USA Patriot Act: The Sequel

[Thorn]

Well I'm a terrorist for my views if the second patriot act passes. Some of you will be happy never to hear from me again I imagine. I bet you hope they beat rape torture and mutilate me on a daily basis.

[uh Clem]

Evan, it's not what we want that matters, it's what you want.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
IIRC, Nazi's caught in the US were stripped of their citizenship involuntarily.

Right?

IIRC, only naturalized citizens and certain Confederate leaders have been stripped of their citizenship (the later can be assumed to have renounced their citizenship when they declared independence and formed a rebel government). I'm not even sure that the government has the power to take your citizenship away if you were born here.

[DuncanK]

child of Thor,

Oh, Ok. I used to think it would be good to live in the hills when my government turned into a police state. I changed my mind when I stayed out there for a few weeks practicing

That's right. I used to be weirder than I am right now

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't really see the problem in this legislation. We have this stuff on the books already for other offenses. Basically, this is nothing new. I mean, if you are funding Al Queda groups, I think you've basically given up your citizenship.

What if you give money for Irish War Widows or to help educate Palestinian children? Both causes have been linked to terrorist organizations. Even if the money goes to what it says it's supposed to go to, you've given aid to a foreign terrorist group. What if you're a member of a political organization that stands in solidarity with an active revolutionary group, like CISPES (Committee In Solidarity with the People of El Salvador) or the Maryknoll Sisters who helped refugees illegally enter the US? The Revolutionary Communist Party actively supports the Shining Path. What if you support the Zapatistas?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It took a McCarthy to have McCarthyism. The other people in power at the time had no inclination to do what he did, but after he became a God-damned hero, you couldn't speak against it.

McCarthyism also targetted homosexuals, pornographers, labor unions, comic books, and lots of other things that had nothing to do with being a Commie Pinko Faggot.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by DuncanK
child of Thor,

Oh, Ok. I used to think it would be good to live in the hills when my government turned into a police state. I changed my mind when I stayed out there for a few weeks practicing

That's right. I used to be weirder than I am right now

(OT) It is unfortunatly true that it does take some time to acclimatise to the great out-doors. I live in a city now but some of the best times of my life have been when living closer to nature, well right in it. I've tried in various climate zones around the world and unless you have the correct equipment it is definately more comfortable in clement conditions(well atleast for me). It all comes down to education and training - what knowledge you spend your life learning. Unfortunatly they don't teach survival skills in school, but then again it wouldn't be in the governments interests too, they want your taxes! (OT)

As for this thread it IS scary stuff what is going on right now - we can only prepare in the way we think is best. I think the more oppresive a government becomes the shorter it will last, atleast i like to hope so. As i think of it i've only ever been to one country where i saw the people were actually free, really free. Check my 'Flag'.
Cool place, cool people and even though it has it's problems i learn't alot about what we in the west call freedom.

[mrmitchell]

DuncanK--

I was kidding.

(Nixon died in 1994 BTW if anyone doesnt know)
---
Really, no fooling, this **** pisses me off.

[mrmitchell]

I have the fear that the entire DoJ is the new McCarthy

[DuncanK]

I knew. Just playing along

[Imran Siddiqui]

What if you give money for Irish War Widows or to help educate Palestinian children? Both causes have been linked to terrorist organizations. Even if the money goes to what it says it's supposed to go to, you've given aid to a foreign terrorist group. What if you're a member of a political organization that stands in solidarity with an active revolutionary group, like CISPES (Committee In Solidarity with the People of El Salvador) or the Maryknoll Sisters who helped refugees illegally enter the US? The Revolutionary Communist Party actively supports the Shining Path. What if you support the Zapatistas?

Like I said (and Duncan pulled up, IIRC) this stuff has been going on since the BEGINNING. Most of the apprehension is Chicken Little stuff. The government will go after people that fund Al Queda, everything else will likely be ignored as not being serious enough.

Seriously, you think the DOJ has enough people to go after minor groups like Communists.

[Velociryx]

Yep....since they're already doing it, let's just keep letting them expand their powers and nibbling away at those freedoms.

