Patriot Raid

burek

Member
Feb 19, 2002
190
0
0
"Homeland Security" Raids NYC Restaurant, Threatens Detentions
Truthout 12:27am Sun May 4 '03
article#316885

Patriot Raid
Jason Halperin
t r u t h o u t | Report

Saturday 03 May 2003

A month ago I experienced a very small taste of what hundreds of South Asian immigrants and U.S. citizens of South Asian descent have gone through since 9/11, and what thousands of others have come to fear. I was held, against my will and without warrant or cause, under the USA PATRIOT Act.
While I understand the need for some measure of security and precaution in times such as these, the manner in which this detention and interrogation took place raises serious questions about police tactics and the safeguarding of civil liberties in times of war.

That night, March 20th, my roommate Asher and I were on our way to see the Broadway show "Rent." We had an hour to spare before curtain time so we stopped into an Indian restaurant just off of Times Square in the heart of midtown. I have omitted the name of the restaurant so as not to subject the owners to any further harassment or humiliation.

We helped ourselves to the buffet and then sat down to begin eating our dinner. I was just about to tell Asher how I'd eaten there before and how delicious the vegetable curry was, but I never got a chance. All of a sudden, there was a terrible commotion and five NYPD in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us.

"Go to the back, go to the back of the restaurant," they yelled.

I hesitated, lost in my own panic.

"Did you not hear me, go to the back and sit down," they demanded.

I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging in age from late-teens to senior citizen. One of the policemen pointed his gun point-blank in the face of the waiter and shouted: "Is there anyone else in the restaurant?" The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen.

The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors. Shouts emanated from the kitchen and a few seconds later five Hispanic men were made to crawl out on their hands and knees, guns pointed at them.

After patting us all down, the five officers seated us at two tables. As they continued to kick open doors to closets and bathrooms with their fingers glued to their triggers, no less than ten officers in suits emerged from the stairwell. Most of them sat in the back of the restaurant typing on their laptop computers. Two of them walked over to our table and identified themselves as officers of the INS and Homeland Security Department.

I explained that we were just eating dinner and asked why we were being held. We were told by the INS agent that we would be released once they had confirmation that we had no outstanding warrants and our immigration status was OK'd.

In pre-9/11 America, the legality of this would have been questionable. After all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

"You have no right to hold us," Asher insisted.

"Yes, we have every right," responded one of the agents. "You are being held under the Patriot Act following suspicion under an internal Homeland Security investigation."

The USA PATRIOT Act was passed into law on October 26, 2001 in order to facilitate the post 9/11 crackdown on terrorism (the name is actually an acronym: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.") Like most Americans, I did not recognize the extent to which this bill foregoes our civil liberties. Among the unprecedented rights it grants to the federal government are the right to wiretap without warrant, and the right to detain without warrant. As I quickly discovered, the right to an attorney has been seemingly fudged as well.

When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official informed me that I do have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be brought down to the station and await security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: "Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month."

We insisted that we had every right to leave and were going to do so. One of the policemen walked over with his hand on his gun and taunted: "Go ahead and leave, just go ahead."

We remained seated. Our IDs were taken, and brought to the officers with laptops. I was questioned over the fact that my license was out of state, and asked if I had "something to hide." The police continued to hassle the kitchen workers, demanding licenses and dates of birth. One of the kitchen workers was shaking hysterically and kept providing the day's date -- March 20, 2003, over and over.

As I continued to press for legal counsel, a female officer who had been busy typing on her laptop in the front of the restaurant, walked over and put her finger in my face. "We are at war, we are at war and this is for your safety," she exclaimed. As she walked away from the table, she continued to repeat it to herself? "We are at war, we are at war. How can they not understand this."

I most certainly understand that we are at war. I also understand that the freedoms afforded to all of us in the Constitution were meant specifically for times like these. Our freedoms were carved out during times of strife by people who were facing brutal injustices, and were intended specifically so that this nation would behave differently in such times. If our freedoms crumble exactly when they are needed most, then they were really never freedoms at all.

