Patriot Act demerits

[BaliBabyDoc]

CNN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department's watchdog office has opened an investigation into the arrest of an Oregon lawyer that was based on what turned out to be faulty FBI analysis of a fingerprint linked to the deadly terrorist attack in Spain last March.

Glenn A. Fine, the department's inspector general, said the antiterrorism Patriot Act may have been improperly used in the arrest of attorney Brandon Mayfield.

Mayfield, a Muslim convert,

 

[conjur]

Wish they'd investigate the FOIA denials Ashcroft keeps supporting.

And, while they're at it, how about wrapping up the Medicare-cost investigation, the Plame-name leak scandal, the Cheney Energy Task Force scandal, the DeLay Illegal Campaign Contributions for Redistricting scandal, and any other Bush admin scandal investigation that's been going on for months and months.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Figures... Something to prove that there are checks and balances to make sure that the Patriot Act isn't abused and libs still aren't happy.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Figures... Something to prove that there are checks and balances to make sure that the Patriot Act isn't abused and libs still aren't happy.

1) I'm not a "lib"
2) This isn't ensuring checks and balances are in place. The Patriot Act *was* abused...this is now a reprimand against those who did so. This isn't stopping the Patriot Act from being abused.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Figures... Something to prove that there are checks and balances to make sure that the Patriot Act isn't abused and libs still aren't happy.

Of course People are not Happy. Many Select portions of the Patriot act are Anti-constitution and Therefore Anti-american.

the Overall theme of the current Administration is secrecy.


they are anti Transparent

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Figures... Something to prove that there are checks and balances to make sure that the Patriot Act isn't abused and libs still aren't happy.

1) I'm not a "lib"
2) This isn't ensuring checks and balances are in place. The Patriot Act *was* abused...this is now a reprimand against those who did so. This isn't stopping the Patriot Act from being abused.

Ok... My bad... Let me rephrase.

Figures... Something to prove that there are checks and balances to make sure that the Patriot Act isnt' abused and the rabid anti Bush people still aren't happy.

And onto your "*was* abused" statement... From the article...

Glenn A. Fine, the department's inspector general, said the antiterrorism Patriot Act may have been improperly used in the arrest of attorney Brandon Mayfield.

Seems like this is under investigation because it "may have been improperly used" and you are assuming alot to say that it "*was*" abused.

 

[conjur]

My bad for jumping the gun but it *has* been abused in the past. I guess they're just picking this one case for starters.

And, if they do find this one case was an abuse of the Patriot Act, how will it stop the Patriot Act from being abused again?

 

[Mursilis]

I fail to see what the Patriot Act has to do with this - even prior to the Patriot Act, most any judge in the country would approve an arrest warrant based on a fingerprint found on a bag of detonators. The real problem here is that the fingerprint analysis turned out to be flawed, and the FBI owes the guy an apology. The FBI also needs to figure out how it screwed up, and correct the problem. Now that the fingerprint error has been discovered, the suspect is correct to call the search of his home "inappropriate", but I don't think it was at the time, given (flawed) fingerprint analysis. As always, hindsight is 20/20.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur
My bad for jumping the gun but it *has* been abused in the past. I guess they're just picking this one case for starters.

And, if they do find this one case was an abuse of the Patriot Act, how will it stop the Patriot Act from being abused again?

We can't. Police can abuse laws used to arrest people for robbery as well. It doesn't mean we should get rid of laws related to robbery.

The problem is not the laws, it's the people who abuse them. That's where the focus should be.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
I fail to see what the Patriot Act has to do with this - even prior to the Patriot Act, most any judge in the country would approve an arrest warrant based on a fingerprint found on a bag of detonators. The real problem here is that the fingerprint analysis turned out to be flawed, and the FBI owes the guy an apology. The FBI also needs to figure out how it screwed up, and correct the problem. Now that the fingerprint error has been discovered, the suspect is correct to call the search of his home "inappropriate", but I don't think it was at the time, given (flawed) fingerprint analysis. As always, hindsight is 20/20.

