If Patriot II is enacted we have kissed the Constitution goodbye

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20030310-074202-1742r

WASHINGTON, March 10 (UPI) -- Think tank experts are concerned about
indications that the administration of President George W. Bush wants
to broaden government powers of domestic intelligence gathering,
surveillance, and prosecution beyond the expanded powers granted last
year by the USA Patriot Act.

Their worries about further restrictions being placed on
constitutionally guaranteed rights in the name of national security
were sparked by a draft bill leaked from the Justice Department last
month, which detailed plans for a bold and sweeping expansion of the
controversial law signed into law in the aftermath of the Sept. 11,
2001, terrorist attacks.

"I am appalled by the draft," Robert Higgs, a senior fellow in
political economy at the Independent Institute told United Press
International.

"I thought the Patriot Act was atrocious, and adding to it only makes
the situation worse," he said. "It (the draft legislation) is the
potential embodiment in law of a thorough, ongoing police state
apparatus."

The USA Patriot Act gave federal law enforcement officials much
broader authority to conduct electronic surveillance and wiretaps,
and tightened federal oversight of financial and banking activities.
Among the law's many provisions were changes to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act that allow the FBI to share information
gathered in terror investigations with local law enforcement -- a
reversal of decades of practice.
[knip]

Although Attorney General John Ashcroft said last week that a final
bill has not been developed, the very existence of the Patriot Act II
draft has raised red flags. The most contentious provisions in the
draft would allow the government to collect DNA from suspected
terrorists or other individuals involved in terror investigations,
and the power to revoke the citizenship of, and deport, naturalized
citizens suspected of terror activities or of providing "material
support" to terrorist groups.

Higgs said the denaturalization and deportation provisions are the
most egregious components of the draft because they would allow the
removal of citizenship without the individual being convicted of a
crime, and under terms so broad that almost anything could be defined
as an applicable offense.

"In my mind, if that doesn't absolutely epitomize totalitarianism I
would like to what does," said Higgs. "They can categorize the most
innocent action -- from signing a petition or making a chartable
contribution -- as an act of terrorism."

Timothy Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the
libertarian Cato Institute, said that the citizenship-stripping
provisions are important because citizenship has become a determining
factor in Justice Department decisions about whether to classify a
terror suspect as an enemy combatant.

This classification determines whether someone is given access to
counsel and other legal protections afforded by Constitution; is kept
in a military brigade and tried in military court; or even sent to
the government's overseas holding camps for an indefinite period
without prosecution.

"If the government can strip people of their citizenship before they
are convicted of a crime, they might do it to send people outside of
the civilian court system," said Lynch.

However, there are policy analysts who do not find the Patriot Act II
draft problematic.

Michael Scardaville, a policy analyst for homeland security at the
conservative Heritage Foundation, said that the citizenship
provisions would only codify that those citizens who take up arms
against the United States as terrorists would be treated as traitors.

"I don't think you have anyone who disagrees that if someone decided
to fight on behalf of (Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein, or for the
former Soviet Union in the Cold War, they no longer consider
themselves an American citizen," Scardaville told UPI.
(Cees: maar als je als VS-burger vecht voor SH, waarom kan je dan
niet als VS-burger berecht worden? De gegeven redenering is zoiets
van: Als je niks te verbergen hebt, kun je er geen bezwaar tegen
hebben dat je onderzocht wordt)

Other problematic provisions in the draft include a measure allowing
federal investigators to conduct wiretaps without a court order for
15 days following an attack on the United States, or after
congressional approval of the use of military force.

The draft bill would give the government the power to secretly detain
citizens and to strictly limit those subpoenaed by a grand jury from
speaking about their testimony publicly. The draft bill would also
eliminate the 2005 expiration of key intelligence powers provided
under the Patriot Act. These sunset provisions were a concession to
critics of the bill in Congress.
(Cees: Doen ze dan niet lang over om die uit te schakelen! De Patriot
I Act is nog geen jaar oud)

It addition, the new bill would further ease restrictions on the use
of secret evidence in the prosecution of terror cases, and further
expand authorization periods for secret government Internet
surveillance and wiretaps.

Lynch also said other provisions -- such as one that would immunize
federal agents from prosecution when they engage in illegal
surveillance acts, and another that would allow for the collection of
DNA from anyone connected to an investigation -- are particularly
troublesome.

"I think we seem to be slipping into a situation where the government
is going to want a comprehensive DNA database on just about
everybody," he said. "It is not called for specifically in Patriot II
but it seems to be another step toward the government wanting to have
a DNA sample from everybody."

(http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030311-011345-3750r
Ashcroft pushes DNA initiative 3/11/2003 1:46 PM
Attorney General John Ashcroft Tuesday urged congressional approval
of new DNA funding to catch criminals. The administration's "DNA
initiative" calls for spending $1 billion over the next five years.
Cees: Die Lynch kan gedachten lezen!)

Scardaville said that the draft should not be eliciting the level of
concern raised by civil libertarians, because it is simply a review
of the
authority granted to the Justice Department under the Patriot Act. He
said that such reviews are important because the United States
must continually adapt to the challenges it faces following Sept. 11.
And, he said, it remains only a draft.
(Cees: Hoe heet ie ook al weer? Scaredevil?)

"We have to evaluate which laws are appropriate and adjust to the
paradigm shift," he said. "We did this after World War II and in the
years between the two world wars. We did it after the Civil War."

Scardaville said that a provision that places terrorist organizations
on a par with foreign governments in the U.S. legal code exemplifies
how the Justice Department is only attempting to fix holes in
existing law.

He added that a provision that would make information about possible
terrorist targets --such as chemical plants -- available solely in
read-only format on Web terminals in public reading rooms is an
(Cees: En dan maar hopen dat die domme terroristen geen digitale
camera's hebben, die tegenwoordig net zo groot zijn als een credit
card)
 example of where the draft strikes a good balance between the need
for public information about such facilities, and national security
controls on potentially dangerous information.

Lynch said the notion that the draft was merely a review does not
hold water.

"I don't see anything about repealing or surrendering any power that
was conveyed under the Patriot Act," he said. "In fact it (the draft)
seems to be ideas for accruing more power."

Higgs also said that Patriot Act has shown that limiting civil
liberties does little to promote domestic security.

"Although it (the Patriot Act) has had the result of setting aside
many established Fourth Amendment protections, it has not played an
important role in the government apprehension of terrorists or
prevention of terrorists from operating in this country," said Higgs.

Lynch added that although the draft bill has little chance of passage
if introduced on Capitol Hill in its current form, he fears such a
measure will be promoted by the administration in the event of
another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

"I think if these provisions are debated in a calm, reflective
atmosphere most of them will not be enacted into law," he said. "But
I am
afraid that if we are in the immediate aftermath of an attack,
Congress will not give these provisions the scrutiny they deserve,
and they
might rush into it like they did with the Patriot Act."

Higgs echoed Lynch's concern.

"I can only hope people will wake up to what is happening," he said.
"It seems to me that when we enacted the USA Patriot Act, the United
States came closer to being a police state. If Patriot II is enacted
we have kissed the Constitution goodbye."


(Cees: Het is wel interessant om te kijken wat voor instituut The
Heritage Foundation eigenlijk is.
Vergelijk b.v. hun beoordeling van de financien van Bush met die van
anderen.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm202.cfm)

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********