After an hour and a half the INS agent walked back over and handed Asher and me our licenses. A policeman took us by the arm and escorted us out of the building. Before stepping out to the street, the INS agent apologized. He explained, in a low voice, that they did not think the two of us were in the restaurant. Several of the other patrons, though of South Asian descent, were in fact U.S. citizens. There were four taxi drivers, two students, one newspaper salesman -- unwitting customers, just like Asher and me. I doubt, though, they received any apologies from the INS or the Department of Homeland Security.

Nor have the over 600 people of South Asian descent currently being held without charge by the Federal government. Apparently, this type of treatment is acceptable. One of the taxi drivers, a U.S. citizen, spoke to me during the interrogation. "Please stop talking to them," he urged. "I have been through this before. Please do whatever they say. Please for our sake."

Three days later I phoned the restaurant to discover what happened. The owner was nervous and embarrassed and obviously did not want to talk about it. But I managed to ascertain that the whole thing had been one giant mistake. A mistake. Loaded guns pointed in faces, people made to crawl on their hands and knees, police officers clearly exacerbating a tense situation by kicking in doors, taunting, keeping their fingers on the trigger even after the situation was under control. A mistake. And, according to the ACLU a perfectly legal one, thanks to the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act is just the first phase of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. From the Justice Department has emerged a draft of the Domestic Securities Enhancement Act, also known as Patriot II. Among other things, this act would allow the Justice Department to detain anyone, anytime, secretly and indefinitely. It would also make it a crime to reveal the identity or even existence of such a detainee.

Every American citizen, whether they support the current war or not, should be alarmed by the speed and facility with which these changes to our fundamental rights are taking place. And all of those who thought that these laws would never affect them, who thought that the Patriot Act only applied to the guilty, should heed this story as a wake-up call. Please learn from my experience. We are all vulnerable so speak out and organize, our Fourth Amendment rights depend upon it.

Link 1
Link 2
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
If you want your freedom protected, suuport the war against terrorism, AND, vote democrat in 2004. As long as red neck right wing jerks like asscroft are in power, this will continue to erode not only 4th ammendment but anything else that satisify's extreme right wing moralists.

I'm really sorry and embarassed that my country is doing this to people. There were laws and practices in place before 9/11 that would have satisified most any search and seazure arrest procedure. 9/11 created a real panic, and even lawmakers are vulnarable to misjudgements. This is a doozy. pat act II is extremely dangerous. We all need to see to it this does not pass, and make sure courts and legislators are called to task on this eroision of our rights.


VOTE IN 2004
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
PATRIOT II is coming, and it can only get worse!

I think maybe it's time to send free copies of 1984 and Brave New World to all our "elected" officials?
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
If you want your freedom protected, suuport the war against terrorism, AND, vote democrat in 2004.

Right. Because as we all know no democrat voted for passage of the the patriot act and as of right now the number one issue on the dem. agenda is getting it repealed.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Since our "respected" congressmen don't even bother to read the bills they pass, I don't expect them to have read Kafka's "The Trial".
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Let's see here who's the first person to try and discredit the source, the person, the story, liberals, democrats or make a jab at Clinton.

Extra points for those do all of the above! :D
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Let's see here who's the first person to try and discredit the source, the person, the story, liberals, democrats or make a jab at Clinton.

Extra points for those do all of the above! :D

Because of course someone who was on the receiving end of a police search is going to have all of the information regarding what transpired before, during and after such a search. He may be an effective writer and intelligent, but that does not mean in any way that he has the greatest perspective on what happened. He also is not privy to the information which produced the raid and therefore has a serious credibility gap in determining the merit/demerit of the raid.

What struck me most about his hysteria, well founded or not after having automatic weapons pointed at him, is this section: Among other things, this act would allow the Justice Department to detain anyone, anytime, secretly and indefinitely. It would also make it a crime to reveal the identity or even existence of such a detainee. That statement is out and out BS. Even if the provisions of Patriot II included that power, the bill is still a BILL and has yet to be debated in Congress let alone passed into law (everyone remembers the "I'm just a bill" animated edutainment short, right??). Even were it stupidly put into law as "anyone can be detained secretly and indefinitely", even the most conservative Supreme Court in existence would not allow that to stand. Even reading the ACLU interpretations/descriptions (which aren't the text -- is there a link to the draft itself? didn't see it), there's nothing which says what this author alleges.

