Bush's War against Civil Liberties

[pelastration]

The Son of Patriot Act Also Rises*

Quotes from: http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,63800,00.html?tw=newsletter_topstories_html

While activists and politicians work to repeal or change parts of the Patriot Act that they say violate constitutional rights, Patriot Act II legislation -- which caused a stir when it came to light last year -- is rearing its head again in a new bill making its way through Congress.

The bill would strengthen laws that let the FBI demand that businesses hand over confidential records about patrons by assigning stiff penalties (up to five years in prison) to anyone who discloses that the FBI made the demand. The bill would also let the FBI compel businesses to cooperate with record requests, and it would expand the government's secret surveillance powers over noncitizens in the United States.

"There is no reason for this legislation," said lawyer Chip Pitts, head of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee of Dallas and a former constitutional law professor. "Given the expanse of powers and secrecy already granted in the Patriot Act, and given the unclear security benefits and possible security detriments of that legislation, why do we need a further amendment of the law to grant more powers to the government?"
(snip)
... opponents say the bill grants the government more power to investigate people without probable cause and to do so under a cloak of secrecy. As a result, individuals being investigated will have no chance to protest unconstitutional searches and seizures.

Under the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II provisions passed in the Intelligence Authorization Act last year, the FBI doesn't need a court order or probable cause to obtain the transaction records for patrons of libraries, Internet service providers, telephone companies, casinos, travel agents, jewelers, car dealers or other businesses.

The FBI can simply draft a "national security letter" stating records are needed for a national security investigation, without being specific about the data being sought or the people being investigated. A nondisclosure provision prevents the letter recipient from telling anyone about it, including patrons whose records may be investigated.

Under HR 3179, anyone who knowingly violates the secrecy clause could be imprisoned for up to a year, and anyone who violates it with "the intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial proceeding" could be imprisoned up to five years. The bill also let's authorities force individuals and companies to comply with security letters under contempt-of-court threats.
(snip)
Steve Lilienthal, director of the Center for Privacy and Technology Policy at the conservative Free Congress Foundation, said the gag rule is "a license for abuse."

"You have the right to talk to an attorney, but the attorney cannot talk to anyone else," he said. "You're prevented from going to the Department of Justice to communicate, or to the relevant congressional community to tell them when an abuse has taken place. It's almost un-American."
(snip)

The American Civil Liberties Union recently discovered just how daunting the secrecy provisions can be when it was forced to file a lawsuit in secret that challenged the constitutionality of national security letters under the First Amendment. The organization was able to reveal the existence of the lawsuit only after negotiating with the government about what it could say about the suit.

The lawsuit was filed after the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request for information about how often and in what cases authorities have used national security letters to date, and the organization received six pages of blacked-out documents.

-----
So, that's all to protect freedom and democracy, and Amercian values!

 

[Adam]

http://www.progressive.org/webex/mcwatch.html

 

[pelastration]

Granting emergency power

The traditional way dictatures start: Granting emergency power.
A dangerous way.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-07/12/content_1592049.htm

WASHINGTON, July 11 (Xinhuanet) -- US officials have discussed the idea of postponing the election day, which falls on Nov. 2, in the event of a terrorist attack on or around that day, news reports here said Sunday.

** The Homeland Security Department has referred questions about the matter to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, a CNN report quoted Homeland Security spokesman Brian Roehrkasse as saying on Sunday.

** The department wants to know about the possibility of granting emergency power to the newly created US Election Assistance Commission, authority that Roehrkasse said was requested by
DeForest Soaries, the commission's chairman.

** Soaries, a former New Jersey secretary of state and appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote in April to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and national security adviser Condoleezza Riceasking them to seek such legislation from Congress, Roehrkasse said.

** "The federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election," Soaries wrote, according to a Newsweek report.

** Ridge's office has asked the Justice Department to review the letter and other proposals to determine how the election could legally be postponed, the magazine said.

** Roehrkasse said the recent discussions were sparked by intelligence indicating al Qaida wants to "disrupt our democratic process."

** At a news conference last Friday, Ridge said that al Qaeda "is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process," although he admitted US intelligence had no information about any specific plot.

** Officials were concerned that terrorists could attempt to disrupt the election in the same way that the March 11 train bombings in Madrid created unrest three days before the Spanish general election, Roehrkasse said.

** The US Constitution sets the election day for the first Tuesday of November

-----
If so ... an attack done by Americans (cfr the Oklahoma City bombing) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing could also disrupt the elections.