The main point is, *right now* as of Patriot Act I, nobody is watching the watchers. Even congress gets a "sorry, that's classified" when they try to find out what the DOJ is up to these days, and, to quote Venger from the Civ3 fora, "That, my friends, sucks goat a$$."

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The government will go after people that fund Al Queda, everything else will likely be ignored as not being serious enough.

Seriously, you think the DOJ has enough people to go after minor groups like Communists.

There never was a group of communists like the ones that HUAC was looking for. They never even organized like that. HUAC went after people who were suspected of being communist. People gave names so that HUAC would get off their back. It will be the same way with this, just substitute the word 'communist' for 'terrorist.' It's a witch hunt. Just because there never were any witches it didn't stop them from burning people.

[Velociryx]

Well said, Duncan. Given the current climate in Washington these days, given the ambitions of the men behind the curtain, and given the fact that Ashcroft is....well, Ashcroft, forgive me if I'm more than a little skeptical.

We need MORE accountability, not less, and we sure as hell don't need anybody trying to steal our freedoms away while we're not looking. That is perhaps the most disturbing thing about all this. True, no White House source SAID that's what they'd try to do, but then, no White House source would.

Clearly though, if this is making the rounds now, and if the parties who authored it KNOW that it's controversial, it makes sense that they'd want to wait until the public's attention is turned elsewhere before trying to slide that right on through.

That is disingenuous, underhanded, and bordering on evil. Even if I AGREED with the tripe contained in the document, I'd feel that way.

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

As much as I love this Chicken Little attitude, I don't see any congressional committees for the interogation for suspected terrorists. Under the first Patriot Act, what I have seen is people found fighting against the US detained.

There never was a group of communists like the ones that HUAC was looking for.

Look at declassified Soviet records, there was a substantial number of Communist spies in the State Department and Department of Defense. HUAC wasn't totally wrong, they just weren't very successful. Going after Hollywood was just moronic. For all the things the Soviets did wrong, I'll admit they were wonders at spying.

[Velociryx]

That's just the point, Imran....you *don't* see any congressional committees, and you won't. They're out of the loop as of PatAct1. Attempts by congress to find out what the justice boys have been DOING with their new powers have been greeted with "sorry, that's classified."

More than one thousand people were detained post 9/11 for being "suspected terrorists." Nobody even knows their names! All these months later, and we can't even find out who they are, much less if there was anything worth detaining them for.

That does not strike you even the least bit alarming?

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Imran,

First, as Vel pointed out over 1,200 immigrants were detained. About 1,000 of those were deported for one reason or another. True, many had visa violations or what ever, but the DoJ specifially profiled people of middle eastern and asian decent. This is very unamerican. So you see they aren't just going after teh terrorists. They are going after whoever the damn they want to go after.

Second, the Soviets recruted americans here who were only interested in getting paid by the Soviets. The Soviets didn't opperate through a group of American Communists here in the US. They sent agents over here from Russia to make contact with people who would spy for them. These people were just chosen for the access that they had to the info that the Soviets wanted. They didn't look for communists and then send the communists after the info.

[David Floyd]

Personally, I would not be a bit upset if every single politician who voted for or supported or proposed this bill happened to fall over dead tomorrow.

I'd like to give a big "**** YOU" to those politicians in favor of this bill.

[Imran Siddiqui]

More than one thousand people were detained post 9/11 for being "suspected terrorists." Nobody even knows their names!

A. If no one knows their names, then how the Hell can you be sure that over 1000 immigrants were shipped out?

B. As pointed out (somewhat) by Duncan, many of the immigrants sent back had visa violations, and so should have been sent back anyway, the DoJ just began to stress it more stringently.

This is very unamerican.

You (being a lefty) should at least know that it has been very American to profile people based on ethnicity.

That's just the point, Imran....you *don't* see any congressional committees, and you won't. They're out of the loop as of PatAct1. Attempts by congress to find out what the justice boys have been DOING with their new powers have been greeted with "sorry, that's classified."

