Was Ashcroft acting under the Patriot Act or under his normal powers?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Shades of German history in US
- Thread starter prophecynut
- Start date
The Justice Department isn’t the only agency taking aim at American liberties. The Department of Transportation has compiled secret “no fly” lists of passengers suspected of terrorist ties—or at least those critical of the administration. In one instance, two dozen members of a peace group, students chaperoned by a priest and nun, were detained en route to a teach-in thus missing their flight.
Source: The American Conservative
Chuck Baldwin himself was detained at an airport in Texas during his campaign because he showed up on the “no fly” list. They have even been detaing families with infants whose names match the names on the “no fly” list.
Who will be the target of the Patriot Act after Bush is done with his Middle East nation building experiments? Who will Hillary Clinton use the Patriot Act against if she gets elected? Who will the Antichrist use the Patriot Act against when he comes to power?
Source: The American Conservative
Chuck Baldwin himself was detained at an airport in Texas during his campaign because he showed up on the “no fly” list. They have even been detaing families with infants whose names match the names on the “no fly” list.
Who will be the target of the Patriot Act after Bush is done with his Middle East nation building experiments? Who will Hillary Clinton use the Patriot Act against if she gets elected? Who will the Antichrist use the Patriot Act against when he comes to power?
U.S. soldiers are to be used to take care of business with regards to our enemies, not those of Israel. </font>[/QUOTE]Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Our defending Israel is just about the only reason Gods blessings are bestowed upon our wicked nation.
Your source is 2003 and it does not explicitly say that Ashcroft did not have that power before. I would like to see documentation that such power stemmed for the Patriot Act because I read that there were only 30 cases where it was used in the first years. The major power is the right to detain a terrorist.
Here is what FrontPage noted:
Owing to its complexity, there is a plethora of misinformation and hysteria surrounding the Patriot Act, particularly by Democrats who fear their civil liberties are being stripped away by evil Republicans. The problem is, the House passed it with a vote of 357-66, and it flew through the Senate with a vote of 98 to 1. Either both Republicans and Democrats suddenly stopped caring about civil liberties, or the bill isn’t all that bad.
And also:
Regarding the detention of non-citizens, the U.S. Constitution allows the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus during times of war. The writ of habeas corpus gives a prisoner the right to appear in court. During the Civil War and World Wars I and II, the government suspended the writ and detained people it viewed as threats to national security. According to Cass Sunstein, professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, "By the standards of current law, some of the things Bush has done are aggressive, but they are not out of line – and they’re pretty cautious by historical standards."
Here is what FrontPage noted:
Owing to its complexity, there is a plethora of misinformation and hysteria surrounding the Patriot Act, particularly by Democrats who fear their civil liberties are being stripped away by evil Republicans. The problem is, the House passed it with a vote of 357-66, and it flew through the Senate with a vote of 98 to 1. Either both Republicans and Democrats suddenly stopped caring about civil liberties, or the bill isn’t all that bad.
And also:
Regarding the detention of non-citizens, the U.S. Constitution allows the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus during times of war. The writ of habeas corpus gives a prisoner the right to appear in court. During the Civil War and World Wars I and II, the government suspended the writ and detained people it viewed as threats to national security. According to Cass Sunstein, professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, "By the standards of current law, some of the things Bush has done are aggressive, but they are not out of line – and they’re pretty cautious by historical standards."
Section 215 of The Patriot Act modifies the rules on records searches. Post-Patriot Act, third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it's trying to protect against terrorism.
Previously the government needed at least a warrant and probable cause to access private records. The Fourth Amendment, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and case law provided that if the state wished to search you, it needed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed and to obtain a warrant from a neutral judge. Under FISA—the 1978 act authorizing warrantless surveillance so long as the primary purpose was to obtain foreign intelligence information—that was somewhat eroded, but there remained judicial oversight. And under FISA, records could be sought only "for purposes of conducting foreign intelligence" and the target "linked to foreign espionage" and an "agent of a foreign power." Now the FBI needs only to certify to a FISA judge—(no need for evidence or probable cause) that the search protects against terrorism. The judge has no authority to reject this application. DOJ calls this "seeking a court order," but it's much closer to a rubber stamp. Also, now the target of a search needn't be a terror suspect herself, so long as the government's purpose is "an authorized investigation ... to protect against international terrorism."
Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/
Previously the government needed at least a warrant and probable cause to access private records. The Fourth Amendment, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and case law provided that if the state wished to search you, it needed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed and to obtain a warrant from a neutral judge. Under FISA—the 1978 act authorizing warrantless surveillance so long as the primary purpose was to obtain foreign intelligence information—that was somewhat eroded, but there remained judicial oversight. And under FISA, records could be sought only "for purposes of conducting foreign intelligence" and the target "linked to foreign espionage" and an "agent of a foreign power." Now the FBI needs only to certify to a FISA judge—(no need for evidence or probable cause) that the search protects against terrorism. The judge has no authority to reject this application. DOJ calls this "seeking a court order," but it's much closer to a rubber stamp. Also, now the target of a search needn't be a terror suspect herself, so long as the government's purpose is "an authorized investigation ... to protect against international terrorism."
Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/
Bluefalcon
Member
Precisely. "And if Christians are like Pat Robertson, let's have open season on all Christians and lock up these weirdos, because they're absolutely destroying our precious Republic!" One day it will happen, and it will largely be our own fault!
Cheers, Bluefalcon
Section 213 is another extremely controversial part of the Patriot Act, engendering protest from across the political spectrum. By allowing the state to rummage first and let you know later (sometimes much later), the act upends the traditional requirement that the state advise you in advance that you are being searched.
What it does: "Sneak and Peek" warrants extend sneak-and-peek authority from FISA searches to any criminal search. This allows for secret searches of your home and property without prior notice.
The law before and how it changed: Police used to have to "knock and announce" their intention of searching before executing any warrant. This gave the person being searched advance notice and a clear picture of what authorities were looking for. In 1978 FISA changed the law, allowing the FISA court to authorize sneak-and-peek warrants but only in cases where "foreign powers or their agents" were suspected of terrorism. The Patriot Act expands the use of these warrants if "immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result." Under Patriot, such warrants are no longer limited to terrorism investigations but now extend to include any criminal investigation at all. Moreover, the act requires only that notice be given of the search or wiretap "within a reasonable period of its execution," which may be extended by the court for "good cause shown."
How it's been implemented: The Department of Justice reported to the House Judiciary committee in May that it had "requested a judicial order delaying notice of the execution of a warrant under section 213 forty-seven times, and the courts have granted every request." Courts can also permit seizure of tangible property if there's "reasonable necessity" for doing so; they've granted seizure requests on 14 occasions and rejected only one request, ruling that "photos of the relevant items would be sufficient."
The delays in notification have been of varying durations, some as short as one day, some as long as 90. The DOJ can request extensions of these periods repeatedly and indefinitely, and it has so far done so 248 times. Some courts have also "permitted delays of unspecified duration lasting until the indictment was unsealed," according to the DOJ's report.
Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088106/
What it does: "Sneak and Peek" warrants extend sneak-and-peek authority from FISA searches to any criminal search. This allows for secret searches of your home and property without prior notice.
The law before and how it changed: Police used to have to "knock and announce" their intention of searching before executing any warrant. This gave the person being searched advance notice and a clear picture of what authorities were looking for. In 1978 FISA changed the law, allowing the FISA court to authorize sneak-and-peek warrants but only in cases where "foreign powers or their agents" were suspected of terrorism. The Patriot Act expands the use of these warrants if "immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result." Under Patriot, such warrants are no longer limited to terrorism investigations but now extend to include any criminal investigation at all. Moreover, the act requires only that notice be given of the search or wiretap "within a reasonable period of its execution," which may be extended by the court for "good cause shown."
How it's been implemented: The Department of Justice reported to the House Judiciary committee in May that it had "requested a judicial order delaying notice of the execution of a warrant under section 213 forty-seven times, and the courts have granted every request." Courts can also permit seizure of tangible property if there's "reasonable necessity" for doing so; they've granted seizure requests on 14 occasions and rejected only one request, ruling that "photos of the relevant items would be sufficient."
The delays in notification have been of varying durations, some as short as one day, some as long as 90. The DOJ can request extensions of these periods repeatedly and indefinitely, and it has so far done so 248 times. Some courts have also "permitted delays of unspecified duration lasting until the indictment was unsealed," according to the DOJ's report.
Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088106/
Section 206 authorizes roving wiretaps: taps specific to no single phone or computer but to every phone or computer the target may use. It doesn't get as much attention as it should. If the government decides to tap a computer at the UCLA library, every communication by every user can theoretically be intercepted.
What it does: Expands FISA to permit surveillance of any communications made to or by an intelligence target without specifying the particular phone line or computer to be monitored.
The law before and how it changed: Taps were formerly applicable only to specific phones. Under Patriot, the FISA court can authorize taps or intercepts on any phones or computers that the target may use. The foreign intelligence authorities can require anyone to help them wiretap. Previously, they could only serve such orders on common carriers, landlords, or other specified persons. Along with Section 220, which allows a judge to authorize national wiretaps rather than ones limited to her jurisdiction, this severely undercuts a judge's ability to monitor whether taps are being used appropriately and erodes the "particularity" requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088161/
What it does: Expands FISA to permit surveillance of any communications made to or by an intelligence target without specifying the particular phone line or computer to be monitored.
