Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

quote:

---

ACLU Says White House Is Engaged in Patriot Act Misinformation Campaign; Releases Point-By-Point Response to Bush Falsehoods
April 22, 2004


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today released an item-by-item rebuttal to a slew of false claims that President Bush made in Buffalo this week about the controversial USA Patriot Act.

"The president's speech was misinformation, pure and simple," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "The administration is making a series of deliberate misstatements to deceive the American public."

In response to the president’s new campaign to remove the Patriot Act’s sunsets, the ACLU said it would prepare and release periodic detailed rebuttals on White House misinformation. Romero noted that the ACLU has taken similar issue with information presented by Attorney General John Ashcroft and produced a report, "Seeking Truth From Justice: The Justice Department's Campaign to Mislead The Public About the USA PATRIOT Act."

Point-by-Point Rebuttal

The President:
"By the way, the reason I bring up the Patriot Act, it’s set to expire next year. I’m starting a campaign to make it clear to members of Congress that it shouldn’t expire. It shouldn’t expire for the security of our country."

The Truth:
Less that 10 percent of the Patriot Act expires; most of the law is permanent and those portions that do sunset will not do so until December 31, 2005.

The President:
"And that changed, the law changed on- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren’t available for chasing down terrorists, see?"

The Truth:
Roving wiretaps were available prior to 9/11 against drug lords and terrorists. Prior to the law, the FBI could get a roving wiretap against both when it had probable cause of crime for a wiretap eligible offense. What the Patriot Act did is make roving wiretaps available in intelligence investigations supervised by the secret intelligence court without the judicial safeguards of the criminal wiretap statute.

The President:
"… see, I’m not a lawyer, so it’s kind of hard for me to kind of get bogged down in the law. (Applause). I’m not going to play like one, either. (Laughter.) The way I viewed it, if I can just put it in simple terms, is that one part of the FBI couldn’t tell the other part of the FBI vital information because of the law. And the CIA and the FBI couldn’t talk."

The Truth:
The CIA and the FBI could talk and did. As Janet Reno wrote in prepared testimony before the 9/11 commission, "There are simply no walls or restrictions on sharing the vast majority of counterterrorism information. There are no legal restrictions at all on the ability of the members of the intelligence community to share intelligence information with each other.

"With respect to sharing between intelligence investigators and criminal investigators, information learned as a result of a physical surveillance or from a confidential informant can be legally shared without restriction.

"While there were restrictions placed on information gathered by criminal investigators as a result of grand jury investigations or Title III wire taps, in practice they did not prove to be a serious impediment since there was very little significant information that could not be shared."

The President:
"Thirdly, to give you an example of what we’re talking about, there’s something called delayed-notification search warrants. … We couldn’t use these against terrorists [before the Patriot Act], but we could use against gangs."

The Truth:
Delayed-notification - or so-called sneak-and-peek search warrants - were never limited to gangs. The circuit courts that had authorized them in limited circumstances prior to the Patriot Act did not limit the warrants to the investigation of gangs. In fact, terrorism or espionage investigators did not necessarily have to go through the criminal courts for a covert search - they could do so with even fewer safeguards against abuse by going to a top secret foreign intelligence court in Washington.

For criminal sneak-and-peek warrants, the Patriot Act added a catch-all argument for prosecutors - if notice would delay prosecution or jeopardize an investigation - which makes these secret search warrants much easier to obtain.

The president’s sneak-and-peek misstatement clearly demonstrates that the Patriot Act is not limited to terrorism. In fact, many of the law’s expanded authorities can clearly be used outside the war on terrorism.

The President:
"Judges need greater authority to deny bail to terrorists."

The Truth:
The new presumptive detention that the president is proposing takes judicial authority away from the bail process. The presumption would take away the prosecution’s burden of showing that the accused is a danger or flight risk and instead puts it on the accused.

"Presidential recklessness with the facts is deeply troubling," Romero said. "We’ll be watching the president and his statements very closely during this campaign. He is clearly fighting a losing, defensive battle for the Patriot Act."

"President Bush clearly is attempting to silence his critics within the Republican Party, who believe that the Patriot Act went too far, too fast," Romero added.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: is futile
Posts: 5048

I hopefully won't be sticking around long enough to be affected by this stuff.