I think you are mistaken. It's not only the fingerprint analysis that was flawed. There are allegedly specific rules for using Patriot Act provisions. The IG is investigating b/c Patriot Act provisions may have been abused. Many, I for one, are opposed to the Patriot Act b/c it provides power that's largely unchecked and accordingly . . . easily misused.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Mursilis
I fail to see what the Patriot Act has to do with this - even prior to the Patriot Act, most any judge in the country would approve an arrest warrant based on a fingerprint found on a bag of detonators. The real problem here is that the fingerprint analysis turned out to be flawed, and the FBI owes the guy an apology. The FBI also needs to figure out how it screwed up, and correct the problem. Now that the fingerprint error has been discovered, the suspect is correct to call the search of his home "inappropriate", but I don't think it was at the time, given (flawed) fingerprint analysis. As always, hindsight is 20/20.

I think you are mistaken. It's not only the fingerprint analysis that was flawed. There are allegedly specific rules for using Patriot Act provisions. The IG is investigating b/c Patriot Act provisions may have been abused. Many, I for one, are opposed to the Patriot Act b/c it provides power that's largely unchecked and accordingly . . . easily misused.

I may be mistaken - it wouldn't be the first time. However, just from reading the article you linked, I see no abuse of the Patriot Act - I just see a screw-up by the FBI's crime lab regarding a fingerprint. With a fingerprint, they have clear probable cause to arrest the guy and search his home. Without the fingerprint, they've got nothing linking him to the bombing in Spain, and owe him an apology. What does the Patriot Act have to do with any of this?

 

[cquark]

Why you shouldn't like the PATRIOT Act:

[*]The law dramatically expands the ability of states and the Federal Government to conduct surveillance of American citizens. The Government can monitor an individual's web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, and monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.

[*]PATRIOT is not limited to terrorism. The Government can add samples to DNA databases for individuals convicted of "any crime of violence." Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user.

[*]Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies can more easily spy on Americans. Powers under the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) have been broadened to allow for increased surveillance opportunities. FISA standards are lower than the constitutional standard applied by the courts in regular investigations. PATRIOT partially repeals legislation enacted in the 1970s that prohibited pervasive surveillance of Americans.

[*]PATRIOT eliminates Government accountability. While PATRIOT freely eliminates privacy rights for individual Americans, it creates more secrecy for Government activities, making it extremely difficult to know about actions the Government is taking.

[*]PATRIOT authorizes the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. A "sneak and peek" warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant's permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted.

The EFF goes into much more detail than above in their Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT article. EPIC also provides good analyses of the problems with PATRIOT.

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: conjur
Wish they'd investigate the FOIA denials Ashcroft keeps supporting.

And, while they're at it, how about wrapping up the Medicare-cost investigation, the Plame-name leak scandal, the Cheney Energy Task Force scandal, the DeLay Illegal Campaign Contributions for Redistricting scandal, and any other Bush admin scandal investigation that's been going on for months and months.

Bring back the independent counsel?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gravity

Originally posted by: conjur
Wish they'd investigate the FOIA denials Ashcroft keeps supporting.

And, while they're at it, how about wrapping up the Medicare-cost investigation, the Plame-name leak scandal, the Cheney Energy Task Force scandal, the DeLay Illegal Campaign Contributions for Redistricting scandal, and any other Bush admin scandal investigation that's been going on for months and months.

Bring back the independent counsel?

Fitzgerald is doing that in the Plame case but that's still taking a very long time.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: cquark
Why you shouldn't like the PATRIOT Act:

[*]The law dramatically expands the ability of states and the Federal Government to conduct surveillance of American citizens. The Government can monitor an individual's web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, and monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.

[*]PATRIOT is not limited to terrorism. The Government can add samples to DNA databases for individuals convicted of "any crime of violence." Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user.

[*]Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies can more easily spy on Americans. Powers under the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) have been broadened to allow for increased surveillance opportunities. FISA standards are lower than the constitutional standard applied by the courts in regular investigations. PATRIOT partially repeals legislation enacted in the 1970s that prohibited pervasive surveillance of Americans.

[*]PATRIOT eliminates Government accountability. While PATRIOT freely eliminates privacy rights for individual Americans, it creates more secrecy for Government activities, making it extremely difficult to know about actions the Government is taking.

