PATRIOT Act: Part 2

[zachsan]

so i'm sure we've all heard by now that the bush administration is seeking to have all articles of the PATRIOT act renewed, or even expanded. i'm sure you've also heard the numbers bush is repeating on his speech circuit in support of the renewal... 400 investigations involving terrorism, 200 convictions. sounds good to me.

well, it turns out we don't even get to know any details about those numbers, only that they're accurate, honest.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050516/NEWS08/505160326/1001

This year, for the first time since the Sept. 11 attacks, the department [of justice] omitted without explanation any figures on terrorism-related investigations and convictions in its annual performance report.

that sucks. but wait, what exactly are we talking about when we say "terrorism-related investigations", anyway?

In a series of memos sent to the nation's prosecutors between September 2001 and April 2003 [obtained by the des moines register with the freedom of information act], records show that the Justice Department:

• Required that any investigation involving a suspected terrorist link, even if unsubstantiated and unprosecuted, be counted as ter- rorism-related.

• Expanded the number of terrorism-related crime categories from two to six. Now, when federal authorities looking for terrorists make an arrest for other reasons, the case is logged by prosecutors as "anti-terrorism."

• Exempted terrorism cases from a policy that generally counts leads only when prosecutors spend an hour investigating them. Unlike leads on conventional crimes, those on alleged terrorist activities are now immediately logged by prosecutors even if they are disre- garded.

so when you hear promises from lawmakers that administrative subpoenaes and the like are only being used in terrorism-related cases, well, this is an indication of how little that means. so don't call your arab friends "terrorists" as a joke, because that could count as an unsubstantiated link to terrorism. (besides which they might be offended... but who cares, it's not like they have souls.)

for added entertainment, think back a few years to those federally-funded commercials equating drug use with supporting terrorists. if that's the way our government really sees drugs, then what the hell, i guess they're allowed to use the PATRIOT act in drug cases. and everyone knows that the real culprit in the war on drugs is the consumer... etc.

David Burnham, a Syracuse University researcher and author whose 2003 report on terrorism statistics provided new insight into the department's handling of the cases, said the new reporting methods "of course would lead to more numbers" of such prosecutions.
...
Since the release of Burnham's report, news organizations across the country have used the information to identify some of the government's so-called terrorism targets: college entrance-exam cheaters, check forgers, sham husbands and those who overstay visas, among them.

[zachsan]

sigh... do i have to change my name to "meattosser" to get any reaction out of you lazy bastards?

[Maestro]

zach, its only gonna get worse, the government always wants to control the population as much as possible, every powerful country has always been like this

its not that im personally not aware, i hear about these things, but what can u do really? in the end everyone has a price and the people that get to say whats what are the ones with the most power and influence, not the people.

[daodejing]

Sick. That's the only way I can describe this. GW just really doesn't like the bill of rights. I just see this as further proof that america is being run by a fascist capitolist based government operating under the ruise of "protectecting democracy" by obliterating it's foundation.

[zachsan]

well hey... i'm as pissed off about this as the next guy, but i would say this is a step in the wrong direction, rather than a signal of the end of freedom as we know it. the people in america do have real power, and i don't think that bushie is "obliterating the foundation" of the bill of rights, as much as thumbing his nose at it. (i was going to correct you, but on second thought, bush may well consider himself to be "protectecting" americans).

i do agree however that he doesn't really understand it. honestly i can't think of many politicians who do. so much of what we consider common in the states today is contrary to the constitution and bill of rights, whether that's the drug war, something like the PATRIOT act or just taking a third of my check to pay for someone's welfare and a space program.

for all of the right's red-blooded american talk, the basic philosophy of sacrificing individual liberties (in this case, privacy) for the sake of the common good (in this case, security), is, dare i say it, kinda communist. especially if a convincing case can't be made that any of this is actually making us safer in reality.

after all, as republicans are so fond of pointing out, we were in the position many times in the 90's of taking care of bin laden for good. the decision was made not to; but the capacity was there, believe it or not, without the help of the PATRIOT act.

in related news, good: congress voted against the provison of the act that would allow agents to review your library records without a judge's order and without telling you; bad: that amendment to ban flag burning is nearing the table again.