Congress gives the President the power to carry out classified material and then complains when they say it is classified? Why don't simply pass a law restricting it if they disagree? Instead they want another one, indicating Congress doesn't see it as that bad of a problem.

To pin the President as evil, even though they are doing exactly what Congress passed, is somewhat dishonest.

That does not strike you even the least bit alarming?

Not really, because in 5 years, when this War on Terrorism becomes passe, the Patroit Acts 1 & 2 really will have no power, or be repealed, just like similar acts have been in previous wars.

[chequita guevara]

Well, it hasn't gone to Congress yet. I suspect by the time it does, the hornet's nest that has been stirred up will lead Congress to treat it like poison. Thank goodness for honest bureaucrats.

[Ramo]

From Counterpunch:

Homeland Insecurity

Champaign-Urbana's International Community Shaken by New INS Rules

By OLIVE LOWELL

While most Americans celebrated the holiday season with their families, Champaign-Urbana's residents from the Middle East, North Africa, South and Southeast Asia spent those same days under stress. Rather than anticipating warm reunions, they feared imminent separation from their loved ones by the Immigration and Naturalization Service under provisions of the Homeland Security Act.

It's always been hard being an immigrant to the U.S., even though it's also always been a great opportunity. Even legal immigrants with work permits and all their papers in order experience an extraordinary level of hassles and red tape, as they try to negotiate their way between multiple bureaucracies and often conflicting rules. Since Sept.11, 2001, it's become de rigueur to cast a suspicious eye on foreigners. Now a new program, called the INS Special Registration has been put into motion, requiring the photographing, fingerprinting, and much closer monitoring of all immigrants; including examination of their credit/debit card records. But in the panic over the potential for terrorist attacks on United States, a panic driven by repeated media reports of bad things that are just about to happen, the new law is having its first, most intense effects on visitors and immigrants from countries and regions identified as predominantly Muslim.

The Special Registration asks men over the age of 16 who are citizens of selected countries and without green cards or permanent resident status to report to their regional INS centers. For international residents of Champaign-Urbana, that means a trip to Chicago and waiting in long lines. Here they will have their immigration status checked and be photographed, fingerprinted, and interrogated. According to immigration lawyers registrants are asked questions "under oath." A false statement under oath is a serious violation. The INS agent "records" the answers. The officer will see travel documents, including a passport; any other government-issued identification; proof of residence, and may also ask to see leases or proof of titles; proof of school matriculation; proof of employment and proof of insurance. He or she may ask many other, unrelated questions, including questions about religious affilitiations. Around the country, minor violations of immigration law have resulted in severe penalties, including arrest, detention without counsel, and even deportation. Immigrants who through fear or ignorance fail to show up for the special registration are in very serious trouble. In these uncertain situations, some immigration lawyers are having a heyday, charging clients $10,000 or more for making representations to the INS.

Civil Rights and immigration activists nationally are denouncing the special registration as discriminatory, since it profiles people based on their perceived religion, ethnicity, or national origin. The INS denies this, but the Champaign-Urbana international community is experiencing a high level of collective anxiety because of the number of foreign-born University of Illinois faculty, academic professionals, graduate, and undergraduate students from these regions. In the fall semester, the University of Illinois alone hosted about 4,287 foreign students from 114 countries. At least several hundred faculty and academic workers here are foreign-born.
Special Registration is a rolling process. After the December 16, 2002 call-in, which targeted men from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, the INS set a date of January 10, 2003 for the registration of men from Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Eritrea, Lebanon, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Pakistani and Saudi Arabian men must report by February 21, 2003. To add to the confusion, the INS continues to amend its lists of suspect countries. For some reason Armenia was included in the February group, and then dropped. Other countries including Kuwait and Indonesia are being added to the call-in registration lists as we go to press.