[*]PATRIOT authorizes the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. A "sneak and peek" warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant's permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted.

The EFF goes into much more detail than above in their Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT article. EPIC also provides good analyses of the problems with PATRIOT.

Not to mention its use as a means of supressing dissent against the current administration.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: cquark
Why you shouldn't like the PATRIOT Act:

[*]The law dramatically expands the ability of states and the Federal Government to conduct surveillance of American citizens. The Government can monitor an individual's web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, and monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.

[*]PATRIOT is not limited to terrorism. The Government can add samples to DNA databases for individuals convicted of "any crime of violence." Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user.

[*]Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies can more easily spy on Americans. Powers under the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) have been broadened to allow for increased surveillance opportunities. FISA standards are lower than the constitutional standard applied by the courts in regular investigations. PATRIOT partially repeals legislation enacted in the 1970s that prohibited pervasive surveillance of Americans.

[*]PATRIOT eliminates Government accountability. While PATRIOT freely eliminates privacy rights for individual Americans, it creates more secrecy for Government activities, making it extremely difficult to know about actions the Government is taking.

[*]PATRIOT authorizes the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. A "sneak and peek" warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant's permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted.

The EFF goes into much more detail than above in their Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT article. EPIC also provides good analyses of the problems with PATRIOT.

Not to mention its use as a means of supressing dissent against the current administration.

Can you supply proven cases where this has been used in supressing dissent against the current administration? I have not heard anything factual just "speculation that it will happen". I may have missed the news report though.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: cquark
Why you shouldn't like the PATRIOT Act:

[*]The law dramatically expands the ability of states and the Federal Government to conduct surveillance of American citizens. The Government can monitor an individual's web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, and monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.

[*]PATRIOT is not limited to terrorism. The Government can add samples to DNA databases for individuals convicted of "any crime of violence." Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user.

[*]Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies can more easily spy on Americans. Powers under the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) have been broadened to allow for increased surveillance opportunities. FISA standards are lower than the constitutional standard applied by the courts in regular investigations. PATRIOT partially repeals legislation enacted in the 1970s that prohibited pervasive surveillance of Americans.

[*]PATRIOT eliminates Government accountability. While PATRIOT freely eliminates privacy rights for individual Americans, it creates more secrecy for Government activities, making it extremely difficult to know about actions the Government is taking.

[*]PATRIOT authorizes the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. A "sneak and peek" warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant's permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted.

The EFF goes into much more detail than above in their Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT article. EPIC also provides good analyses of the problems with PATRIOT.

Not to mention its use as a means of supressing dissent against the current administration.

Can you supply proven cases where this has been used in supressing dissent against the current administration? I have not heard anything factual just "speculation that it will happen". I may have missed the news report though.

I'd suggest here as a place to start for both sides to see if this claim is true or not. I'm not sure if it is and I don't have time to read the full document right now, but it does have a fair number of post-9/11 court cases involving PATRIOT and the like.

 

[conjur]

NEW YORK - A federal judge Wednesday found unconstitutional a part of the United States' anti-terror Patriot Act that allows authorities to demand customer records from businesses without court approval.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI has to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorism investigations.

The ruling was the latest blow to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that terror suspects being held in places like Guantanamo Bay can use the American judicial system to challenge their confinement. That ruling was a defeat for the president's assertion of sweeping powers to hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The ACLU sued the Department of Justice, arguing that part of the Patriot legislation violated the Constitution because it authorizes the FBI to force disclosure of sensitive information without adequate safeguards.

The judge agreed, stating that the provision "effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge."

Under the provision, the FBI did not have to show a judge a compelling need for the records and it did not have to specify any process that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information.

Federal judge rejects part of Patriot Act
Provision giving FBI access to business records overturned
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6131670/


Another win for the Constitution.

 

[conjur]

NEW YORK - Declaring that personal security is as important as national security, a judge Wednesday blocked the government from conducting secret, unchallengeable searches of Internet and telephone records as part of its fight against terrorism.