What people also need to keep in mind is that there is no such thing as a perfect law. Never has been, never will be. Many of the issues which the ACLU raises are things that will be fleshed out in court, which is why we have the system we do. Since our legal heritage comes from common law, the judicial process after a law is passed is more important than the law itself in most cases. While I'm not saying there isn't room for abuse, let's not be hysterical about it and scream about Big Brother and the secret police even before the bill has been fully drafted and has reached Congress!
 

cpumaster

Senior member
Dec 10, 2000
708
0
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Let's see here who's the first person to try and discredit the source, the person, the story, liberals, democrats or make a jab at Clinton.

Extra points for those do all of the above! :D

Because of course someone who was on the receiving end of a police search is going to have all of the information regarding what transpired before, during and after such a search. He may be an effective writer and intelligent, but that does not mean in any way that he has the greatest perspective on what happened. He also is not privy to the information which produced the raid and therefore has a serious credibility gap in determining the merit/demerit of the raid.

What struck me most about his hysteria, well founded or not after having automatic weapons pointed at him, is this section: Among other things, this act would allow the Justice Department to detain anyone, anytime, secretly and indefinitely. It would also make it a crime to reveal the identity or even existence of such a detainee. That statement is out and out BS. Even if the provisions of Patriot II included that power, the bill is still a BILL and has yet to be debated in Congress let alone passed into law (everyone remembers the "I'm just a bill" animated edutainment short, right??). Even were it stupidly put into law as "anyone can be detained secretly and indefinitely", even the most conservative Supreme Court in existence would not allow that to stand. Even reading the ACLU interpretations/descriptions (which aren't the text -- is there a link to the draft itself? didn't see it), there's nothing which says what this author alleges.

What people also need to keep in mind is that there is no such thing as a perfect law. Never has been, never will be. Many of the issues which the ACLU raises are things that will be fleshed out in court, which is why we have the system we do. Since our legal heritage comes from common law, the judicial process after a law is passed is more important than the law itself in most cases. While I'm not saying there isn't room for abuse, let's not be hysterical about it and scream about Big Brother and the secret police even before the bill has been fully drafted and has reached Congress!

If the bill is indeed passed, while waiting for the Supreme Court to strike it down, which could take months or even years after challenge and appeals, some or many people could end up getting hurt or being detained illegally through all that time...
BTW, why pass a bill that everyone know will be striked down as unconstitutional anyway? Isn't that a waste of time and money?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
they wouldn't let you leave if they were busting up a party for suspected underage drinking either...
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
If the bill is indeed passed, while waiting for the Supreme Court to strike it down, which could take months or even years after challenge and appeals, some or many people could end up getting hurt or being detained illegally through all that time...
BTW, why pass a bill that everyone know will be striked down as unconstitutional anyway? Isn't that a waste of time and money?


A judgment of unconstitutionality can come from a low court, not just the Supreme Court. So, even the first person prosecuted for it could cause the chain leading to the SC and would stay out of the system in the meantime. For something so egregious, it's likely that the ACLU would directly petition the Supreme Court which could expedite the case and pass judgment quickly.

Yes, it's a waste of money to pass something so appallingly unconstitutional, which is why it will almost certainly not happen. Many Representatives and Senators are lawyers, and even the most staunchly Republican can see the problems with a blanket evisceration of the Constitution. Something more watered down could be passed, however, to essentially "test the waters" much as was done with Clinton's attempts to curb children's access to pornography on the Net which all failed.

