States Turning Their Backs on Patriot Act

[Def.I.Nition]

On Monday, Montana became the fifth state to officially condemn the USA Patriot Act. Joining Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and Vermont--not to mention more than 375 local governments--Montana's state legislature passed the strongest statewide resolution against the Patriot Act yet, according to the ACLU. In an overwhelming bipartisan consensus, Montana's House of Delegates voted to approve Senate Joint Resolution 19--which discourages state law enforcement agencies from cooperating in investigations that violate Montanans' civil liberties--88 to 12. Earlier this year, the resolution passed in the state Senate 40 to 10.


"I've had more mail on this bill than on any other, and it's 100 percent positive," said House Member Brady Wiseman (D-Bozeman). Republican Rick Maedje (R-Fortine) said the resolution "protects our states' rights and is what true Republicans in every 'red state' should be doing."


SJ-19 also recommends that the state destroy all information gathered under the Patriot Act that is not directly related to a criminal investigation, and calls on librarians to inform citizens that their library records are unsafe from federal investigations.

link (http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7&pid=2311)

Should states continue to adopt resolutions such as these that condemn the Patriot Act? Do you think the Patriot Act oversteps the bounds of the Constitution, and if so, do you think the Constitution should be diminished in its importance given the trying times we live in?

[holychicken]

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Jefferson

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Franklin

Sure, we will be less safe from terrorists without the patriot act. Freedom and security are almost always at odds with each other. However, I would rather be free and uphold what our country is about rather than give up my freedom for something that, up to this point, has claimed less lives per year in America than people getting killed by lightning bolts.

[Jeff P]

I am still trying to find out EXACTLY which freedoms we have given up because of the Patriot Act. All it did was treat terrorists that way that we treat drug dealers and the mob.

There was a study done to determine the civil rights abuses under the patriot act and none were found. Even the ACLU has said that there have been none, at least as of last year.

I can find many examples of civil rights abuses far greater than the Patriot Act, until we start worrying about those it is hard for me to get too worried about the Patiot Act.

Jeff

[Sage1]

link (http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7&pid=2311)

Should states continue to adopt resolutions such as these that condemn the Patriot Act? Do you think the Patriot Act oversteps the bounds of the Constitution, and if so, do you think the Constitution should be diminished in its importance given the trying times we live in?


Gees, I am so proud of my State! (Now, anyway.) Considering Montana is a very republican, Bush State, I was actually shocked at this article.

Yes, we should condemn the Patriot Act. Just as Holychicken's quote from Franklin says . . ."Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

The PA was a step for big bro to get a stronger grip on us through law. They played on our fear . . .which they are doing their best to help create, so we can feel more co-dependant on them.

Franklin's quote says it all. If we allow the PA to take hold, we will lose.

Sage

[Def.I.Nition]

I am still trying to find out EXACTLY which freedoms we have given up because of the Patriot Act. All it did was treat terrorists that way that we treat drug dealers and the mob.

There was a study done to determine the civil rights abuses under the patriot act and none were found. Even the ACLU has said that there have been none, at least as of last year.

I can find many examples of civil rights abuses far greater than the Patriot Act, until we start worrying about those it is hard for me to get too worried about the Patiot Act.

JeffFirst of all, the worst abuses can't even be reported because the law itself prevents people from speaking about governmental intrusions.

Secondly, I'd like to see your source that says the ACLU doesn't think the Patriot Act violates our civil liberties.

[SuzieQ]

As a card-carrying member ;), I'd say it is quite clear that the ACLU views The Patriot Act as a threat to our civil liberties. Perhaps the original intent of the Act is as benign as Jeff suggests, but the actual application of the Act has been fraught with abuse and misuses which do trample on our personal freedoms.

From the horse's mouth:

ACLU Letter to Senator Feinstein Addressing Abuses of the Patriot Act by the Government

April 4, 2005




Dear Senator Feinstein:

Thank you for your letter of March 25 inquiring about abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act (“Patriot Act”) enacted into law 45 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks. In its three and one-half years, the government has abused and misused the Patriot Act repeatedly, without apology or regret, and while seeking significant expansions of powers granted under the Patriot Act. We are hopeful that at the Patriot Act hearings that commence tomorrow with the testimony of Attorney General Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller, you will explore these abuses and misuses, and will work to curtail them with appropriate oversight and legislation.

Secrecy permeates the Patriot Act. As ACLU’s Timothy H. Edgar pointed out in his brief October, 2003 e-mail message to your staff,[1] many of the most invasive and dangerous powers in the Patriot Act are exercised secretly, and some are accompanied by statutory gag orders. Moreover, the Administration has taken the posture that information that is embarrassing to it must be kept secret for reasons of national security. For these reasons, it has been extremely difficult to uncover information about how the Patriot Act has been used, and even information about whether particular sections have been used at all. We have repeatedly sought this information in letters, requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and in FOIA litigation.

We share the concerns you expressed to your constituents (including the over 100,000 who are ACLU members) in a September 13, 2004 e-mail message about the Administration’s abject failure to be forthcoming in how it has used the Patriot Act. As you put it,

… I have repeatedly requested that the Department of Justice undertake what I consider to be a task they should have begun without prompting[:] carrying out an objective, comprehensive review of the effect and efficacy of the sixteen provisions set to expire next year. I think it not only reasonable, but prudent, to make this effort. Who knows what we will find[?] [M]aybe we need to repeal some provisions, maybe we need to strengthen them. …
… I have raised this issue numerous times, including directly to the Attorney General. At least one report has been issued, but it falls far short of being a comprehensive analysis of the sunset provisions. …

Despite the Administration’s efforts to cover up information about how controversial provisions of the Patriot Act have been used, some information has become public. This information is disturbing in and of itself, and may be emblematic of other abuses that have not yet become public. Reports indicate that the government has used the Patriot Act to: ·

Secretly search the home of Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim attorney whom the government wrongly suspected, accused and detained as a perpetrator of the Madrid train bombings;

Serve a National Security Letter (NSL) on an Internet Service Provider (ISP) so coercive under the terms prescribed by the statute that a federal court struck down the entire statute – as vastly expanded by the Patriot Act – used to obtain information about e-mail activity and web surfing for intelligence investigations;

Gag that ISP from disclosing this abuse to the public, and gag the ACLU itself, which represents the ISP, from disclosing this abuse to the public when the ACLU became aware of it, and from disclosing important circumstances relating to this abuse and other possible abuses of the gag, even to this very day;

Charge, detain, and prosecute a Muslim student in Idaho, Sami al-Hussayen, for providing “material support” to terrorists because he posted to an Internet website links to objectionable materials, even though such links were available on the websites of the government’s own expert witness in the case and on the website of a major news outlet;

Deny, on account of his political beliefs, admission to the United States of a Swiss national, Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim scholar who was to assume a teaching position at Notre Dame University; and
Investigate and prosecute crimes that are not terrorism offenses, even though it cited terrorism prevention as the reason Congress should enact the law, and cites terrorism prevention as the reason why it cannot be changed.

These Patriot Act abuses and misuses are detailed below.

the rest of the letter can be found here (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17911&c=206)