After December 16, tension increased as news spread of blanket detentions and arrests at INS centers, particularly in Southern California. It was reported that the INS processing center in Los Angeles ran out of plastic handcuffs. The news that a 16-year old boy on derivative status (that is, attached to an adult's residence permit) was taken into custody by INS at Los Angeles along with 700 other "aliens" has sent shockwaves among the local international academic body and throughout the country. In Colorado, seven university students were jailed for carrying lighter than permissible course loads. In New York, some legal immigrants have been deported for working seven hours a week over their allowed limit. A foreign student was detained for defaulting on a $2000 tuition loan. None of these legal immigrants were alleged to have committed any other offense.

It's not just a question of arbitrary arrest or deportation, bad as that is. While the INS is reorganizing under the newly created Homeland Security Department, it is also taking time to update its databases, and so is delaying the processing of already filed cases for adjustment of status and other immigration-related applications. The result is that many people in the country legally are "running out of status" or "falling out of compliance," and thus falling afoul of the INS for reasons beyond their control. It doesn't help foreign faculty and students to feel secure when they hear that the FBI and INS special agents are visiting their colleagues. On January 28, 2003 The Dawn (Pakistan) reported FBI Director Robert Mueller has ordered the agency's fifty-six field offices to develop a demographic profile of their localities. This includes counting the mosques in their area.
Champaign residents have always wondered why the small city in the middle of cornfields has an FBI office. It's probably been there since Vietnam War protests brought the National Guard onto the quadrangle. But now we have an idea what its new uses are. Universities draw heavily on foreign-born talent, and research projects are increasingly internationalized. But the FBI office may soon be superfluous. Another new program since requires American universities to take over the job of collecting immigration information on foreign students, monitoring and enforcing their status. Essentially, university administrations are becoming unpaid arms of the INS. At the same time, the University of Illinois is being asked to "voluntarily" collect and provide information to the FBI on its foreign student body. How long, students and faculty wonder, before it's not "voluntary"?

At the University of Illinois, foreign-born faculty members report tension among them so intense that it is likely to affect academic and research morale and have detrimental effects on many of the University's research and teaching programs. In fact, the heads of the National Institutes of Health and the National Academy of Sciences have complained to the Bush administration about the special registration's effects on their national programs.

Currently, Pakistanis applying for visas to attend graduate school in the United States are being rejected at a rate of 90 percent. Faculty of all nationalities are worried by a drop in foreign student enrollment from the Middle East, North Africa, and Pakistan at the UIUC; they're concerned to hear colleagues abroad say they would not think of visiting or applying for a job at an American university under such circumstances. A number of UIUC teachers and researchers have had to cancel pre-scheduled home country visits and overseas research presentations. Some foreign graduate students at the threshold of completing their masters and doctoral thesis find themselves worried whether they can complete their work. And more personal level, funerals and weddings in home countries are going unattended. . At the University of Illinois, most of the international faculty and graduate students live with their loved ones and families, so the new registration policy is also spreading pain to parents, spouses and school-age children. Some Chinese students who went home for the Christmas break remain stuck there, unable to return to their work, friends and family.

A small group of faculty and the Antiwar Antiracism Effort (AWARE) have petitioned Chancellor Nancy Cantor, university administrators and local congressional leaders to recognize the gravity of the situation, and the demoralizing effect it is having on the local international community. They also argue that the call in registration process is likely to reinforce the negative image of the U.S. of suppressing minorities, particularly those from Muslim countries regardless of their U.S citizenship, permanent or temporary resident status. As evidence, they present the flight of thousands of Pakistanis from the United States to Canada, people in fear of deportation or racist retaliation.

Is all this an "unintended consequence" of heightened security? Or is it simply another way to intimidate vulnerable people, especially people who might see things differently or have an alternative perspective to add to the public debate on an even wider war in the Middle East? What crafty terrorist would show up at an INS processing center to be photographed, fingerprinted, and interrogated? Why does John Ashcroft think women can't be terrorists? If the INS really wanted to bring uncontrolled immigrants to heel, why not call in the Irish? Because Boston, New York and San Francisco would be paralyzed within a day.