The American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) called the ruling a "landmark victory" against the Justice Department (news - web sites)'s post-Sept. 11 law enforcement powers.

"Today's ruling is a wholesale refutation of excessive government secrecy and unchecked executive power," said ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down a provision of the Patriot Act that authorizes the FBI (news - web sites) to force Internet service providers and phone companies to turn over certain customer records. The companies are then barred from ever disclosing the search took place.

In his ruling, the judge called national security of "paramount value" and said the government "must be empowered to respond promptly and effectively" to threats. But he called personal security equal in importance and "especially prized in our system of justice."

Marrero said his ruling blocks the government from issuing the requests or from enforcing the non-disclosure provision "in this or any other case." But the ruling will not immediately take effect to allow for an appeal.

Megan L. Gaffney, a spokeswoman for the federal prosecutor's office in Manhattan, said the government was reviewing the decision and had no immediate comment.

The judge said the law violates the Fourth Amendment because it bars or deters any judicial challenge to the government searches, and violates the First Amendment because its permanent ban on disclosure is a prior restraint on speech.

He noted that the Supreme Court recently said that a "state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

"Sometimes a right, once extinguished, may be gone for good," Marrero wrote.

Marrero issued his decision in favor of an Internet access firm identified in his 120-page ruling as "John Doe." He had agreed to keep the firm's identity secret to protect the FBI probe that led to the search request.

Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer, said the government had turned over as part of the lawsuit a six-page document showing it had obtained Internet or telephone records dozens and possibly hundreds of times.

The government was authorized to pursue communications records as part of a 1986 law. Its powers were enhanced by legislation passed after the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001.

In a footnote to his ruling, Marrero cited words he had written two years ago in another case to warn that courts must apply "particular vigilance to safeguard against excess committed in the name of expediency."

"The Sept. 11 cases will challenge the judiciary to do Sept. 11 justice, to rise to the moment with wisdom equal to the task, its judgments worthy of the large dimensions that define the best Sept. 11 brought out of the rest of American society."

Judge Blocks U.S. From Doing Searches
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...arches_1&printer=1

 

[CycloWizard]

Just thought it was ironic after all the uproar about heartsurgeon's supposed lack of heart-surgeon-like behavior that the other purported doctor makes a thread with the subtitle "DOJ investigating improper use of Arsecroft's Anal". D:

 

[conjur]

Ashcroft Says Likely to Appeal U.S. Patriot Act Ruling
http://news.myway.com/top/arti...04::06:08|reuters.html

SCHEVENINGEN, Netherlands (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said on Thursday the Bush administration was likely to appeal against a U.S. District Court ruling that part of the Patriot Act was unconstitutional.

"Without knowing the specifics, I wouldn't be able to assure you that the case would be appealed, but it is almost a certainty that it would be appealed," Ashcroft told reporters after meeting European Union justice and interior ministers.

"We believe the act to be completely consistent with the United States' Constitution," he added.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled that surveillance powers granted to the FBI under the Patriot Act, a cornerstone of the U.S. war on terror, were unconstitutional.

In the first decision against a surveillance portion of the act, Marrero ruled for the American Civil Liberties Union in its challenge against what it called "unchecked power" by the FBI to demand secret customer records from communication companies, such as Internet service providers or telephone companies.

Ashcroft said the Bush administration would continue "to use every tool" available under the constitution to fight terrorism.

EU and U.S. officials met in the Dutch sea-side resort to discuss how to boost the fight against terrorism, including improved information exchange, cutting off financing and safeguarding borders without hampering trade and travel.

It appears all of that Jesus-Freakin' has finally destroyed Ashcroft's last brain cell.

 

[Genx87]

Wow, in nearly 3 years we may have our first improper use of the patriot act?

 

[piasabird]

If a fingerprint was misidentified by the FBI then this could result in some changes in the law about how good fingerprints have to be before they can be used as evidence. This might be a good thing for criminals, people in jail submitting appeals, and the lawyers who want to challenge fingerprint evidence.

 

[piasabird]

By the way I have not seen any FBI investigators yet. I suppose they could be investigating from afar. Last time I heard of the FBI in my area is when they busted some KKK people with a house full of weapons and explosives.