An analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act

(YellowTimes.org) – Q: Just who is a terrorist?

A: Anyone (non-U.S. citizen or U.S. citizen alike) Attorney General Ashcroft
designates as one.


Q: On what evidence can Ashcroft designate someone as a terrorist?

A: Mere suspicion and hearsay.


Q: What legal rights and Constitutional protections does someone detained
on the grounds of being a suspected terrorist have?

A: Next to none.

(YellowTimes.org) – Q: Just who is a terrorist?

A: Anyone (non-U.S. citizen or U.S. citizen alike) Attorney General Ashcroft
designates as one.


Q: On what evidence can Ashcroft designate someone as a terrorist?

A: Mere suspicion and hearsay.


Q: What legal rights and Constitutional protections does someone detained
on the grounds of being a suspected terrorist have?

A: Next to none.

It may be difficult for some hard-core, patriotic Americans to believe
the veracity of the preceding question and answer series, but the answers
to the questions are based upon the implications and dangerous
ramifications of the USA PATRIOT Act (USAPA) that was passed last October
by so-called congressional representatives who never bothered to read or
debate it.


It slipped through at the midnight hour under the cover of
darkness, voted on by men and women engulfed in a terrifying atmosphere
of shock, fear, mass media hysteria, and suspiciously targeted anthrax
mailings.


U.S. government officials would have us believe that this 342-page,
complexly nuanced document was allegedly crafted after September 11 in
the time span of a little over a month. To accomplish this feat would
have required the in-depth study of fifteen other lengthy acts and statutes
which it modifies and amends.


The act’s extremely clever yet highly
misleading acronym USA PATRIOT, which stands for “Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,” is an obvious attempt to intimidate
and brand as “unpatriotic” and treasonous anyone who might dare to
question its alarmingly overreaching provisions.


In light of the egregious evisceration of the Bill of Rights that this
law undertakes, those who blindly supported and signed this blatantly
unconstitutional act into law should be collectively condemned and
charged for high treason to the Constitution and the people of the United
States of America.


Careful perusal of the USAPA reveals that it defiantly and maliciously
tramples on:


  • The First Amendment – the people’s right to exercise freedom of
    religion, speech and peaceful assembly “to petition the Government for a
    redress of grievances”

  • The Fourth Amendment – the right “to be secure in their persons,
    houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”
    whereby warrants – only to be issued upon “probable cause” – must be
    specific as to place to be searched and persons or things to be seized

  • The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments – which outline the
    right to due process – a trial by one’s peers, to face one’s accuser as
    well as view the evidence against oneself, and to have an attorney

  • The Eighth Amendment – which safeguards the people against excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment


    Under sections 411 and 802 in the USAPA, a terrorist is loosely defined as anyone
    being “a representative of a foreign terrorist organization, as
    designated by the Secretary of State,” and domestically, anyone engaging
    in “activities that – involve acts dangerous to human life that are a
    violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state;
    APPEAR to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; TO
    INFLUENCE THE POLICY OF A GOVERNMENT BY INTIMIDATION OR COERCION…”
    [capitals mine]


    The inclusion of the word “appear” leaves interpretation of the law wide
    open to subjectivity and personal whim, as anyone can rightfully claim
    something “appears” to be intended for a particular purpose. Note also
    that our first amendment right to gather in protest against what we may
    see as unjust government policies could easily fall under the concept of
    “influencing” government policy by “intimidation or coercion.”


    Anyone
    participating in activist groups such as Greenpeace, Earth Liberation
    Front, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or in protests like
    the 1999 demonstration in Seattle against the WTO could find himself
    suddenly stripped of his rights by the simple act of being declared a
    “terrorist” in keeping with the definition of this law. Under section 803
    of this Act, even the simple act of giving food or shelter to a friend
    who may have been involved in any of the aforementioned activities could,
    in turn, have you incriminated and branded as a “terrorist” as well.


