http://mcgheemail.com/steve/blog/archives/000020.html
October 17, 2003
The Patriot Act
Every time I hear about the patriot act, I can't believe it was ever passed. This time is no different. Taken from Schneier's cryptogram it raises a good point about how this law is being used for reasons it was not meant to be used for. A good case of poorly worded law, if you ask me. Here it is:
The Patriot Act and Mission Creep
One of the problems with laws is that the crimes that justify their passage are not always the crimes they are used against. In the United States, the RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations) law was passed to help fight organized crime, but was used against anti-abortion protesters and relatively minor drug offenders. And the Patriot Act, passed to help fight terrorism, is being used against a variety of other crimes.
According to a TRAC report, definitions of "terrorism" have broadened considerably. The AP reports that the Justice Department admits that the Patriot Act has been used "to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists, and drug dealers." So someone with a pipe bomb in California is suddenly charged with "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction," and a North Carolina man who had a methamphetamine lab is suddenly charged with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. The Justice Department has even been conducting seminars on how to use the new wiretapping provisions in the Patriot Act in non-terrorism cases.
It's a big deal. The guy with the meth lab could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that, under the old laws, was only worth about six months. The Patriot Act was hurriedly passed less than two months after 9/11 with almost no debate. That was a mistake, but it echoed the national mood about terrorism. Having the law applied broadly against common criminals is something that we shouldn't do lightly. Security is a trade-off, and the trade-offs in the Patriot Act were extreme. Maybe treating drug dealers like terrorists is something Americans want. But we should debate it in public, and not let the Justice Department sneak it by us.
Report: "Criminal Enforcement Against Terrorists and Spies in the Year After the 9/11 Attacks":
so is it no big deal that they're giving meth dealers 12 to life instead of 6 months? from a certain standpoint, maybe not. what about someone who is wrongfully sentanced for such a crime? maybe under past laws they would have served a few years fighting the decision, what if their accused crime was covered by this act? they could be considered a potential terrorist and possibly executed. who knows.
The point is, laws that have been on the books for years are being overruled by this singular, hastily worded, frankly outdated, law of fear. If someone is caught making a bomb, they should be tried for making bombs, not for being a "potential terrorist."
I'm not even getting into the wiretaps on suspected terrorists without courts approval mess.
Now, jim the only problem I see is a group of peoples willingness to let the authorities abuse a law designed to prevent terrorism being used for everyday domestic crimes. Noone is saying we need to be soft on criminals
Nor do I have any sympathy for someone running a meth lab anyway.
nor have any sympathy or concern for them but history shows us that, if left unchecked, an abuse of power grows and gets harder to stop. Is that something we want to deal with?
When the laws effect the everyday law abiding citizen, then I'll be concerned. Only criminals fear the new provisions.
Theres that other quote I keep seeing about how 'when the nazis came for' yada yada yada and didn't speak up until I was the only one left, or something like that. ALL of us need to be aware of the laws that are written for us, not because it only affects criminals, but it affects how our society then will deal with them. They WILL affect you in some way, shape, or form and if we don't do something about it now, it just may be too late.