Land of Brave and Home of the free indeed

cheers

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 25268

The ACLU (All Clueless Liberals Unite) would offer to store a suitcase bomb for Bin Laden. Show me one American that has been adversely affected by the Patriot act. I have asked and asked, and all I get is hyperbole based in "what if" scenarios. The ACLU does not speak for mainstream America. They speak squarely for the Left in this country. Always have, always will.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

Trenchant_Troll, that is so true. There's not one law-abiding, decent American who has a thing to fear from the Patriot Act. In fact, it's idiotic not to have a Patriot Act post 9/11.

"Oh, gee! I'm so afraid that someone in the government can see what books I'm checking out of the library!"

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 5178

That seems to suggest that granting the government any authority it liked would be all right, as long as we couldn't find anyone who had been adversely affected by it. That's not acceptable. I believe that, with enough time, the likelihood that any given governmental power will be abused approaches certainty, and so it is not particularly reassuring to hear "Yes, they are sweeping powers, but nobody has been hurt yet, so it's OK."

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

if it can survive so well on its own merits, why is the president being factually incorrect, intentionally or otherwise, as to its provisions?

and only communists had anything to fear from mcarthyism.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 25268

Point-by-Point Rebuttal

The President:
"By the way, the reason I bring up the Patriot Act, it’s set to expire next year. I’m starting a campaign to make it clear to members of Congress that it shouldn’t expire. It shouldn’t expire for the security of our country."

The Truth:
Less that 10 percent of the Patriot Act expires; most of the law is permanent and those portions that do sunset will not do so until December 31, 2005.

a) That would be "next year".

b) If 10% of your bodily functions were set to expire December 31, 2005, would you be concerned?

The President:
"And that changed, the law changed on- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren’t available for chasing down terrorists, see?"

The Truth:
Roving wiretaps were available prior to 9/11 against drug lords and terrorists. Prior to the law, the FBI could get a roving wiretap against both when it had probable cause of crime for a wiretap eligible offense. What the Patriot Act did is make roving wiretaps available in intelligence investigations supervised by the secret intelligence court without the judicial safeguards of the criminal wiretap statute.

If you aren't dealing drugs, planning an act of terrorism, or a member of the ACLU, I fail to see the problem here other than semantics.

The President:
"… see, I’m not a lawyer, so it’s kind of hard for me to kind of get bogged down in the law. (Applause). I’m not going to play like one, either. (Laughter.) The way I viewed it, if I can just put it in simple terms, is that one part of the FBI couldn’t tell the other part of the FBI vital information because of the law. And the CIA and the FBI couldn’t talk."

The Truth:
The CIA and the FBI could talk and did. As Janet Reno wrote in prepared testimony before the 9/11 commission, "There are simply no walls or restrictions on sharing the vast majority of counterterrorism information. There are no legal restrictions at all on the ability of the members of the intelligence community to share intelligence information with each other.

"With respect to sharing between intelligence investigators and criminal investigators, information learned as a result of a physical surveillance or from a confidential informant can be legally shared without restriction.

"While there were restrictions placed on information gathered by criminal investigators as a result of grand jury investigations or Title III wire taps, in practice they did not prove to be a serious impediment since there was very little significant information that could not be shared."

Tell that to the Branch Davidians, Janet dear. Whether the walls were real or perceived by virtue of "turf", they existed and were ignored by all. The Patriot Act not only encourages cooperation between agencies, it demands it. Again, where is the problem with that?

The President:
"Thirdly, to give you an example of what we’re talking about, there’s something called delayed-notification search warrants. … We couldn’t use these against terrorists [before the Patriot Act], but we could use against gangs."

The Truth:
Delayed-notification - or so-called sneak-and-peek search warrants - were never limited to gangs. The circuit courts that had authorized them in limited circumstances prior to the Patriot Act did not limit the warrants to the investigation of gangs. In fact, terrorism or espionage investigators did not necessarily have to go through the criminal courts for a covert search - they could do so with even fewer safeguards against abuse by going to a top secret foreign intelligence court in Washington.

For criminal sneak-and-peek warrants, the Patriot Act added a catch-all argument for prosecutors - if notice would delay prosecution or jeopardize an investigation - which makes these secret search warrants much easier to obtain.

The president’s sneak-and-peek misstatement clearly demonstrates that the Patriot Act is not limited to terrorism. In fact, many of the law’s expanded authorities can clearly be used outside the war on terrorism.