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "WASHINGTON, July 11 (Xinhuanet) -- US officials have discussed the idea of postponing the election day, which falls on Nov. 2, in the event of a terrorist attack on or around that day, news reports here said Sunday."

Actually, this is probably not a bad idea, since it would indicate to terrorists that attacks on election day would be guaranteed to fail. But there needs to be a limit on the length of time until the next election, say two weeks.

I think some of you take the terrorist threat pretty lightly. Unless we stop them first, they can do far more damage to our liberties than mere postponements of elections.

 

[wasteofo2]

RE: "WASHINGTON, July 11 (Xinhuanet) -- US officials have discussed the idea of postponing the election day, which falls on Nov. 2, in the event of a terrorist attack on or around that day, news reports here said Sunday."

Actually, this is probably not a bad idea, since it would indicate to terrorists that attacks on election day would be guaranteed to fail. But there needs to be a limit on the length of time until the next election, say two weeks.

I'm picturing the situation:

It's November 1, everyone's pretty much decided who they're going to vote for, no attacks on the USA since 9/11, people voting for Bush conclude that he's done a great job stopping terrorists and that he'll keep doing a good job. Suddenly, bam, huge terrorist attack. People begin to think that Bush hasn't done that good of a job protecting the USA, and decide the give Kerry a chance. But then, Bush says, elections will be held November 16. Do you honestly think people will begin to regain their trust in bush within 2 weeks of a major terrorist attack? I don't think many opinions will be changed in 2 weeks by commercials and speeches...

 

[member 5645]

I'm picturing the situation:

It's November 1, everyone's pretty much decided who they're going to vote for, no attacks on the USA since 9/11, people voting for Bush conclude that he's done a great job stopping terrorists and that he'll keep doing a good job. Suddenly, bam, huge terrorist attack. People begin to think that Bush hasn't done that good of a job protecting the USA, and decide the give Kerry a chance. But then, Bush says, elections will be held November 16. Do you honestly think people will begin to regain their trust in bush within 2 weeks of a major terrorist attack? I don't think many opinions will be changed in 2 weeks by commercials and speeches...

It's not a matter of people changing their mind. It's a matter of making sure elections are free and clear.
I would HOPE people don't change their minds in that two weeks.

 

[Entropy]

Patriot Act and Patriot Act II

Does anyone else see something wrong with these names? Like if you don't vote for these acts you're therefore not Patriotic or don't care about your country?

 

[pelastration]

Does anyone else see something wrong with these names? Like if you don't vote for these acts you're therefore not Patriotic or don't care about your country?

Good point. That's a hidden message ... don't refuse or critic or you are yourself a bad citizen.

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "It's not a matter of people changing their mind. It's a matter of making sure elections are free and clear."

I fail to see how a short postponement would harm the election process.

 

[pelastration]

I fail to see how a short postponement would harm the election process.

OK. A cynical question. Sorry for that but I consider politics today that way. Who would profit (election-wise) from a terrorist attack? Bush or Kerry?

IMO Bush. He would be again "the President", "the Leader", "the Chief-in-Command". Prime time. Strong words. The big brother ... that small people need. Asking for more power ... to protect US interests, to save US lives, to save US. Kerry will be sidelined, powerless. Bush is in charge.
Is the blue print ready yet? Yes, Pointing straight to Bin Laden. Even if a lunatic militia Veigh-type is involved. It will be Bin, Bin, Bin ... till the election date.

Before the truth is found out ... Bush is re-elected. Bingo. Cynical. And the crazy thing is that Bin prefers a Bush to be president. They need each other.

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "OK. A cynical question. Sorry for that but I consider politics today that way. Who would profit (election-wise) from a terrorist attack? Bush or Kerry? IMO Bush."

Are you kidding? One of the biggest claims he will be making going into the election is that his leadership has kept America safe, and he is going to piss that away? He is taking heat for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, and his main justification will be they have worked keeping our people safe, and you are seriously suggesting that a terrorist attack would help him?

A terrorist attack before the election would be considered a huge blow for Bush, especially since the media will again start pointing fingers and blaming the administration.

RE: "Before the truth is found out ... Bush is re-elected. Bingo. Cynical. And the crazy thing is that Bin prefers a Bush to be president."

You know this for a fact? You have asked him?

A Kerry win is a victory for bin Laden. After all, this whole war has been cast by many as Bush versus bin Laden.