The law before and how it changed: Taps were formerly applicable only to specific phones. Under Patriot, the FISA court can authorize taps or intercepts on any phones or computers that the target may use. The foreign intelligence authorities can require anyone to help them wiretap. Previously, they could only serve such orders on common carriers, landlords, or other specified persons. Along with Section 220, which allows a judge to authorize national wiretaps rather than ones limited to her jurisdiction, this severely undercuts a judge's ability to monitor whether taps are being used appropriately and erodes the "particularity" requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088161/
Section 505, aka "National Insecurity-Complex Letters"
This section authorizes the attorney general or a delegate to compel holders of your personal records to turn them over to the government, simply by writing a "national security" letter. Section 505 has garnered a lot less national attention than Section 215—the library records section of the act—which may be why it is invoked a lot more often.
What it does: Section 505 authorizes the use of what's essentially an administrative subpoena of personal records. The subpoenas require no probable cause or judicial oversight.
The law before and how it changed: Before Patriot, these letters could only be issued against individuals who were reasonably suspected of espionage. But Patriot loosened the standard by allowing the letters to be used against anyone, including U.S. citizens, even if they themselves are not suspected of espionage or criminal activity. These letters may now be issued independently by FBI field offices, rather than by senior officials. And unlike Section 215 warrants, they are not subject to even perfunctory judicial review or oversight.
The records that can be obtained through the letters under Patriot include telephone logs, e-mail logs, certain financial and bank records, and credit reports, on the assertion that such information would be "relevant" to an ongoing terrorism investigation. They cannot be used in ordinary criminal investigations. Unlike 215, no court order—not even a rubber-stamped order—is required. Those forced to turn over records are gagged from disclosing the demand.
How it's been implemented: According to documents turned over to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of their FOIA lawsuit, the FBI issued enough national security letters since October 2001 to fill more than five pages of logs. What precisely those letters compelled is unknowable, since virtually every page of those logs were blacked out, ostensibly for security reasons. The government has refused to provide further information on how the letters were used.
Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088239/
This section authorizes the attorney general or a delegate to compel holders of your personal records to turn them over to the government, simply by writing a "national security" letter. Section 505 has garnered a lot less national attention than Section 215—the library records section of the act—which may be why it is invoked a lot more often.
What it does: Section 505 authorizes the use of what's essentially an administrative subpoena of personal records. The subpoenas require no probable cause or judicial oversight.
The law before and how it changed: Before Patriot, these letters could only be issued against individuals who were reasonably suspected of espionage. But Patriot loosened the standard by allowing the letters to be used against anyone, including U.S. citizens, even if they themselves are not suspected of espionage or criminal activity. These letters may now be issued independently by FBI field offices, rather than by senior officials. And unlike Section 215 warrants, they are not subject to even perfunctory judicial review or oversight.
The records that can be obtained through the letters under Patriot include telephone logs, e-mail logs, certain financial and bank records, and credit reports, on the assertion that such information would be "relevant" to an ongoing terrorism investigation. They cannot be used in ordinary criminal investigations. Unlike 215, no court order—not even a rubber-stamped order—is required. Those forced to turn over records are gagged from disclosing the demand.
How it's been implemented: According to documents turned over to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of their FOIA lawsuit, the FBI issued enough national security letters since October 2001 to fill more than five pages of logs. What precisely those letters compelled is unknowable, since virtually every page of those logs were blacked out, ostensibly for security reasons. The government has refused to provide further information on how the letters were used.
Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088239/
Section 802, aka "Tree-Hugging Terrorists"
This section has received a lot of attention and is almost single-handedly responsible for alienating right-wing groups like the Eagle Forum, as well as fundamentalist Christians across the land. Why? Because it creates a new crime and could, critics say, be used someday to prosecute Operation Rescue protesters.
What it does: Section 802 creates a category of crime called "domestic terrorism," penalizing activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States," if the actor's intent is to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."
The law before and how it changed: There was no law like this before.
How it's been implemented: The ACLU has conceded that despite the scary hypothetical applications, it knows of no abortion protester or environmental activist who has been prosecuted under the law.
Would you know if Section 802 had been used on you: You'd likely figure it out right quick as they were hauling you away in handcuffs.
Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088239/
This section has received a lot of attention and is almost single-handedly responsible for alienating right-wing groups like the Eagle Forum, as well as fundamentalist Christians across the land. Why? Because it creates a new crime and could, critics say, be used someday to prosecute Operation Rescue protesters.
What it does: Section 802 creates a category of crime called "domestic terrorism," penalizing activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States," if the actor's intent is to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."
The law before and how it changed: There was no law like this before.
How it's been implemented: The ACLU has conceded that despite the scary hypothetical applications, it knows of no abortion protester or environmental activist who has been prosecuted under the law.
Would you know if Section 802 had been used on you: You'd likely figure it out right quick as they were hauling you away in handcuffs.
