A guide to the Patriot Act, Parts 1 - 4 *Update 9/30*

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Just saw this over on the Slate section of MSN's site. It is the first part in a series that goes in depth into the various part of the Patriot Act, how it affects you, how it can be used, how it has been used to date, etc. It's a good read and has some helpful links as well...

Knowledge is power...:)

Part 1, Section 215

**Update **

Part 2, Section 218 and 213

**Update 9/10/2003**

Part 3, Sections 214, 216, 206

**Update 9/30/2003**

Part 4, Sections 505, 802, 411 and 412

Sorry for the late update on the last part..:)
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
MSN Slate is usually highly liberal. It's an oppinion site, but 90% of all items I've seen there have been very liberal. Does this article follow that tradition? (not trying to flame, just asking a question)
 

laFiera

Senior member
May 12, 2001
862
0
0
haven't visited msn slate before, but i read the article and it was informative. It gives background info based on facts such as:
The first lawsuit against the Patriot Act was filed by the ACLU on July 30 this year, targeting Section 215. The suit has six mostly Arab and Muslim American groups as plaintiffs. Their claim is that 215 violates the Constitution and "vastly expands the power of the [FBI] to obtain records and other 'tangible things' of people not suspected of criminal activity."

So liberal or conservative, facts are facts and is always good to know what's going on.
But of course, would be interesting to find a conservative site that covers the act!
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
MSN Slate is usually highly liberal. It's an oppinion site, but 90% of all items I've seen there have been very liberal. Does this article follow that tradition? (not trying to flame, just asking a question)
Seems pretty level headed of an article to me. They talk about how both sides spin the PA. The ACLU is predicting all doom and gloom, while Ashcroft is having his around the country PA pep rally. Read it and decide for yourself...:)
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
But of course, would be interesting to find a conservative site that covers the act!
that would be fantastic. if anyone finds a good descriptive page along those lines, let me know!
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,277
7,804
126
SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.

Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections
501 through 503 and inserting the following:

``SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
INVESTIGATIONS.

``(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall
be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make
an application for an order requiring the production of any
tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents,
and other items) for an investigation to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities, provided that such investigation of a United
States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of
activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution.
``(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
``(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the
Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor
order); and
``(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely
upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.
``(b) Each application under this section--
``(1) shall be made to--
``(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a);
or
``(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of
title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by
the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to
hear applications and grant orders for the production of
tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of
that court; and
``(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought
for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with
subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism
or clandestine intelligence activities.
``(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section,
the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as
modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds
that the application meets the requirements of this section.
``(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose
that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described
in subsection (a).
``(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other
than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things
under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation
has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
``(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things
under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable
to any other person for such production. Such production
shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege
in any other proceeding or context.

``SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.

``(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall
fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the
production of tangible things under section 402.
``(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall
provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with
respect to the preceding 6-month period--
``(1) the total number of applications made for orders
approving requests for the production of tangible things
under section 402; and
``(2) the total number of such orders either granted,
modified, or denied.''.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,277
7,804
126
SEC. 218. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

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''.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,277
7,804
126
SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A
WARRANT.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``In
addition''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Delay.--With respect to the issuance of any warrant
or court order under this section, or any other rule of law,
to search for and seize any property or material that
constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of
the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that
may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
``(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that
providing immediate notification of the execution of the
warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section
2705);
``(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible
property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in
section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter
121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where
the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
``(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice
within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may
thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.''.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Thanks for your postings of the latest happenings with the Patriot Acts Insane3D.

Here is what is happening to a well respected reporter:

The FBI is convinced that a Reporter is an Internet Service Provider

My (brief) career as an ISP
October 10, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh

The FBI is convinced that I'm an Internet service provider.

It's no joke. A letter the FBI sent on Sept. 19 ordered me to "preserve all
records and other evidence" relating to my interviews of Adrian Lamo, the
so-called homeless hacker, who's facing two criminal charges related to an
alleged intrusion into The New York Times' computers.

There are a number of problems with this remarkable demand, most of which
I'll get to in a moment, but the biggest is the silliest. FBI Supervisory
Special Agent Howard Leadbetter II used the two-page letter to inform me
that under Section 2703(f) of the Electronic Communication Transactional
Records Act, I must "preserve these items for a period of 90 days" in
anticipation of a subpoena. So far I haven't received such a subpoena,
which would invoke a lesser-known section of the USA Patriot Act.

Leadbetter needs to be thwacked with a legal clue stick. The law he's
talking about applies only to Internet service providers, not reporters.
Section 2703(f) says in its entirety: "A provider of wire or electronic
communication services or a remote computing service, upon the request of a
governmental entity, shall take all necessary steps to preserve records and
other evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a court order or
other process."

Last I checked, electronically filing this column to my editors does not
make me a provider of "electronic communication services." Nor does tapping
text messages into my cell phone transform me into a "remote computing
service," as much as I may feel like one sometimes.

Perhaps I'd be immune from the FBI's demands if I used an Underwood No. 5
typewriter instead.

[...]

CNET News.com referred me to its First Amendment attorneys, Roger Myers and
Lisa Sitkin. Their response to the FBI on my behalf reminds the government
that, "as many courts have recognized, reporters have a privilege under the
First Amendment against demands that they produce records or testify in
connection with unpublished information, regardless of whether or not their
sources are confidential."