As I wrote, laws are very often written poorly. That's usually unintentional because it's often nearly impossible to see the full impact that a law will have until it's actually being enforced in a variety of situations.
 

cpumaster

Senior member
Dec 10, 2000
708
0
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR

A judgment of unconstitutionality can come from a low court, not just the Supreme Court. So, even the first person prosecuted for it could cause the chain leading to the SC and would stay out of the system in the meantime. For something so egregious, it's likely that the ACLU would directly petition the Supreme Court which could expedite the case and pass judgment quickly.

Yes, it's a waste of money to pass something so appallingly unconstitutional, which is why it will almost certainly not happen. Many Representatives and Senators are lawyers, and even the most staunchly Republican can see the problems with a blanket evisceration of the Constitution. Something more watered down could be passed, however, to essentially "test the waters" much as was done with Clinton's attempts to curb children's access to pornography on the Net which all failed.

As I wrote, laws are very often written poorly. That's usually unintentional because it's often nearly impossible to see the full impact that a law will have until it's actually being enforced in a variety of situations.


yeah agreed, law sometimes are poorly written (and some are even conflicting with one another), case in point the Sodomy law in Texas.
It was recently challenged in the SC and when asked by one of the presiding judge about what harm does the law trying to prevent on the citizens, the Texas AG (defending) couldn't answer that question :)
he should have said our citizens' a$$ :)
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
If you want your freedom protected, suuport the war against terrorism, AND, vote democrat in 2004. As long as red neck right wing jerks like asscroft are in power, this will continue to erode not only 4th ammendment but anything else that satisify's extreme right wing moralists.

I'm really sorry and embarassed that my country is doing this to people. There were laws and practices in place before 9/11 that would have satisified most any search and seazure arrest procedure. 9/11 created a real panic, and even lawmakers are vulnarable to misjudgements. This is a doozy. pat act II is extremely dangerous. We all need to see to it this does not pass, and make sure courts and legislators are called to task on this eroision of our rights.


VOTE IN 2004

Agreed, however, we are not at war, there is no formal declaration of way by congress hence Haebeas Corpus cannot be suspended without a Constitutional ammendment, legislation does not supercede Constitutional guarantees. The president is not justified in this regard neither is he justified in creating that illigitimate agency of his (homeland security) I could go on for volumes speaking against the policies of this regime (err administration?) but no one offers any intelligent rebuttles any more so it really isn't any fun. And for those of you who think this type of security is necessary, have you ever done any study of life behind the iron curtain? If so you should easily be able to see the paralells, if not, do some research, it is your life that history is shaping. History DOES repeat itself.
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
they wouldn't let you leave if they were busting up a party for suspected underage drinking either...

Haha come on I know you have more insight than that. Don't think that because most of the people here cannot formulate clear and concise arguments you can drop that out and expect us to see paralells that aren't there. You know as well as I do that cops don't go busting in every door they think might have underage drinking, if the get a call, or see people stumbling around outside they go in, and determine if a crime has been committed, if not they go on their merry ways. This was different, they had no probably cause.
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
If you want your freedom protected, suuport the war against terrorism, AND, vote democrat in 2004. As long as red neck right wing jerks like asscroft are in power, this will continue to erode not only 4th ammendment but anything else that satisify's extreme right wing moralists.

I'm really sorry and embarassed that my country is doing this to people. There were laws and practices in place before 9/11 that would have satisified most any search and seazure arrest procedure. 9/11 created a real panic, and even lawmakers are vulnarable to misjudgements. This is a doozy. pat act II is extremely dangerous. We all need to see to it this does not pass, and make sure courts and legislators are called to task on this eroision of our rights.


VOTE IN 2004

Agreed, however, we are not at war, there is no formal declaration of way by congress hence Haebeas Corpus cannot be suspended without a Constitutional ammendment, legislation does not supercede Constitutional guarantees. The president is not justified in this regard neither is he justified in creating that illigitimate agency of his (homeland security) I could go on for volumes speaking against the policies of this regime (err administration?) but no one offers any intelligent rebuttles any more so it really isn't any fun. And for those of you who think this type of security is necessary, have you ever done any study of life behind the iron curtain? If so you should easily be able to see the paralells, if not, do some research, it is your life that history is shaping. History DOES repeat itself.

