SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who started this subject7/14/2004 11:44:35 AM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (1) of 793757
 
Someone posted a public relations piece from the Justice Department to the effect there had been over 300 successful prosecutions under the Patriot Act. Here are some disturbing comments from the Center for American Progress on that report.

1. Attorney General John Ashcroft has repeatedly rebuffed requests by Congress and public interest groups for basic information about how the Patriot Act is being used. Now – in a cynical public relations ploy – Ashcroft has released a thirty-page piece of propaganda wrapped in the guise of public disclosure. The document does not contain information needed for members of Congress to make an informed decision about whether to extend provisions which expire in 2005. Instead, it avoids key issues, distorts basic law and presents a self-serving selection of Patriot Act "successes."

2. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TERRORISM-RELATED PROSECUTORIAL ACTIVITIES: The central claim in the Justice Department report is that – presumably with the assistance of the PATRIOT Act – the Department has charged "310 defendants with criminal offenses as a result of terrorism investigations" since 9/11 "and 179 of those defendants have already been convicted." The carefully chosen language deftly avoids the central question, which is not how many people were convicted of routine criminal offenses, but how many were convicted of terrorist crimes. Without that information there is no way for Congress to evaluate whether the Patriot Act is an effective tool against terrorism.

3. REPORT IGNORES CONTROVERSIAL PROVISIONS: The report entirely avoids some of the most controversial sections of the Patriot Act. Specifically, there is no mention of Section 213 (which permits "sneak-and-peak" searches and seizures), Section 215 (which allows the government to seize any tangible thing from any person pursuant to a terrorist investigation) and Section 505 (which allows the Justice Department to compel the production of documents). With other controversial provisions, such Section 214 (which eased restrictions on wiretaps for non-terrorists), the report praises the value of the provisions but provides no information as to how or how often they have been used. Likewise, there is no actual information about how Section 206 (which permits vague authorizations for wiretaps) is being used – but the Justice Department does helpfully provide a hypothetical example of how it might be used.

4. REPORT MISSTATES BASIC LAW: The report credits Section 218 of the Patriot Act with allowing the Justice Department to adopt "new procedures designed to increase information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement officers." As result Ashcroft claimed that "to allow section 218...to sunset at the end of next year would be paramount to unilateral disarmament against al Qaeda." But "there was never any legal restriction on FBI intelligence investigators' authority to share evidence of criminal activity." This was the conclusion of the special federal appeals court convened to consider these issues in a November 18, 2002 decision.

5. REPORT REVEALS PATRIOT ACT IS OVERBROAD: Yesterday, Ashcroft said the report demonstrated the Patriot Act "has been our laser-guided weapon to prevent terrorist attacks." But Ashcroft's statements are belied by his own report. The report discusses how the Patriot Act has been used in a variety of criminal cases that have no relationship to terrorism. Not mentioned: the use of the Patriot Act to investigate a strip club owner suspected of bribing local politicians.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News