Now, that is NOT a good reason to vote for Bush, so I am not making that claim. A person can vote for Kerry with clear conscious.

 

[selfAdjoint]

John, all your arguments show that Bush would lose the AI vote if there were a terrorist attack on election day. But I keep repeating, people aren't logical, people are tribal. And the tribal response to an attack is "The tribe is attacked! Support the chief!"

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "John, all your arguments show that Bush would lose the AI vote if there were a terrorist attack on election day. But I keep repeating, people aren't logical, people are tribal. And the tribal response to an attack is "The tribe is attacked! Support the chief!"

People don't do that when they are assaulted. Instead, they complain about the police -- how they worry too much about writing tickets and not fighting the real criminals. How they fall asleep at the switch.

And they will levy their criticism at Bush. Already he is being blamed for 9-11.

If terrorists attack, stocks will take a tumble. Do you really think that will help Bush? Maybe you do, but you can bet that Bush isn't counting on it.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

I tend to agree with SelfAdjoint. I don't think the American people would want an administration change in the middle of a major crisis. How long do you think it would take a Kerry administration to be up an running with any efficiency.

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "How long do you think it would take a Kerry administration to be up an running with any efficiency."

Probably never. :)

 

[Robert Zaleski]

RE: "How long do you think it would take a Kerry administration to be up an running with any efficiency."

Probably never. :)

Yowzaa! Give 'Dubya' a cigar!

 

[amp]

Bush supporters?!? Bush is probably hoping for an attack so he can complete his overthrow of the constitution and declare himself emperor.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Yes, amp has revealed the secret plot. :uhh:

 

[amp]

da da daaa dummm...

 

[Dissident Dan]

RE: "How long do you think it would take a Kerry administration to be up an running with any efficiency."

Probably never. :)

The only thing that this administration is efficient at is screwing up everything it gets its hands in...healthcare, international relations, the environment, consitutional protections, budget, you name it.

------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears worse than I ever could have thought. They really do want to make him emporer, apparently:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/

Newsweek said the discussions about whether the November 2 election could be postponed started with a recent letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge from DeForest Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The commission was set up after the disputed 2000 presidential vote to help states deal with logistical problems in their elections.

Soaries, who was appointed by President Bush, is a former New Jersey secretary of state and senior pastor of the 7,000-member First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset.

 

[JohnDubYa]

The only thing that this administration is efficient at is screwing up everything it gets its hands in...healthcare, international relations, the environment, consitutional protections, budget, you name it.

So I take it you didn't appreciate my joke. I thought it was funny.

It appears worse than I ever could have thought. They really do want to make him emporer, apparently:

All this over an election postponement that isn't even guaranteed to work in his favor. I think the word "hysteria" comes to mind.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Even during the Civil War, elections weren't postponed. Such a thing would be revolutionary. (Haha, and they say that they are conservative?) I view it as one more attempt to subvert democracy. I do not put it below them. I do not believe that they share democratic values with us. I do not believe that they care whatsoever about truth or decency.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Even during the Civil War, elections weren't postponed.

I don't recall Rebel forces threatening to disrupt the election process by planning terrorist strikes against the civilian population of the North.

The purpose of the postponement is to serve notice that elections will take place, regardless of whether or not terrorists strike. It is designed to keep the election process running smoothly.

I view it as one more attempt to subvert democracy. I do not put it below them. I do not believe that they share democratic values with us. I do not believe that they care whatsoever about truth or decency.

Well, they probably feel the same way about you. :)

But seriously though, how would postponing the election by (say) two weeks subvert the democratic process? Explain how this changes anything.

 

[Adam]

I don't recall Rebel forces threatening to disrupt the election process by planning terrorist strikes against the civilian population of the North.

You mean forces like that entire army that wanted to crush the other side? You really think there were no attacks against civilians during that conflict?

 

[Prometheus]

I don't recall Rebel forces threatening to disrupt the election process by planning terrorist strikes against the civilian population of the North.

I don't have any credible evidence that terrorists are threatening to disrupt the election process this time. Beyond the threats, I find it difficutl to believe that they could disrupt more than a single city. Of course, terrorism on an election day would not bode well for the Republican party, so a delay would be in their best interests, so they could spin the response.

The purpose of the postponement is to serve notice that elections will take place, regardless of whether or not terrorists strike. It is designed to keep the election process running smoothly.

I disagree. The purpose of the postponement is to give Reublicans a chance to recover. Notice the devastating effect that the Spanish attack had on the elections for the warmongers. It is designed to protect the warmongers.