I couldn't have put it any better. Scary, scary times.
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,425
2
0
Gee, what a horrific story. Not. I have had all that and worse done to me by cops well before the Patriot Act was even dreamed of. Ooh, those bad, bad cops pointed their guns. Try being in the midst of a drug bust at the wrong house with the cops waving a legal warrant, pleasantries abound.
The author got it wrong, the first phase of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment was the war on drugs.
Yep, I agree to that wholeheartedly.
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: jjones
Gee, what a horrific story. Not. I have had all that and worse done to me by cops well before the Patriot Act was even dreamed of. Ooh, those bad, bad cops pointed their guns. Try being in the midst of a drug bust at the wrong house with the cops waving a legal warrant, pleasantries abound.
The author got it wrong, the first phase of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment was the war on drugs.
Yep, I agree to that wholeheartedly.

So the incompetance of our law enforcement makes it all ok? Just because they can't get it right, and have not been getting it right for a long time, is all the more reason why people should be against these laws. Of course the Patriot Act is not going to affect you if you're a white American living in suburbia, but there are a lot of people, including many American citizens who are going to go through a lot just because the color of their skin or their name. And I love the name, "Patriot Act", as though not supporting it would make you less of one. What $hit.
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,425
2
0
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: jjones
Gee, what a horrific story. Not. I have had all that and worse done to me by cops well before the Patriot Act was even dreamed of. Ooh, those bad, bad cops pointed their guns. Try being in the midst of a drug bust at the wrong house with the cops waving a legal warrant, pleasantries abound.
The author got it wrong, the first phase of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment was the war on drugs.
Yep, I agree to that wholeheartedly.

So the incompetance of our law enforcement makes it all ok? Just because they can't get it right, and have not been getting it right for a long time, is all the more reason why people should be against these laws. Of course the Patriot Act is not going to affect you if you're a white American living in suburbia, but there are a lot of people, including many American citizens who are going to go through a lot just because the color of their skin or their name. And I love the name, "Patriot Act", as though not supporting it would make you less of one. What $hit.
Where in my post did I say it was all okay? Nowhere. I'm just trying to show that the author, who feels this is some new and horrific incident only capable of happening under the Patriot Act, acts like a NY i love you who's had his sensitivity trampled. Crap like this has been going on for a long time and it's no great awakening just because of the Patriot Act. It's funny how no one seemed to complain much about the trampling of our fourth amendment rights when it's just the "dregs" of society that are getting trampled. Now its a horror story when it moves up a notch on society's ladder.

 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors.

I was along for the ride till I read this sentence...

I know a lot of police & not one of them, even the most gung-ho tool would do this, but it sure makes the story sound better...

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
This story sounds exaggerated to me. While it would be sad if this happened to innocent people, the fact is arab terrorists don't live in isolated hut houses in the middle of Montana. They live among the populace and blend easily with the local immigrants. This is a war on terrorism and things like this are bound to happen. Besides, I doubt and self-respecting politician, democrat or republican, would roll-back these laws, let alone relax them.
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors.

I was along for the ride till I read this sentence...

I know a lot of police & not one of them, even the most gung-ho tool would do this, but it sure makes the story sound better...

I see police officers, fingers on triggers, kicking open doors on Cops all the time, I don't see why that would sound far fetched.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors.

I was along for the ride till I read this sentence...

I know a lot of police & not one of them, even the most gung-ho tool would do this, but it sure makes the story sound better...

I see police officers, fingers on triggers, kicking open doors on Cops all the time, I don't see why that would sound far fetched.

Maybe TV cops...........

 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors.

I was along for the ride till I read this sentence...

I know a lot of police & not one of them, even the most gung-ho tool would do this, but it sure makes the story sound better...

I see police officers, fingers on triggers, kicking open doors on Cops all the time, I don't see why that would sound far fetched.

Maybe TV cops...........

Yeah, you know, the show COPS on TV where they follow real cops around. But like I said, that is my only source on the issue, so maybe it's wrong.