Liberty 4 sale @ any price. Well worn. Owner has no use for same. Apply Washington DC

The Troquelet

Conscious
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
1,950
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030208/ap_on_re_us/anti_terror_law_5

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is preparing to expand the 2001 Patriot Act to increase surveillance within the United States while restricting access to information and limiting judicial review, a nonprofit government watchdog group asserted Friday.

The Center for Public Integrity said it obtained a copy of the draft legislation from a government source. The document, labeled "confidential," was posted Friday on the organization's Internet site along with an analysis.

Justice Department officials said no final decisions have made on any such legislation, and it could change substantially before it is completed. Spokeswoman Barbara Comstock acknowledged the department is "continually considering anti-terrorism measures and would be derelict if we were not doing so."

"The department's deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties," she added.

The original Patriot Act, passed by Congress in the weeks following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, gave the government broad new anti-terrorism powers to use wiretaps, electronic and computer eavesdropping, searches and the authority to obtain a wide range of other information in it's investigations. It also broke down the traditional wall between FBI (news - web sites) investigators and intelligence agents.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, the draft expansion of the Patriot Act would be called the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.

Among other things, it would prohibit disclosure of information regarding people detained as terrorist suspects and prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) from distributing "worst-case scenario" information to the public about a nearby private company's use of chemicals.

In addition, the measure would create a DNA database of "suspected terrorists;" force suspects to prove why they should be released on bail, rather than have the prosecution prove why they should be held; and allow the deportation of U.S. citizens who become members of or help terrorist groups.

"It really is a broadening and a deepening of the government's powers," said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity.

Congressional aides said they had not been consulted by the Justice Department on the development of such a bill and department officials say it has not been transmitted to Capitol Hill. However, several aids (news - web sites) have said they considered it likely that the Bush administration would propose some changes this year.

Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites), said the legislation "turns the Bill of Rights completely on its head."

"This draft bill constitutes yet another egregious blow to our citizens' civil liberties," Conyers said. "Among other things, the Bush administration now wants to imprison suspects before they are tried and create DNA databases of lawful residents who have committed no crime."
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
Tough times call for tough measures. That's the last you'll here from me here.

Funny how when times get tough the first thing Conservatives are willing to surrender is everyone else's freedoms.
 
Whilst I can understand the arguments against and concerns about the issue, they are to me sensible and appropriate steps to deal with a changed world.
 
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Whilst I can understand the arguments against and concerns about the issue, they are to me sensible and appropriate steps to deal with a changed world.

The world did not change on 9/11. America simply caught up with it.

I am willing to risk my life to terrorists rather than surrender my freedoms, and that is the kind of thinking that this nation was founded on. Even the remotest infringement on personal freedoms, at least here, is far more unpatriotic than anyone attempted to be caught by this ironically titled "Patriot Act."

Quite frankly, it sickens me to my stomach.
 
So, people would rather die than surrender their freedoms...
Well, that can be arranged. :evil:
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
Tough times call for tough measures. That's the last you'll here from me here.
True, but strange how things are never reversed during good times :(
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
Tough times call for tough measures. That's the last you'll here from me here.

If you get detained, it probably will be the last we'll hear from you. Haven't done anything wrong except be in the path of some zealous government bureaucrat? Tough. Tough times call for tough measures. Bill of Rights? We impeached Bill in 1999 and we find it offensive to respect something that has the words "Bill" and "Right" in such close proximity.
 
You cant imprison suspects before the are even tried. If that law passes, what would separate America from Iraq?
 
Knas, i completely agree with you. and about the whole "rather killled by terrorists" thing, its PROBABLY not going to happen. you have a bigger chance of being struck by lightning than you have ever had of being killed in a terrorist attack. the only sane and constitutionally allowable way to stop terror attack is to a) prevent them on-site or b) capture the terrorists after the attack. method A in infifnetly preferrable. rebuttals, anyone?
 
Originally posted by Noldodan
you have a bigger chance of being struck by lightning than you have ever had of being killed in a terrorist attack.
Face war against lightning - disarm Zeus! :mad:
 
I don't want to lose any privacy or rights. But I think some other controversial moves have had good results. Many complained that fingerprinting of people from certain countries as they traveled to the US was racist and insulting. They did catch too people whose fingerprints matched those found on papers in Al Qaeda caves in Afghanistan.
 
Originally posted by stormbind
True, but strange how things are never reversed during good times :(

That's hardly true. America before 9/11 had far more freedoms than during any period of the cold war.

I don't see why Americans treat freedoms with such fanaticism. You can't have complete freedom. It doesn't exist. And when facing terrorists you'd expect people to understand that there's no option but to give up some freedoms. I prefer to be searched with a metal detector before entering a mall or boarding a plane than fearing I'd get killed there. Living in freedom by law means nothing if you're under a constant fear.
 
Were not talking about being searched with a metal detector, were talking imprisonment for an unclear amount of time without evidence
 
Originally posted by .:KNAS:.
Were not talking about being searched with a metal detector, were talking imprisonment for an unclear amount of time without evidence

True, I war concerned when people where dubbed enemy combatants on the 'war on terror' and imprisoned without a hearing. What's next enemy combatants on the 'war on drugs' unlawfully held? Surely drugs have killed more Americans.
 
Lets make my standing point clear here. I DO feal that the Taliban/ Al Qaida soldiers imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay should remain there. These are people who took up arms against the U.S and have therefore given up any rights to fair treatment. Not to mention they are extremely dangerous and hate everything about America.
However...
Decent normal citizens should not be able to be imprisoned just like that. To me there is a long way to go between openly criticizing the goverment and joining some fundamentalist movent and waging war against it.
 
I feel the same way. I was referring mainly to Jose Padilla captured in the US and a US citizen. Just because I think he's scum and belongs in jail, doesn't mean we have to do it that way. Why not a hearing?
 
Top Bottom