But seriously though, how would postponing the election by (say) two weeks subvert the democratic process? Explain how this changes anything.

OK. The Bushies are using fear as a primary tool to control the electorate. Fear enables them to control large amounts of people, and to steer them away from rational analysis of the major mistakes that Bush has made. Postponing the election would guide people to the idea that this fear is truly justified, and therefore that they had better stick with a go get em attitude like Bush. Therefore, the threat of an attack promoted by the white house, together with the threat that it may cause the elections to be delayed, is sufficient to raise this fear to a great level, which is of sufficient value even if such eventuality does not take place. If it does take place, then a delay in the election would give Bush an opportunity to stress his war speech on a fearful populace, and time would be a distinct advantage for him. Either way, this typical (for him) scare tactic is a potent tool.

How can you claim that delaying the election would not change anything at all of importance?

 

[Dissident Dan]

The purpose of the postponement is to serve notice that elections will take place, regardless of whether or not terrorists strike. It is designed to keep the election process running smoothly.

Firstly, delaying the elections after a terrorist attack would only encourage them by showing them that they have power.

But seriously though, how would postponing the election by (say) two weeks subvert the democratic process? Explain how this changes anything.

Well, they get people used to the idea of elections being delayed and otherwise monkeyed with. Then, they probably hope, they can eventually turn elections into a farce (which the 2000 election was) or not have them at all.

The proposal would place control of the elections in the hands of one man, the Election Assistance Commission chairman.

This administration has a steady histor of saying, "give up your civil liberties and rights and dissent, and trust me to take care of you in these oh-so-dangerous times."

There would be no reason to think that we would need a national postponement. Individual States can already make postponements. Terrorists are not going to attack all the major cities. They just don't have the capability.

 

[JohnDubYa]

You mean forces like that entire army that wanted to crush the other side? You really think there were no attacks against civilians during that conflict?

Yes, there was John Brown's massacre of SOUTHERN civilians. But that had nothing to do with elections, and not even close to what could happen here.

I don't have any credible evidence that terrorists are threatening to disrupt the election process this time. Beyond the threats, I find it difficutl to believe that they could disrupt more than a single city. Of course, terrorism on an election day would not bode well for the Republican party, so a delay would be in their best interests, so they could spin the response.

It also gives the Democrats time to point the finger at careless Republican policies and security. The media will help that process along.

I disagree. The purpose of the postponement is to give Reublicans a chance to recover. Notice the devastating effect that the Spanish attack had on the elections for the warmongers. It is designed to protect the warmongers.

And you have evidence that a Spanish postponement of elections would necessarily have helped the "warmongers"?

OK. The Bushies are using fear as a primary tool to control the electorate. Fear enables them to control large amounts of people, and to steer them away from rational analysis of the major mistakes that Bush has made. Postponing the election would guide people to the idea that this fear is truly justified, and therefore that they had better stick with a go get em attitude like Bush.

So the terrorist attacks themselves would instill little fear, it is the postponement of the election that would scare the Hell out of people.

Suppose terrorists blew up Hoover dam, flooding the Imperial Valley and killing thousands of people. That alone wouldn't justify anyone's fears?

Therefore, the threat of an attack promoted by the white house, together with the threat that it may cause the elections to be delayed, is sufficient to raise this fear to a great level, which is of sufficient value even if such eventuality does not take place.

I very much fear a terrorist attack. I don't fear an election delay postponement. So how does this work again?

If it does take place, then a delay in the election would give Bush an opportunity to stress his war speech on a fearful populace, and time would be a distinct advantage for him. Either way, this typical (for him) scare tactic is a potent tool.

You talk as if the terrorist threat is purely imaginary, as if we are afraid of nothing. Terrorists are not monsters in the closet. They are very real and are definitely trying to produce as much mayhem in this country as possible. Didn't you see the towers fall? Didn't you see the Pentagon after they rammed an airplane into it? How can you say that the terrorist threat is overplayed when they have already demonstrated to us what they can do?

We have to pull out the stops to prevent them from doing it again. Pretending that there is no threat and this is all a big play by Bush to scare people is ludicrous.

How can you claim that delaying the election would not change anything at all of importance?

The Bush haters have an inconsistency in their argument:

They say that delaying the election would show terrorists that the terrorists have power.

But if you don't delay the election, they acknowledge that a terrorist strike would hurt Bush tremendously, and that he would need a postponement to regain popularity.