AWARE and Citizens Academics for Fair Immigration Laws (CAFIL) have demanded that the University administration strenuously protest the new registration regulations to the Bush administration and urge the rollback or at least the slowing down of the rolling call-in process. Senators Edward Kennedy, Russ Feingold and Congressman John Conyers have sent a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft demanding a complete halt to registration and a review of the law. So far, the University of Illinois administration has held sympathetic meetings with concerned faculty, but there has been no apparent progress on rollback of the law at the federal level. For now, some of Champaign-Urbana's most valuable community members are living with the heightened insecurity created by our now even more irrational immigration laws.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ramo... maybe it'll be so bad they'll be sent to concentration camps...

Oh wait, that happened in the 40s and then everything went back to normal.

(oh, and it won't get nearly as far as camps this time, not after that experience).

I don't support either Patriot Act, but it isn't an irrevocable cataclysm that some are suggesting here.

[Ramo]

Sorry, but I happen to think that arbitrary arrest and detention without due process are bad things, temporary or not.

[Ramo]

I don't support either Patriot Act, but it isn't an irrevocable cataclysm that some are suggesting here.

I never said it's irrevocable. But it is very, very bad, and it shouldn't be dismissed by saying SCOTUS or Congress will get around to it eventually. People are suffering and people will continue to suffer from these laws.

[Imran Siddiqui]

True, but it doesn't justify people saying, well the experiment was a good idea, but now it's over. The Chicken Little syndrome on this tread is very annoying.

[Ramo]

Anti-Terrorism: a History of Abuses
by ELAINE CASSELL

Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security, David Cole and James X. Dempsey, (New Press 2002)

In 1999, Georgetown University Law professor David Cole and the Center for Democracy and Technology's James Dempsey published the first edition of their work Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security. It detailed the enactment of the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act--which, at the time, was famous not so much for its terrorism provision, but rather for its draconian pro-death penalty and anti-habeas corpus provisions.
This year brings the book's second edition--updated to account for recent developments in the "war on terrorism." The authors detail the Clinton administration's use of the Antiterrorism Act and examine the enactment and scope of the USA PATRIOT Act--a hastily enacted, post-9/11 law that gives the government wide-sweeping surveillance powers over American citizens.

Throughout Terrorism and the Constitution, Cole and Dempsey diverge from popular opinion by insisting that civil liberties, far from being a threat to national security, are the essence of America. What are we "fighting" for in this war on terrorism, they ask, if not to protect our way of life--which has personal liberty at its very core?

The FBI and Civil Liberties, Including Free Speech Rights: A Dismal Record

The first section of the book chronicles the abuses that have happened in the past when law enforcement arrogated too much power to itself. Over the past 75 years, the authors explain, we have see FBI power-grabbing, overreaching, illegality, and denial. Attempted reforms have only led to retrenchment. Even Americans involved in human rights groups such as Amnesty International have been surveillance targets. And the trend of the expansion of power has been capped off by recent, unprecedented secret activities targeting both American citizens and immigrants.
As the authors discuss, even before there was an "antiterrorism" statute, in the 1980's, the FBI conducted surveillance of Americans involved with activists who supported rebel groups in El Salvador, and who were opposed to American aid to the El Salvadoran military. These were people whose only crimes were to have attended rallies, signed petitions, and possessed reading materials associated with the Committee in Solidarity with People of El Salvador (CISPES), whose activities were variously described by the FBI as "terrorist" or "leftist."

These investigations did not gain public prominence like the anti-communist and anti-war "sympathizer" activities of the 1950's and 1960's. They went on for more than two years, until they were finally halted by Congressional hearings and the exposure of documents obtained under Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR).
The authors see these investigations as laying the foundation for the Antiterrorism and PATRIOT acts. Congress essentially denounced the scope of the anti-CISPES investigations and in 1994 enacted a law protecting First Amendment activities from FBI investigations. However, that law was repealed in the Antiterrorism Act of 1996--practically inviting history to repeat itself.