    The USA Patriot Act absolutely shreds to bits the fourth amendment.
    Section 213 permits so-called “sneak and peek” searches. Translated, that
    means the government has the right to go into your home while you are
    away, copy your hard drive, files, or whatever, gather and take any
    information or items they please without ever serving you notice since
    “the execution of a warrant may have adverse effect.” They can then delay
    serving you notice for up to 90 days after the fact. These newfangled
    warrants can now be issued for a flimsy “reasonable cause,” further
    undermining the much more difficult to achieve “probable cause”
    stipulation of the fourth amendment.


    Sections 216, 217 and 218 allow for unrestricted wiretapping, the tracing
    and spying on email messages and internet activities of anyone anywhere
    in the USA without the need to obtain a court order as long as “the
    information likely to be obtained… is relevant to an ongoing criminal
    investigation.” How nebulous can that get? A lawyer of any worth would
    be able to argue the “relevance” of anything to an unspecified “ongoing
    criminal investigation.” Kiss your protection from “unreasonable
    searches” good-bye and say hello to Big Brother USA.


    If you think this law applies only to foreign nationals, think again.
    José Padilla, although by no means a model U.S.-born citizen, had his civil
    rights stripped from him this past May just by Ashcroft’s uttering the
    magic words, “enemy combatant” and “suspected terrorist.” To this day, no
    solid evidence has been produced to substantiate Ashcroft’s claims –
    neither bomb parts, nor bomb assembly instructions, nor any plans or maps
    of intended strike areas.


    A “suspected terrorist,” according to section 112, needs only to be
    “certified” by the Attorney General on “reasonable grounds” that he
    “believes” someone to be engaged in terrorist activities. Again, no
    solid evidence is required, only a belief or suspicion suffices.


    Section 236A gives the Attorney General unprecedented powers untouchable
    by any court, whereby he may detain a suspect in increments of up to six
    months at a time if he believes the suspect’s release would threaten
    national security, or the safety of the community or any person. “At the
    Attorney General’s discretion” [read: personal whims], “NO court shall
    have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus, petition, or otherwise,
    any such action or decision.” [capitals mine]


    In other words, the
    Attorney General’s word is sacrosanct! To give one man such grave and
    all-encompassing power over the fate of any other individual is akin to
    what happens in fascist police states, not in a free and openly
    democratic society.


    Whatever happened to one’s right to face one’s accuser, to have a fair
    trial by one’s peers, to be allowed to view the evidence against oneself,
    or to have an attorney?


    Is it not cruel and unusual punishment to be denied your civil rights, to
    be considered guilty until you can “prove yourself innocent” – which is,
    in fact, very difficult to do – to be held in prison on “secret evidence”
    for months or years on end with no access to a lawyer and no chance of
    defending yourself against false and unfounded accusations?


    I heard President Bush on the news a few weeks ago boasting that the U.S.
    has so far “captured and detained over 2,400 suspected terrorists.” Yet,
    by most accounts, most people being detained were initially brought in on
    minor violations (which in a saner world would not have resulted in
    incarceration), and have not had any terrorist-related charges brought
    against them.


    To this day, it is my understanding that fewer than a
    dozen have actually been connected to any terrorist activity. Is that
    what a democracy does: imprison whole groups of people to catch the
    fewer than 1 percent who are actually committing criminal acts?


    The USA PATRIOT Act also includes under the “crimes of terrorism”
    umbrella the destruction of property even if no one is hurt (section
    808), telemarketing fraud (section 1011), as well as any kind of computer
    hacking (section 217). Under the rubric of “guilt by association,” this
    act also permits the denial of entry to and even the imprisonment of
    “the spouse or child of an inadmissible alien” who’s been “designated” as
    a terrorist within the past five years (section 211).


    The FBI can now legitimately demand access to anyone’s business, medical,
    student, bank, library or any other personal records in order “to protect
    against … clandestine intelligence activities.” (Sec. 501) The
    Associated Press reported on June 25 that the FBI has been reviewing the
    library records of several hundred individuals in libraries across the
    nation using a quick and largely secret process which is now legal under
    the PATRIOT Act.


