It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dragonrider
This is an excerpt from the text of the Patriot II bill. Keep in mind, it is moving through congress as we speak.
As I mentioned before, the constitution will be totally meaningless, if this is voted on, and congress willingly and knowingly erases the very constitutional protections that you quote.
Nothing erases the constitutional protections
You can read the entire 87-page draft here. Constitutional watchdog Nat Hentoff has called it "the most radical government plan in our history to remove from Americans their liberties under the Bill of Rights." Some of DSEA's more draconian provisions:
Americans could have their citizenship revoked, if found to have contributed "material support" to organizations deemed by the government, even retroactively, to be "terrorist." As Hentoff wrote in the Feb. 28 Village Voice: "Until now, in our law, an American could only lose his or her citizenship by declaring a clear intent to abandon it. But – and read this carefully from the new bill – 'the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.'" (Italics Hentoff's.)
This I might not disagree with I must see how it is specifically written and what its context applies to.
Legal permanent residents (like, say, my French wife), could be deported instantaneously, without a criminal charge or even evidence, if the Attorney General considers them a threat to national security. If they commit minor, non-terrorist offenses, they can still be booted out, without so much as a day in court, because the law would exempt habeas corpus review in some cases. As the American Civil Liberties Union stated in its long brief against the DSEA, "Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus – a protection guaranteed by the Constitution – since the Civil War."
habeas corpus has been exempted before however, and naturalization is not protected in the constitution, if it becomes a uniform perameter to deport, then it still fits the guidelines because there is nothing stating what the laws of naturalization and deportation to "legally" naturalized citizens are.
The government would be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at "detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities." Samples could be collected without a court order; one need only be suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement officer. Those refusing the cheek-swab could be fined $200,000 and jailed for a year. "Because no federal genetic privacy law regulates DNA databases, privacy advocates fear that the data they contain could be misused," Wired News reported March 31. "People with 'flawed' DNA have already suffered genetic discrimination at the hands of employers, insurance companies and the government."
misused yes, needs only be challenged. 200,000 dollars and a year in jail is impossible as a year or more is imprisonment and requires a felony and thus a criminal trial. All this can be brought down by the Supreme Court or does not need to be adhered to by the people.
Authorities could wiretap anybody for 15 days, and snoop on anyone's Internet usage (including chat and email), all without obtaining a warrant.
Odd but no real infringement of the constitution yet
The government would be specifically instructed not to release any information about detainees held on suspicion of terrorist activities, until they are actually charged with a crime. Or, as Hentoff put it, "for the first time in U.S. history, secret arrests will be specifically permitted."
Another odd one, but it's falling more under Emergency War Powers Acts than anything else
Businesses that rat on their customers to the Feds – even if the information violates privacy agreements, or is, in fact, dead wrong – would be granted immunity. "Such immunity," the ACLU contended, "could provide an incentive for neighbor to spy on neighbor and pose problems similar to those inherent in Attorney General Ashcroft's Operation TIPS."
Well you can't swear in court wrong information so what does that matter?
Police officers carrying out illegal searches would also be granted legal immunity if they were just carrying out orders.
Yes well this same immunity was given to Nazi subordinants, but did not save those issuing the Orders
Federal "consent decrees" limiting local law enforcement agencies' abilities to spy on citizens in their jurisdiction would be rolled back. As Howard Simon, executive director of Florida's ACLU, noted in a March 19 column in the Sarasota Herald Tribune: "The restrictions on political surveillance were hard-fought victories for civil liberties during the 1970s."
American citizens could be subject to secret surveillance by their own government on behalf of foreign countries, including dictatorships.
The death penalty would be expanded to cover 15 new offenses.
What are the offenses?
And many of PATRIOT I's "sunset provisions" – stipulating that the expanded new enforcement powers would be rescinded in 2005 – would be erased from the books, cementing Ashcroft's rushed legislation in the law books. As UPI noted March 10, "These sunset provisions were a concession to critics of the bill in Congress."
For the entire 87 page draft.
Originally posted by IronDragon
People who think the "Danger" will never be over are wrong. Terrorism requires infrastructure, it is not the Anarchy it seems to be. Posted by Freemason
Yeah, " anarchy" isn't organized or orchestrated....that'd be a contradiction...
I think you didnt quite understand my point above... indeed, terrorism by an external agency would be difficult to maintain for long periods, and could be destroyed given proper intelligence and military capabilities. However, when the threat of terrorism is gone, gone too are the reasons for oppressing the public.
As the reason for the FEMA protocols were originally to provide a legitimate reason to suspend constitutional protections of the population and thereby to oppress the population, once triggered, there is no way back.
My contention is that once the FEMA protocols are triggered, even if the external threat (if indeed there ever was one) is eliminated, another threat will be necessary to maintain legitimacy of the new constitutionless society. If no suitable external threat is evident, one will be manufactured by the ruling government itself.
Did you ever read 1984? There were no actual wars going on, they were simply orchestrated to keep the population diverted and on the edge of panic and starvation, and therefore very easy to control.
Originally posted by dragonrider
And like-wise to understand that if the patriot act is unconstitutional it can not apply. Posted by Freemason
Dont know if you have read Patriot II or not, but its very text invalidates and repeals large portions of the constitution.
Doesnt seem to matter if it is unconstitutional or not to those set to vote on it.
by Thomas Jefferson
"Patrotism is a virtue of the vicious."