The 1996 Antiterrorism Act

The Antiterrorism Act of 1996 was a response to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. Cole and Dempsey describe the Act as a massive assault on First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and petition, and a deeper entrenchment of the "guilt by association" tradition active in the FBI.
As noted above, the Act removed barriers to FBI investigation of activities protected under the First Amendment. It also removed some restrictions on the famous FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court--where federal judges sit in secret to consider, and mostly approve, Justice Department requests for widespread surveillance of "terrorists," including pen registers and "trap-and-trace" surveillance, methods that can capture income and outgoing telephone calls. The law also opened the door for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to deport mostly Muslim citizens. The deportations were based on largely secret evidence, and no overt acts needed to be alleged.

The authors tell the stories of several individuals who were targeted under the law, as a result of racial and ethnic profiling. More than two dozen Muslim immigrants were detained and then deported, typically for visa or immigration regulation violations. Most were never charged with any crime. They were, in the government's eyes, "guilty" of being associated with people or organizations labeled as "terrorist."

In 1999, the Supreme Court denied judicial review of the deportations--remember, the 1996 Act also curtailed judicial review--in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Its decision is an ominous precedent for those who hope the Court will intervene in our current civil liberties crisis. Remember, this all occurred before 9/11.

The Post-9/11 USA PATRIOT Act

Then came 9/11--and the USA PATRIOT Act. The Act expanded "guilt by association" to the point that the most tenuous connection to an organization labeled by the Secretary of State as a "terrorist" organization can now lead to the charge of conspiring, or taking action to, give "material support" to "aid and abet" terrorism.
Was the expansion necessary? Sheik Abdel Rahman and others implicated in the 1993 World Trade Center attack and acts of violence on American embassies, as well as Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, were tried and convicted before the 1996 and 2001 laws were enacted.
Was the expansion abusive? Consider recent indictments of defendants in Buffalo and Portland--which suggest that it is sufficient for the defendant simply to have been in the presence of people labeled as terrorist sympathizers, or to have given money to a non-profit organization that has (according to our government) mixed humanitarian and political activities associated with "terrorism." Consider, too, the indictment of Lynne Stewart, which I have discussed in a prior column, for what amounts to the "crime" of zealously representing a convicted terrorist.

The First Amendment consequences are dire, as Cole and Dempsey point out--given that there is no specific definition of "material support," no apparent intent requirement, and no ability on the part of defendants to question an organization's appearance on the list.
In light of this vagueness, most Muslim citizens and immigrants may reasonably believe that the course safest for their families is simply to avoid Muslim associations and organizations, period. And that is the tragedy: legitimate First Amendment activities have been criminalized, and even worse, criminalized so vaguely that the safest course would be to avoid exercising free speech rights at all. Muslims should be able to attend their mosques without fear that they may be jailed because they happen to pray next to someone under government suspicion.

No Safe Harbor in the Courts

Terrorism and the Constitution cautions against counting on the courts to protect our civil liberties and recounts the judiciary's dismal record in protecting civil liberties since the 1996 Antiterrorism Act.

Since September 11, 2001, hundreds of immigrants have been detained and, perhaps deported, but in secret. We don't know their names or where they are held. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court order requiring an open trial for a detained immigrant, but it is the only Appeals court so far that has rejected the government's insistence on secret trials.
In a blow to civil libertarians, this week the Third Circuit overruled the New Jersey district court's ruling that the Justice Department had to disclose the names of individuals detained in its jurisdiction.

Although we know the names of several detained U.S. citizens, such as Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, they are being held incommunicado and denied access to an attorney. Any day now, the Fourth Circuit (which has the dubious distinction of being more conservative in its politics than the Supreme Court) will decide whether to overturn U.S. District Judge Robert Doumar's ruling that Hamdi, charged as an unlawful combatant and held in a Norfolk, Virginia U.S. Navy brig, has the right to be visited by the Federal Public Defender.

It would be blind optimism to expect the appeals court to agree with the feisty Judge Doumar, who expressed outrage that an American could be held forever, without being charged, without representation, and dealt with as the government pleased with no judicial review whatsoever, based solely upon the affidavit of a Pentagon bureaucrat.