So by their logic, not delaying the election would also demonstrate that terrorists have power, because they could effectively force a President to lose an election.

How do you explain this inconsistency?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Firstly, delaying the elections after a terrorist attack would only encourage them by showing them that they have power.

If you don't postpone the elections and the terrorist attack topples Bush' popularity, thus causing him to lose the election, that wouldn't demonstrate to terrorists that they have tremendous power? Do you really believe that?

 

[JohnDubYa]

There would be no reason to think that we would need a national postponement. Individual States can already make postponements. Terrorists are not going to attack all the major cities. They just don't have the capability.

Before 9/11, would you have said they have the capability of completely bringing down both world trade centers and destrying part of the Pentagon on a single afternoon? (And they came very close to destroying part of the White House.)

I wouldn't have thought so.

But terrorists don't have to stop the election process, only influence it. If they could pull off a terrorist strike near election day, they could cause Bush to lose support and the Presidency. Would this not influence our elections?

 

[NateTG]

This is Stupid

Under the constitution, the federal government is allowed to do the following regarding elections:
Create and enforce laws to insure that women are not denied the right to vote because they are women.
Create and enforce laws to insure that people are not denied the right to vote because of a poll tax, or similar requirement.
Create and enforce laws to insure that people are not denied the right to vote because of race or religeon.

Each of those three has an explicit sentence in the Amendment that grants it. Unde the constituition, the federal government does not have legislative jurisdiction sufficient to legally delay voting taking place in the states. Notably, under federal law, it is entirely legal for electors, or other federal representatives, to be appointed instead of elected, or even selected by lot. The election process is determined by the states (typically by state constitutions).

Hence, it is the state's responsibility, and authority, to deal with election problems, and, in fact, the Democratic primary scheduled to take place on 9/11/2001 in New York was delayed by the state's election board. Similarly, the states will individually decide how to react to any particular terrorist attack, or terrorist threat.

In more general, this is part of the general method of operation of this administration which involves the enlargement of federal power, secrecy, and newspeak, and is extremely alarming because, the jurisdictional power grab has been largely ignored in the media, and the public dicourse.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Under the constituition, the federal government does not have legislative jurisdiction sufficient to legally delay voting taking place in the states.

But I think the argument is that a terrorist attack constitutes an emergency situation involving national security.

I guess the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the issue.

 

[Prometheus]

I guess the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the election.

Again. I hope not.

 

[pelastration]

But I think the argument is that a terrorist attack constitutes an emergency situation involving national security.

1. And the question remains : When is an attack (a violent event?) a terrorist attack? Is it the size of the event, the number of victims, the symbolic place ... ?

2. In the Madrid train blow the Spanish PM was pointing straight to ETA (that was the Bask organization he was fighting against all the time). Similar Bush would point to Bin Laden, his 'natural' enemy.
After two days the Spanish media started to point to Al Quada. The Spanish PM didn't like that because of his sending troops to Iraq. He preferred it was ETA. If the findings would not have been that fast the Spanish PM would have won, now he lost.

 

[JohnDubYa]

1. And the question remains : When is an attack (a violent event?) a terrorist attack? Is it the size of the event, the number of victims, the symbolic place ... ?

I don't know. I guess someone will have to define it.

2. In the Madrid train blow the Spanish PM was pointing straight to ETA (that was the Bask organization he was fighting against all the time). Similar Bush would point to Bin Laden, his 'natural' enemy.
After two days the Spanish media started to point to Al Quada. The Spanish PM didn't like that because of his sending troops to Iraq. He preferred it was ETA. If the findings would not have been that fast the Spanish PM would have won, now he lost.

So in this case, an election postponement would have hurt the incumbent, right? The Spanish, like the US, sent troops to Iraq. When AL Quada bombed Spain, it hurt the incumbent government when the election was not held right away. So a similar delay would hurt Bush, right? Or how does this theory go?

 

[pelastration]

So a similar delay would hurt Bush, right? Or how does this theory go?

It's a spinning dime. What side will it fall?
If it's Al Quada or seems to be them Bush can have advantage or not. Some posters here said it would hurt him, but I am nor sure. Bush propaganda machine would try to monopolize the media and point to failed security of CIA & al. and would ask more powers. Probably Bush will be (s)elected again.
If it's not Bin Laden - but a Veigh-like US militia or Black Panther type group - the results of the investigation would be kept secret as long as possible by the Bush Administration till the elections are done.