Source: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088239/
DOJ Myth: Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act can only be used to obtain “business records.”
Reality: The FBI can use Section 215 to demand “any tangible thing,” including books, letters, diaries, library records, medical and psychiatric records, financial information, membership lists of religious institutions, and even -- as Attorney General Ashcroft himself conceded in testimony before Congress -- genetic information.
DOJ Myth: Before the Patriot Act, “the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists.”
Reality: The FBI has always had the authority to wiretap terrorists, both under the ordinary criminal laws and under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
DOJ Myth: The “sneak-and-peek” provision (Section 213) is necessary to allow the FBI to conduct investigations “without tipping off terrorists.”
Reality: The FBI already had the authority to conduct “sneak-and-peek” searches of terrorists. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FBI is empowered to conduct sneak-and-peek searches in intelligence investigations involving foreign powers and their agents. A “foreign power” includes any group “engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor.” Section 213 authorizes sneak-and-peek searches in run-of-the-mill criminal investigations, not just in foreign-intelligence investigations involving terrorists.
DOJ Myth: The PATRIOT Act “provided for only modest, incremental changes in the law.”
Reality: The PATRIOT Act made dozens of significant changes to the law, including a handful that are truly radical.
For more details on how the PATRIOT Act undermines the constitutional rights of everyone living in the United States, go to http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/
Reality: The FBI can use Section 215 to demand “any tangible thing,” including books, letters, diaries, library records, medical and psychiatric records, financial information, membership lists of religious institutions, and even -- as Attorney General Ashcroft himself conceded in testimony before Congress -- genetic information.
DOJ Myth: Before the Patriot Act, “the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists.”
Reality: The FBI has always had the authority to wiretap terrorists, both under the ordinary criminal laws and under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
DOJ Myth: The “sneak-and-peek” provision (Section 213) is necessary to allow the FBI to conduct investigations “without tipping off terrorists.”
Reality: The FBI already had the authority to conduct “sneak-and-peek” searches of terrorists. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FBI is empowered to conduct sneak-and-peek searches in intelligence investigations involving foreign powers and their agents. A “foreign power” includes any group “engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor.” Section 213 authorizes sneak-and-peek searches in run-of-the-mill criminal investigations, not just in foreign-intelligence investigations involving terrorists.
DOJ Myth: The PATRIOT Act “provided for only modest, incremental changes in the law.”
Reality: The PATRIOT Act made dozens of significant changes to the law, including a handful that are truly radical.
For more details on how the PATRIOT Act undermines the constitutional rights of everyone living in the United States, go to http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/
He was acting under the Patriot Act which allows the feds to search any home or business and wait up to 72 hours before requesting a search warrant or notifying the owner of said home or buisness about the search.
That is a violation of the US Constitution! </font>[/QUOTE]You are unable to document this and you have resorted to quoting the ACLU so you have joined the looney left, haven't you?
He was acting under the Patriot Act which allows the feds to search any home or business and wait up to 72 hours before requesting a search warrant or notifying the owner of said home or buisness about the search.
That is a violation of the US Constitution! </font>[/QUOTE]You are unable to document this and you have resorted to quoting the ACLU so you have joined the looney left, haven't you? </font>[/QUOTE]Read my posts, Section 213 allows "Sneak and Peek" warrants that allows for secret searches of your home and property without prior notice. The delays in notification have been of varying durations, some as short as one day, some as long as 90. The DOJ can request extensions of these periods repeatedly and indefinitely, and it has so far done so 248 times. Some courts have also "permitted delays of unspecified duration lasting until the indictment was unsealed," according to the DOJ's report.
That's not from the ACLU, but from the Patriot Act! Just because I don't like the ACLU doesn't mean that they are not right every once in a while.
Sorry, Grubbs, but you are sounding like Jimmy Carter!!!
You have never answered which powers Ashcroft was acting under in the specific cases that you first cited. Since neither one of us is an attorney and since you have only a couple of sentences of posting, we really don't know if the specific cases first mentioned were done under normal powers or under the Patriot Act--because you cannot answer to those particular cases and because I have read that the Patriot Act only involved 30 cases, which I am still looking for again although I posted it here once, I have to reject your statement as unfounded. Also, I think that the ACLU is a bag of lies in spite of what Jimmy Carter and you think.
You have never answered which powers Ashcroft was acting under in the specific cases that you first cited. Since neither one of us is an attorney and since you have only a couple of sentences of posting, we really don't know if the specific cases first mentioned were done under normal powers or under the Patriot Act--because you cannot answer to those particular cases and because I have read that the Patriot Act only involved 30 cases, which I am still looking for again although I posted it here once, I have to reject your statement as unfounded. Also, I think that the ACLU is a bag of lies in spite of what Jimmy Carter and you think.