And there is surely no reason to think that the Supreme Court will rule against the government. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said shortly after the attacks of September 11 that Americans would have to learn to do with less civil liberties; Chief Justice William Rehnquist has written a book about the importance of judicial deference to the executive branch in wartime.
We can expect a majority of this court to agree with Attorney General Ashcroft who, in September, responded to an interviewer's question about incursions into individual freedoms with a dismissive, "We're not sacrificing civil liberties, we're securing civil liberties."
But liberties are to be exercised, not locked away or shelved only to be brought out of storage when the political climate changes. Terrorism and the Constitution is a call to Americans to fight for civil liberties now, or prepare to lose them forever.

Elaine Cassel practices law in Virginia and teaches law and psychology. She is the co-author of Criminal Behavior.
This article was originally published by FindLaw Writ.

[mrmitchell]

The entire thing, Imran (or whoever it was who made the "war will be over in 5-6 years" comment), is that it might not be over in 5-6 years. The Vietnam war was expected to last...eh, I dunno, but not until 1973(?). Also, with Bush's new "preemptive action" doctrine on terrorist-supporting nations, the government could theoretically pull up any nation they don't like a lot, fabricate some evidence (or use very little evidence as some smoking gun thing), and then go to war with them. I know it seems unlikely to you for our great trustworthy government to start making up lies so it can send people to deserts to get shot, and it's not very likely (still likely though), but consider the government's track record on lieing.

Besides, even if it will be over in 5-6 years, does that mean it's okay for the United States, which is supposed to be the best nation in the world as far as freedom, civil liberties, etc., to make people suffer for no reason now? By the time these people might get out in 5-6 years, most of them will either be broken or branded for life.

[uh Clem]

Well, gee, as much as I hate to be annoying...

1. From last summer (Village Voice, August 2002):

Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission drew heat by suggesting that another terrorist attack on U.S. soil could stir public support for mass, ethnicity-based internments as during World War II. He did not advocate such detentions—in fact, he told the Voice that he was absolutely opposed. But he did say at a July 19 public hearing in Detroit packed with Muslim American advocates, "If there's another terrorist attack and if it's from a certain ethnic community . . . that the terrorists are from, you can forget about civil rights."

Some civil rights groups want Kirsanow kicked off the commission. But more alarming than his remarks alone was the response—or lack of it—from the administration. The White House issued a single sentence professing its faith in Kirsanow's best intentions, but it did not take a stand against internment. In fact, when asked point-blank about the possibility, the White House referred the Voice to the Justice Department [!!!], where a spokesperson responded, "Everything has to be taken on a case-by-case basis." She declined to renounce the notion completely.

Kirsanow later told the Detroit Free Press, "Not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops, more profiling." He suggested there would be "a groundswell of public opinion"...

Emphasis added.


2. Last May, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Ridge ALL said that another major terroist attack against the US was inevitable ("major" in this context meaning "worse than 9/11").

Rumsfeld in particular mentioned the certainty of chemical, biological, or nuclear attack. IIRC, so did Cheney. All three spoke within a few days of each other and were quite emphatic.


3. From an earlier post I made in this thread:

N.C. congressman says internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was appropriate

So, a House Subcommittee chair who quite possibly would have jurisdiction in this instance, says that internment wasn't all that big a deal. (Imran Siddiqui agrees.)

BTW, you might notice that this story hasn't exactly been dominating the airwaves over the past few days. Reponse =


SO:[list=1][*]If there's a bad@ss attack, "you can forget about civil rights."[*]Such an attack is "inevitable."[*]You got a problem with that?[/list=1]

Incidently, while Kirsanow was talking about Arabs, most Americans aren't quite so precise when it comes to ethnic groups. Pakistani-Americans might want to prepare themselves for a quick, unexplained departure.

[Sava]

I think now more than ever I support the Second Amendment. When a tyranical and authoritarian executive branch takes over, it's the peoples' responsibility to take it back.

[Velociryx]

Imran - The *reason* that such acts as these get repealed is because people come out in droves to point out the worst case scenario...and when confronted with that worst case scenario, action is taken to see that it doesn't get that far.

Apologies if it annoys you, but if that's the worst problem you have today, kudos!

-=Vel=-