"Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny," British parliamentarian Edmund Burke explained in 1800.
Two centuries have passed, but legislatures continue to reinforce the link between bad law and tyranny. The U.S. Congress did so this week, with the passage of the ambitiously named Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act.
Rare are the moments in American history when a Congress has surrendered so many cherished freedoms in a single trip to the altar of immediate fear.
Crafted in Attorney General John Ashcroft’s little shop of legal horrors from the remnants of past assaults on the Constitution, the "USA PATRIOT ACT" is a legislative Frankenstein’s monster.
"This bill goes light years beyond what is necessary to combat terrorism," argues Laura Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington National Office. "Included in the bill are provisions that would allow for the mistreatment of immigrants, the suppression of dissent and the investigation and surveillance of wholly innocent Americans."
And the bad legislation is now the law of the land. Signed Friday by President Bush, it was opposed in the Senate only by Russ Feingold, D-Wi. In the House is drew broader opposition from 62 Democrats -- including the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Michigan’s John Conyers, and Congressional civil liberties watchdogs such as Massachusetts’ Barney Frank and Georgia’s John Lewis -- as well as three Republicans and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders.
What freedoms have Americans lost? Civil libertarians worry most that the new legislation:
Permits the Attorney General to incarcerate or detain non-citizens based on mere suspicion, and to deny re-admission to the U.S. of non-citizens (including lawful permanent residents) for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment.
Minimizes judicial supervision of telephone and Internet surveillance by law enforcement authorities in anti-terrorism investigations AND in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.
Expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches, again in anti-terrorism investigations AND in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism. This means that law enforcement authorities can enter and search an individual’s home without presenting a warrant or in any way informing the subject of the search.
Gives the Attorney General and the Secretary of State the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and to block any non-citizen who belongs to them from entering the country.
Makes the payment of membership dues to political organizations a deportable offense.
Grants 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.
Will 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.
Puts 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.
Allows 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.
Allows student records to be searched based on a very low standard of relevancy to an investigation.
Creates a broad new definition of "domestic terrorism" that could target people who engage in acts of political protest and subject them to wiretapping and enhanced penalties.
Standing alone in the Senate to oppose the legislation, Feingold recalled past assaults on basic liberties: "The Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the internment of Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans during World War II, the blacklisting of supposed communist sympathizers during the McCarthy era, and the surveillance and harassment of antiwar protesters, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during the Vietnam War."
He then explained to his fellow senators: "Now some may say, indeed we may hope, that we have come a long way since the those days of infringements on civil liberties. But there is ample reason for concern. And I have been troubled in the past six weeks by the potential loss of commitment in the Congress and the country to traditional civil liberties."
In the contemporary legislature where he sits, the Senate of the United States of America, no member would stand with Russ Feingold. But he did not stand alone. Surely, a legislator from another era and another legislature, Edmund Burke, was with him in spirit.
Berkeley Council condemns U.S. bombing of Afghanistan October 18 @ 0:44am After a bitter debate that divided one of the most liberal cities in the United States, members of the Berkeley City Council Tuesday night voted to urge a quick halt to the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan.
The Council voted 5-4 to endorse a measure that honored victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon while at the same time criticizing the military response by the United States to those attacks.
Councilwoman Dona Spring, the sponsor of the measure, argues that it is not appropriate to answer the deaths of innocent civilians in the United States by causing the deaths of innocent Afghan civilians. In addition, she says, a military response by the U.S. creates instability that ultimately will lead to greater danger. "(Bombings and other military actions) will breed more terrorism and create more instability in the Middle East -- particularly Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons," she explained.
Spring's resolution urges the U.S. to "work with international organizations" toward the goal of "bringing to justice all of those complicit in last month's violent attack."
The resolution also calls for action to combat global poverty and for the reduction of U.S. reliance on oil.
The move is believed to be the first condemnation by a local government of President Bush's response to the September 11 attacks.
Berkeley is represented in Congress by U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, the Bay Area Democrat who cast the lone vote against the resolution granting Bush broad authority to use force in response to the attacks.
While there is strong anti-war sentiment in Berkeley, Mayor Shirley Dean, who opposed the measure, said Council members received "serious death threats" after it was learned that the anti-bombing resolution was to be considered.
Responded Spring: "If we (the Berkeley City Council) can't support a nonviolent solution, when or where will some government agency do that?"
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |