It's official: ACLU hates the new anti-terrorism bill.
October 24, 2001 4:17 PM Subscribe
It's official: ACLU hates the new anti-terrorism bill. So what's new, or, do they have a point?
owillis, to a degree, you have a point, but I really don't mind. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." I'd rather have a group that screams at every possible infringement than a bunch of people who shrug saying "Oh yeah, that's not so bad... those terrorists are nasty people, aren't they?".
At any rate, my annual membership to the ACLU is due, and I'm planning on putting in a little something extra this year.
posted by jammer at 4:27 PM on October 24, 2001
At any rate, my annual membership to the ACLU is due, and I'm planning on putting in a little something extra this year.
posted by jammer at 4:27 PM on October 24, 2001
But what about the "slippery slope" argument? And, would any of this new legislation have stopped 9/11 from happening?
posted by Rastafari at 4:27 PM on October 24, 2001
posted by Rastafari at 4:27 PM on October 24, 2001
the ACLU and privacy advocates have a tendency to fly off the handle into hysteria against any law or practice that "voilates privacy" - no matter how benign. Sort of like the kid crying wolf.
"Crying wolf" implies lying. Speaking out against even trivial--but real--threats against civil liberties hardly seems to qualify. Everyone's threshhold for what constitutes a "significant" threat may differ, but it hardly seems to be a black-or-white situation like "I'm saying there is a wolf and there isn't" vs. "I'm saying there is a wolf and there is." I guess my question to you would be, what is wrong with vigilance against minor infractions against rights such as privacy?
posted by rushmc at 4:52 PM on October 24, 2001
"Crying wolf" implies lying. Speaking out against even trivial--but real--threats against civil liberties hardly seems to qualify. Everyone's threshhold for what constitutes a "significant" threat may differ, but it hardly seems to be a black-or-white situation like "I'm saying there is a wolf and there isn't" vs. "I'm saying there is a wolf and there is." I guess my question to you would be, what is wrong with vigilance against minor infractions against rights such as privacy?
posted by rushmc at 4:52 PM on October 24, 2001
Maybe I did what I accuse them of doing. Ha. I trust the ACLU and company to keep an eye out for that sort of thing (I'm a member as well). And maybe I'm guilty of lumping them in with other privacy advocates who throw up their arms at things like "web bugs". I think I meant "chicken little" vs. "crying wolf". I haven't read fairy tales in a long while, obviously.
posted by owillis at 5:01 PM on October 24, 2001
posted by owillis at 5:01 PM on October 24, 2001
Okay, Chicken Little I can see. Though it still isn't a perfect fit, unless the sky IS falling a little bit all the time (which, of course, we all know it is). :::grin:::
posted by rushmc at 5:17 PM on October 24, 2001
posted by rushmc at 5:17 PM on October 24, 2001
From the letter ACLU sent to Representatives regarding the passage of this legislation, reasons why they oppose USA PATRIOT Act:
Among the bill's most troubling provisions are measures that would:
Permit the Attorney General to indefinitely incarcerate or detain non-citizens based on mere suspicion, and to deny re-admission to the United States of non-citizens (including lawful permanent residents) for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment.
Minimize judicial supervision of telephone and Internet surveillance by law enforcement authorities in anti-terrorism investigations and in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.
Expand the ability of the government to conduct secret searches -- again in anti-terrorism investigations and in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.
Give the Attorney General and the Secretary of State the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and block any non-citizen who belongs to them from entering the country. Under this provision the payment of membership dues is a deportable offense.
Grant the FBI broad access to sensitive medical, financial, mental health, and educational records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime and without a court order.
Lead to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes and use of intelligence authorities to by-pass probable cause requirements in criminal cases.
Put the CIA and other intelligence agencies back in the business of spying on Americans by giving the Director of Central Intelligence the authority to identify priority targets for intelligence surveillance in the United States.
Allow searches of highly personal financial records without notice and without judicial review based on a very low standard that does not require probable cause of a crime or even relevancy to an ongoing terrorism investigation.
Allow student records to be searched based on a very low standard of relevancy to an investigation.
Create a broad new definition of "domestic terrorism" that could sweep in people who engage in acts of political protest and subject them to wiretapping and enhanced penalties.
posted by Rastafari at 6:03 PM on October 24, 2001
Among the bill's most troubling provisions are measures that would:
Permit the Attorney General to indefinitely incarcerate or detain non-citizens based on mere suspicion, and to deny re-admission to the United States of non-citizens (including lawful permanent residents) for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment.
Minimize judicial supervision of telephone and Internet surveillance by law enforcement authorities in anti-terrorism investigations and in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.
Expand the ability of the government to conduct secret searches -- again in anti-terrorism investigations and in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.
Give the Attorney General and the Secretary of State the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and block any non-citizen who belongs to them from entering the country. Under this provision the payment of membership dues is a deportable offense.
Grant the FBI broad access to sensitive medical, financial, mental health, and educational records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime and without a court order.
Lead to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes and use of intelligence authorities to by-pass probable cause requirements in criminal cases.
Put the CIA and other intelligence agencies back in the business of spying on Americans by giving the Director of Central Intelligence the authority to identify priority targets for intelligence surveillance in the United States.
Allow searches of highly personal financial records without notice and without judicial review based on a very low standard that does not require probable cause of a crime or even relevancy to an ongoing terrorism investigation.
Allow student records to be searched based on a very low standard of relevancy to an investigation.
Create a broad new definition of "domestic terrorism" that could sweep in people who engage in acts of political protest and subject them to wiretapping and enhanced penalties.
posted by Rastafari at 6:03 PM on October 24, 2001
I dunno, the ability to *secretly* search homes, record net access, examine other personal records, and tap phones of *suspected* terrorists bothers me. Especially since as I understand this bill, the authority is given to "police," not just the FBI or even the Office of Homeland Defence. So then now any cop who *thinks* you might be a terrorist can get a judge to rubber stamp a search warrant in the name of Protecting The Children?
Now the overwhelmingly vast majority of cops are good honest people who don't have time or interest in harrassing or annoying particular citizens. Just like the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in the United States are not terrorists.
posted by ilsa at 6:24 PM on October 24, 2001
Now the overwhelmingly vast majority of cops are good honest people who don't have time or interest in harrassing or annoying particular citizens. Just like the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in the United States are not terrorists.
posted by ilsa at 6:24 PM on October 24, 2001
I can't afford to contribute any money now, but I did put their ass-ugly animated gif on my lovely website. Now that's devotion to a cause.
Uh oh. Are my financial records going to be audited now?
posted by jennyb at 6:32 PM on October 24, 2001
Uh oh. Are my financial records going to be audited now?
posted by jennyb at 6:32 PM on October 24, 2001
I'm severely troubled by all of this, but anyone who knows my posting history would already know about that.
This is a major loss. I am voting against any of my elected officials (Feinstein, Pelosi and Boxer) who voted for this bill at the next election. I sent them mail, I sent tem email, I phoned their offices.
That's how this representative democracy thing works...
posted by fooljay at 7:04 PM on October 24, 2001
This is a major loss. I am voting against any of my elected officials (Feinstein, Pelosi and Boxer) who voted for this bill at the next election. I sent them mail, I sent tem email, I phoned their offices.
That's how this representative democracy thing works...
posted by fooljay at 7:04 PM on October 24, 2001
The irony is that none of it is really necessary other than for PR. A simple commitment of staff and money to a) make the system run more smoothly and quickly and b) root out inconsistencies and contradictions (i.e., between jurisdictions etc.) would probably do the trick.
I think that's the point - not to prevent better law enforcement - just to do it while maintaining the proper judicial oversight that is the foundation of the idea of 'rule of law'.
But due to PR needs and (justifiable) anxiety, that route is impossible. But make no mistake - the ACLUs way could be both as effective and more in line with the legal tradition of the US.
posted by mikel at 7:25 PM on October 24, 2001
I think that's the point - not to prevent better law enforcement - just to do it while maintaining the proper judicial oversight that is the foundation of the idea of 'rule of law'.
But due to PR needs and (justifiable) anxiety, that route is impossible. But make no mistake - the ACLUs way could be both as effective and more in line with the legal tradition of the US.
posted by mikel at 7:25 PM on October 24, 2001
If they had just been enforcing some of the current laws, they should have been able to catch at least some of the terrorists from the 11th (some of the hijackers had expired visas). What kind of oversight mechanism have they put in this new bill to prevent abuse? Is there a sunset clause in the bill?
Sounds like I finally need to send the ACLU a check.
posted by ArkIlloid at 8:55 PM on October 24, 2001
Sounds like I finally need to send the ACLU a check.
posted by ArkIlloid at 8:55 PM on October 24, 2001
That terrorism bill is not good news for Americans. What an excuse to take away our liberties. "those who would trade a little privacy for a little liberty deserve neither" -I forget but someone important. (ie. Ben Franklin or Patrick Henry or someone) If you know tell me!
posted by ryryslider at 9:24 PM on October 24, 2001
posted by ryryslider at 9:24 PM on October 24, 2001
That terrorism bill is not good news for Americans. What an excuse to take away our liberties. "those who would trade a little privacy for a little liberty deserve neither" -I forget but someone important. (ie. Ben Franklin or Patrick Henry or someone) If you know tell me!
posted by ryryslider at 9:25 PM on October 24, 2001
posted by ryryslider at 9:25 PM on October 24, 2001
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin.
I also like the one "Read much, but not many books." Could he have foreseen MeFi so long ago? :)
posted by ArkIlloid at 9:51 PM on October 24, 2001
I also like the one "Read much, but not many books." Could he have foreseen MeFi so long ago? :)
posted by ArkIlloid at 9:51 PM on October 24, 2001
Rastafari, their point is that the government has gone off the deep end with a bill that unnecessarily invades the privacy of average law-abiding people while doing squat about terrorists.
posted by fleener at 5:11 AM on October 25, 2001
posted by fleener at 5:11 AM on October 25, 2001
Rastafari, their point is that the government has gone off the deep end with a bill that unnecessarily invades the privacy of average law-abiding people while doing squat about terrorists.
I agree. We agree on this. I'm all for the ACLU when they are defending people's civil liberties.
posted by Rastafari at 7:30 AM on October 25, 2001
I agree. We agree on this. I'm all for the ACLU when they are defending people's civil liberties.
posted by Rastafari at 7:30 AM on October 25, 2001
By the way --
Please note that the effect of this bill is to make evidence gathered by the listed methods to be allowed in court. It is not asking for permission to do those things.
Why the distinction?
Because the police, FBI, and CIA are already doing these things. Theyare part of their comprehensive intelligence network. These agencies often know more than they can say in court. They can use this information indirectly, as long as they can come up with a plausible line of evidence that does not require use of currently-forbiddein-in-court techniques (provenance of evidence).
My point is that the relevant agencies are already doing the things listed. What they want is the ability to use evidence gathered by such methods in court.
Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy, and increase your trust in the government. Um, yeah, OK, sure.
posted by yesster at 8:23 AM on October 25, 2001
Please note that the effect of this bill is to make evidence gathered by the listed methods to be allowed in court. It is not asking for permission to do those things.
Why the distinction?
Because the police, FBI, and CIA are already doing these things. Theyare part of their comprehensive intelligence network. These agencies often know more than they can say in court. They can use this information indirectly, as long as they can come up with a plausible line of evidence that does not require use of currently-forbiddein-in-court techniques (provenance of evidence).
My point is that the relevant agencies are already doing the things listed. What they want is the ability to use evidence gathered by such methods in court.
Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy, and increase your trust in the government. Um, yeah, OK, sure.
posted by yesster at 8:23 AM on October 25, 2001
What really sucks about these "anti-terrorism" bills is the way they were rammed through Congress with little to no democratic debate or careful thought given to them.
While sympathetic to Feingold's cause, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said any new amendments would upset the fragile Senate-White House compromise that allowed the bill to move so quickly. "I'm much more sympathetic to arriving at a product that will bring us to a point where we can pass something into law,'' he said.
Um, aren't our constitutional rights more important than political expediency, Mr. Daschle?
Or are you more concerned with your 2004 election run?
I hate to inform people of this, but there ain't much you can do to keep deranged crazoids from blowing up stuff. That's part of the price we pay for living in a free society.
Sure, we can make things completely safe. We'll convert to a Stalinist system. You won't have any free speech, freedom of religion or privacy, but hey, isn't that worth your guaranteed safety?
posted by zeb vance at 6:51 PM on October 25, 2001
While sympathetic to Feingold's cause, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said any new amendments would upset the fragile Senate-White House compromise that allowed the bill to move so quickly. "I'm much more sympathetic to arriving at a product that will bring us to a point where we can pass something into law,'' he said.
Um, aren't our constitutional rights more important than political expediency, Mr. Daschle?
Or are you more concerned with your 2004 election run?
I hate to inform people of this, but there ain't much you can do to keep deranged crazoids from blowing up stuff. That's part of the price we pay for living in a free society.
Sure, we can make things completely safe. We'll convert to a Stalinist system. You won't have any free speech, freedom of religion or privacy, but hey, isn't that worth your guaranteed safety?
posted by zeb vance at 6:51 PM on October 25, 2001
« Older Salt Lake City, | Robot Bastard Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by owillis at 4:23 PM on October 24, 2001