    Judith Krug, the American Library Association’s
    director for intellectual freedom, in a straight-forward statement is
    quoted as saying, “… these records and information can be had with so
    little reason or explanation. It’s super secret, and anyone who wants to
    talk about what the FBI did at their library faces prosecution. That has
    nothing to do with patriotism.”


    It seems we must now extend Ashcroft’s warning about watching what we say
    in public to include what we may read as well. It is really not such a
    large leap to imagine our hyperparanoid government beginning to imprison
    people suspected of “aiding and abetting the enemy” based upon their
    “unpatriotic” ideologies and choice of reading material.


    The USA PATRIOT Act creates and allows for a virtual police state with
    little to no judicial oversight. We, as a nation, are literally treading
    the razor’s edge when it comes to flirting with the grave dangers
    inherent in giving up our rights for the empty promises of “safety” and
    “national security” masquerading under the guise of a “patriotic” PATRIOT
    Act. Once we fall off that edge, reclaiming and reinstating our rights,
    authority and power as “WE THE PEOPLE” of this great nation might prove
    very difficult.


    The next obvious question is: just what can the average person do?
    Across this nation, wise and enlightened individuals have been forming
    groups to fight the injustices that the PATRIOT Act imposes on us.
    Resolutions have been passed unanimously by city councils in Amherst,
    Leverett, Northampton, Ann Arbor, Berkeley, Denver, and Cambridge. Other
    cities and towns are in the process of preparing their own resolutions
    and gathering signatures on petitions to protect our civil liberties
    against the offenses of this Act.


    The Northampton Bill of Rights Defense
    Committee’s website, (www.gjf.org/NBORDC), offers a wide range of
    organizing tools, links, and information about similar campaigns around
    the country to help you get started in your own community.


    A rally in Boston this past June 22 kicked off a movement in
    Massachusetts to gather 100,000 signatures to petition our Mass.
    congressional delegates to introduce a bill that would call for the
    repeal or amendment of those sections of the PATRIOT Act that stand in
    clear violation of our constitutional rights. For more information or to
    get involved, you may contact the ACLU of Massachusetts at
    617-482-3170 x 314.


    At this critical juncture, to sit back and naïvely trust our government
    officials to protect anything other than maintaining their own
    uncontested, ill-gotten power is to risk losing the very liberties,
    rights, and freedoms our founding fathers fought so hard to procure for
    each and every one of us.


    If we don’t stand up for our rights, then who will? If we don’t demand
    the extension of these same rights to all people within our borders, then
    we are nothing but accomplices in the hypocritical, haphazard, and biased
    application of our nation’s core principles of democracy and equal
    rights.


    In closing admonition, I have taken the liberty of adding a few lines to
    an excerpt taken from a sermon given in various times and places by
    Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984, a Protestant pastor in Nazi Germany:


    They came for the “suspected” terrorists, and I didn’t object –

    For I wasn’t a “suspected” terrorist;

    They came for those of Middle Eastern descent, and I didn’t object –

    For I wasn’t of Middle Eastern descent;

    They came for the unpatriotic, and I didn’t object –

    For I was not unpatriotic;

    They came for the dissenters and activists, and I didn’t object –

    For I wasn’t a dissenter or an activist;

    “They came for the Communists, and I didn’t object –

    For I wasn’t a Communist;

    They came for the Socialists, and I didn’t object –

    For I wasn’t a Socialist;

    They came for the labor leaders, and I didn’t object –

    For I wasn’t a labor leader;

    They came for the Jews, and I didn’t object –

    For I wasn’t a Jew;

    Then they came for me –

    And there was no one left to object.”


    Addendum: For those who may be interested, the final official version of
    the USA PATRIOT Act can be found at the following site:

    http://216.110.42.179/docs/usa.act.final.102401.html

    Author: Doreen Miller

    News Service: YellowTimes

    URL: http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=444