The letter is addressed to Leadbetter's boss, Pasquale Damuro, and says:
"We write to request your assistance, as assistant director in charge, in
correcting your agent's misuse of the (Electronic Communication
Transactional Records Act) and in prohibiting further efforts to obtain the
threatened subpoena, which, if issued, will raise serious First Amendment
concerns and result in a constitutional confrontation between the FBI and
the media." It demands that the FBI withdraw its letter and not serve a
subpoena.

[...]
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
More on the danger to the U.S. Constitution and all American Citizens by the Patriot Act:

11-18-2003 Judge to consider Padilla's detention

Padilla has been in a South Carolina military brig since President Bush designated him an enemy combatant in June 2002.

Attorneys faced off in a federal appeals court Monday over whether the government can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen, arrested on U.S. soil without charge, trial or access to a lawyer, in the name of national security.

If this action were allowed with only modest judicial review, "we would be effecting a sea change in the constitutional life of this country," said Judge Barrington Parker. "We'd be making changes that would be unprecedented in a civilized society."

Padilla's attorneys said only Congress can authorize holding a U.S. citizen without charge, and the government's action threatens the civil rights of all Americans.

"The president seeks an unchecked power to substitute military rule for the rule of law," said Jenny Martinez, one of Padilla's attorneys. If the president labels a person an enemy combatant, "they could pick up anyone off the street ... and that person has no rights, and the courts have no power to intervene. That has never been the law in our country, and it cannot be the law in our country," Martinez said.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
More on the danger to the U.S. Constitution and all American Citizens by the Patriot Act:

11-18-2003 Judge to consider Padilla's detention

Padilla has been in a South Carolina military brig since President Bush designated him an enemy combatant in June 2002.

Attorneys faced off in a federal appeals court Monday over whether the government can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen, arrested on U.S. soil without charge, trial or access to a lawyer, in the name of national security.

If this action were allowed with only modest judicial review, "we would be effecting a sea change in the constitutional life of this country," said Judge Barrington Parker. "We'd be making changes that would be unprecedented in a civilized society."

Padilla's attorneys said only Congress can authorize holding a U.S. citizen without charge, and the government's action threatens the civil rights of all Americans.

"The president seeks an unchecked power to substitute military rule for the rule of law," said Jenny Martinez, one of Padilla's attorneys. If the president labels a person an enemy combatant, "they could pick up anyone off the street ... and that person has no rights, and the courts have no power to intervene. That has never been the law in our country, and it cannot be the law in our country," Martinez said.
IANAL, but didn't Lincoln set the precedent for this during the Civil War?
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
More on the danger to the U.S. Constitution and all American Citizens by the Patriot Act:

11-18-2003 Judge to consider Padilla's detention

Padilla has been in a South Carolina military brig since President Bush designated him an enemy combatant in June 2002.

Attorneys faced off in a federal appeals court Monday over whether the government can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen, arrested on U.S. soil without charge, trial or access to a lawyer, in the name of national security.

If this action were allowed with only modest judicial review, "we would be effecting a sea change in the constitutional life of this country," said Judge Barrington Parker. "We'd be making changes that would be unprecedented in a civilized society."

Padilla's attorneys said only Congress can authorize holding a U.S. citizen without charge, and the government's action threatens the civil rights of all Americans.

"The president seeks an unchecked power to substitute military rule for the rule of law," said Jenny Martinez, one of Padilla's attorneys. If the president labels a person an enemy combatant, "they could pick up anyone off the street ... and that person has no rights, and the courts have no power to intervene. That has never been the law in our country, and it cannot be the law in our country," Martinez said.
IANAL, but didn't Lincoln set the precedent for this during the Civil War?
Lincoln suspended habeus corpus but never allowed for indefinite detention sans charge or indictment.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
More on the danger to the U.S. Constitution and all American Citizens by the Patriot Act:

11-18-2003 Judge to consider Padilla's detention

Padilla has been in a South Carolina military brig since President Bush designated him an enemy combatant in June 2002.

Attorneys faced off in a federal appeals court Monday over whether the government can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen, arrested on U.S. soil without charge, trial or access to a lawyer, in the name of national security.

If this action were allowed with only modest judicial review, "we would be effecting a sea change in the constitutional life of this country," said Judge Barrington Parker. "We'd be making changes that would be unprecedented in a civilized society."

Padilla's attorneys said only Congress can authorize holding a U.S. citizen without charge, and the government's action threatens the civil rights of all Americans.

"The president seeks an unchecked power to substitute military rule for the rule of law," said Jenny Martinez, one of Padilla's attorneys. If the president labels a person an enemy combatant, "they could pick up anyone off the street ... and that person has no rights, and the courts have no power to intervene. That has never been the law in our country, and it cannot be the law in our country," Martinez said.
IANAL, but didn't Lincoln set the precedent for this during the Civil War?
Lincoln suspended habeus corpus but never allowed for indefinite detention sans charge or indictment.

Excellent Konichiwa, you know History well :)

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
I was just questioning this guys statement:

"The president seeks an unchecked power to substitute military rule for the rule of law," said Jenny Martinez, one of Padilla's attorneys. If the president labels a person an enemy combatant, "they could pick up anyone off the street ... and that person has no rights, and the courts have no power to intervene. That has never been the law in our country, and it cannot be the law in our country," Martinez said.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY