues]

I am no supporter of Dennis Kucinich. But, a huge but I might add, I am no supporter of the so called Patriot Act either. I love freedom and I love the enforcement of laws. The Patriot Act limits my freedom and enforces laws that are contradictory to the American Dream and purpose and overall ideology. To relinquish our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism is to play directly into the hands of the terrorists. We must fight terrorism and I have no problem with that. We must not allow politicians to usurp their powers and abrogate our freedoms in the name of some obscure reasoning for societal restriction and we certainly must not allow laws to be passed for the political benefit of those attempting to restrict and ultimately control American ideology.

Patriot Act, what a freaking joke on American freedoms. I take that back. It's NO FREAKING JOKE!!!!!!!!!!

 

[acludem]

I'm no Kucinich supporter either, but the Patriot Act is a massive repeal of Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. John Ashcroft is a major threat to American freedom. Giving him anymore authority is like handing a gun to criminal. He'll use it, and he'll use it to hurt people.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by acludem
I'm no Kucinich supporter either, but the Patriot Act is a massive repeal of Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. John Ashcroft is a major threat to American freedom. Giving him anymore authority is like handing a gun to criminal. He'll use it, and he'll use it to hurt people.

What freedoms, specifically, have you lost since the enactment of the Patriot Act?

 

[DKSuddeth]

What freedoms, specifically, have you lost since the enactment of the Patriot Act?

you have to ask that, knowing the case of jose padilla?

how about the 'sneak and peek' searches?

The rights to due process can be removed at the whim of one person. Now, I could be wrong, but isn't that part of the reason we broke away from a monarchy in the 1700's?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you have to ask that, knowing the case of jose padilla?

how about the 'sneak and peek' searches?

The rights to due process can be removed at the whim of one person. Now, I could be wrong, but isn't that part of the reason we broke away from a monarchy in the 1700's?

And the new restrictions are to be used to prevent future terrorism. Do you have any ties whatsoever to terrorism? Have any freedoms been taken away from YOU? How have these changes affected your daily routine?

 

[DKSuddeth]

And the new restrictions are to be used to prevent future terrorism. Do you have any ties whatsoever to terrorism? Have any freedoms been taken away from YOU? How have these changes affected your daily routine?

many great leaders in our history have said things that apparently don't mean anything to people nowadays.

people like ben franklin when he said that those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither, or martin luther king jr. when he said that when we let ONE persons freedoms, liberties, and rights get trampled on, ALL our rights are trampled on.

It shouldn't matter that I, personally, have not had any freedoms taken away. If its possible that it can happen to even ONE person then it can happen to anyone. THATS what we should all be aware of and prevent.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you have to ask that, knowing the case of jose padilla?

As an American citizen, Jose Padilla should be charged and tried. I hope he rots in his prison cell - better yet, I hope he gets his 'eternal justice' from some of the other prisoners.

how about the 'sneak and peek' searches?

I'm not familiar with what this is. Could you please eloborate?

The rights to due process can be removed at the whim of one person. Now, I could be wrong, but isn't that part of the reason we broke away from a monarchy in the 1700's? [/B]

I disagree. There is still due process in America, Jose Padilla's case notwithstanding. If there is legal wrangling over Padilla's status as an al-Qaeda member vs. American citizen, that's one thing. But it's not like habeus corpus has been suspended, or that people are being thrown in jail for no reason.

 

[DKSuddeth]

As an American citizen, Jose Padilla should be charged and tried. I hope he rots in his prison cell - better yet, I hope he gets his 'eternal justice' from some of the other prisoners.

Agreed, but thats not whats happening. He was removed from a federal facility and put into a military brig because a judge ORDERED that he be allowed to see an attorney. He was then labeled an 'enemy combatant', moved, and held, basically having habeus corpus suspended. He has not been charged, NOR has ANY evidence been shown to a court that he is going to be.

Sneak and Peek goes against the 4th amendment
Basically, before the patriot act a law enforcement authority had to show or explain the evidence that they had to get a search warrant. The judge would then approve, or dissaprove, the warrant and a premises, car, storage facility, etc. could be searched upon notice given of the warrant.

Now, all a law enforcement agency need do is tell a judge that the warrant is needed for an investigation that MAY involve terrorism. The requirements are now so relaxed that a warrant is useless. Also, authorities are now no longer required to serve the warrant before the search. With warrant in hand they can enter your home, take whatever files they feel necessary or copy your computers hard drive contents and leave, never having to tell you that they were there. Then, if what they find leads them to where they can arrest and charge you, they will and if they find nothing, so be it. They don't even have to be held responsible for a fruitless search.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Agreed, but thats not whats happening. He was removed from a federal facility and put into a military brig because a judge ORDERED that he be allowed to see an attorney. He was then labeled an 'enemy combatant', moved, and held, basically having habeus corpus suspended. He has not been charged, NOR has ANY evidence been shown to a court that he is going to be.

If that's true (and I have no reason to disbelieve you, as you have been very straightforward before) then whoever ordered the move is more wrong than two boys screwing.

Now, all a law enforcement agency need do is tell a judge that the warrant is needed for an investigation that MAY involve terrorism. The requirements are now so relaxed that a warrant is useless. Also, authorities are now no longer required to serve the warrant before the search. With warrant in hand they can enter your home, take whatever files they feel necessary or copy your computers hard drive contents and leave, never having to tell you that they were there. Then, if what they find leads them to where they can arrest and charge you, they will and if they find nothing, so be it. They don't even have to be held responsible for a fruitless search.

As far as terrorism is concerned, I'm not unhappy at all about that. Terrorists are actively pursuing the deaths of innocent Americans. It's different than some guy who you think may have stolen a stereo.
As far as not having to serve the warrant before the search, part of that I could understand, if the suspected terrorist might have the chance to leave or warn others. I hope, though, that that has not been made federal law in all warrant cases, only terrorist cases.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I hope, though, that that has not been made federal law in all warrant cases, only terrorist cases.

whether by sheer coincidence or design the patriot act leaves not distinctive definition. With the very vague definition of terror related crimes and how they now encompass regular crimes all it takes is for the agent to SAY it is related to terrorism and he would technically be correct.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
whether by sheer coincidence or design the patriot act leaves not distinctive definition. With the very vague definition of terror related crimes and how they now encompass regular crimes all it takes is for the agent to SAY it is related to terrorism and he would technically be correct.

I admit I haven't read the exact law as it is defined. Can you please cite a source for the law where it states someone can just use their word without evidence?

 

[DKSuddeth]

how the patriot act applies to online activities

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html

section 218, which provides for the FISA portion reads like this -

Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and section 303(a)(7)(B) (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)(B) and 1823(a)(7)(B)) of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 are each amended by striking `the purpose' and
inserting `a significant purpose'.

This is what the provision allows now -

Lowered Standard for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

The proposed legislation (Section 153) would expand the application of FISA to those situations where foreign intelligence gathering is merely "a" purpose of the investigation, rather than, as current law provides, the sole or primary purpose. The more lenient standards that the government must meet under FISA (as opposed to the stringent requirements of Title III) are justified by the fact that FISA’s provisions facilitate the collection of foreign intelligence information, not criminal evidence. Were the lax FISA provisions made applicable to the interception of information relating to a domestic criminal investigation (as it would where foreign intelligence gathering is but one of the purposes of the investigation), this traditional justification would be eliminated. The proposed change would be a significant alteration to the delicate constitutional balance that is reflected in the current legal regime governing electronic surveillance.


Combine that with the section 213 on delay of a warrant and we have an FBI that can go after everyday criminals with the much less stringent requirements that an international terrorist investigation requires.

The full analysis of the provision is here

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/ata_analysis.html

 

[jimnyc]

Looks pretty stringent, but I still don't see them getting authority without evidence or intel of some sort. There is no blank warrant sitting there for them to write their names on.

I'm confident that if a federal agent applied for a warrant and stated he has zero intel and no criminal evidence whatsoever, only his word, that the warrant would be denied.

Unless someone is doing something wrong they'll have no ill effects from this provision.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Jim, theres nothing stringent about it now. The Patriot act provides agents to use FISA standards in regular courts now. The FISA standards were also reduced from 'primary purpose' of the investigation to 'significant purpose'. That means that an agent only has to TELL the judge, doesn't have to produce evidence, that the warrant is necessary because it involves terrorist activities (as ill defined by other sections of the patriot act) and he gets his warrant.

Unless someone is doing something wrong they'll have no ill effects from this provision.

that defeats the entire purpose of the 4th amendment, does it not?

 

[jimnyc]

I still don't see where you're reading that warrants will be issued based solely on an agents word. It doesn't state that in the provision you cited, why not cite something that supports exactly what your implying.

that defeats the entire purpose of the 4th amendment, does it not?

Not at all. The 4th amendment is to protect the average citizen, not to protect terrorists. I believe wholeheartedly in the constitution and have no problem whatsoever with the provision you posted. I am not a terrorist and I don't do anything that can be misconstrued as terrorism, so I have nothing to worry about. I believe the same applies for every other citizen of the US. Only those involved in shady activities have anything to fear.

 

[DKSuddeth]

The 4th amendment is to protect the average citizen, not to protect terrorists.

exactly, but why does the patriot act redefine terrorism to include many other crimes that previously weren't?

case in point, a california police agency bust a meth manufacturer. The DA charges him with being a terrorist under the patriot act because the act muddies the definition of chemical weapons as that which are dangerous to people.

It was later withdrawn and a more normal charge of manufacturing and distribution was instated, but initially this DA, and many others, said 'why shouldn't they?' use the patriot act as new tools to fight ordinary crime as well. Thats the classic eventual abuse that alot of us tried to warn about when the act was first passed.

I'll look for some articles on the requirements for the FISA warrants but they are classified. I think that some intelligence comittee members had said something about them though and it may be in print. If i find them, i'll post them.