Like who? Are you really so naive to think that those in power cannot obtain anything they want to know from you within or without the law? Clinton did it and didn't need the Patriot Act. Remember the FBI file scandal? And that's just what we knew about! Grow the fuck up, you whiners.

The President:
"Judges need greater authority to deny bail to terrorists."

The Truth:
The new presumptive detention that the president is proposing takes judicial authority away from the bail process. The presumption would take away the prosecution’s burden of showing that the accused is a danger or flight risk and instead puts it on the accused.

One word: Good.

"Presidential recklessness with the facts is deeply troubling," Romero said. "We’ll be watching the president and his statements very closely during this campaign. He is clearly fighting a losing, defensive battle for the Patriot Act."

"President Bush clearly is attempting to silence his critics within the Republican Party, who believe that the Patriot Act went too far, too fast," Romero added.

As an American, what I find troubling is that there are those in our midst that gloat when bad things happen to America and Americans. They are invariably Liberals and invariably the backbone (or lack there of) of the ACLU.

Think the Libs and the ACLU are "troubled" now? Wait until November.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZiM
and only communists had anything to fear from mcarthyism.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7974

The problem with the patriot act is not that it enables the government to do things it wasn't doing before; the problem is that it legitimizes it.

Therefore the law, which is supposed to safeguard the citizen from the abuse of unaccountable power, can no longer do so.

And since the current government has employed semantics to get around the law in the past ("enemy combatants = a rose by any other name") what's to stop it from exploiting semantics in the future to limit a citizens democratic rights?

And, refering back to a gun control argument I made in a recent thread, what the fuck are you doing supporting a bill that gives a person less right to their privacy then they have to their guns?

The patriot bill is shit, no matter your politics (unless you're profacist).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

If the police obtain information that, say, there's drug dealing going on in the house next to mine, then consider me fascistic if I would agree that, upon getting a court order, the police could storm into that house and arrest the drug dealers and confiscate the drugs.

Under the Patriot Act, the police cannot, as fascists do, simply storm into someone's house. They have to go before a judge. JUST AS THEY HAVE HAD TO DO IN THE PAST.

Consider me fascist if the police obtain information that there are members of an Al Quaeda cell in Apartment 3-B plotting to bomb some site and, after getting a court order, storm into Apartment 3-B. Again, under the Patriot Act, they cannot simply, in storm-trooper style, march into anyone's abode. They still need to go before a judge.

Under the Patriot Act, there is nothing more fascistic now than before, and, therefore, I am not worried about fascism or fascists infecting my government.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7974

------------------------------------
Under the Patriot Act, the police cannot, as fascists do, simply storm into someone's house. They have to go before a judge. JUST AS THEY HAVE HAD TO DO IN THE PAST.
------------------------------------
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/lynch-030910.html
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveill...ot_analysis.php
http://www.amconmag.com/05_19_03/cover.html

It's the surveillance. Total information awareness. You only have to be on a republican hit list or happen to be buying books that have been redflaged to get people interested in you. And once they are, they will have the power to look over your life in great detail, without oversight and without your knowlege.

This is shitte that can and will be abused.
--------------------------------------
Under the Patriot Act, there is nothing more fascistic now than before, and, therefore, I am not worried about fascism or fascists infecting my government.
-----------------------------------------
Unfortunatly that's exactly how they took the election.
(sorry for the inflamatory comment)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

quote:

---

[i]
It's the surveillance. Total information awareness. You only have to be on a republican hit list or happen to be buying books that have been redflaged to get people interested in you. And once they are, they will have the power to look over your life in great detail, without oversight and without your knowlege.[/B]

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7974

They got no buissness until I do something with what I'm doing to even be looking at what I'm doing.
That is the point.

If I was buying a gun, I might expect to be checked on (though that shit is sacrosnact for some pretzel logic reason). If I'm buying a book, fuck off. My reasons are my reasons!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: deep in the heart of...
Posts: 515

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoFuckYourselves!
Well, if you're buying The Anarchist's Cookbook, then maybe the police SHOULD check up on what you're doing.

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 10318

I don't care about the patriot act, it can only have a positive effect on me, because I am not a criminal and I have nothing to hide. I say criminals have too many rights the way it is. People who do have a problem with it are politically motivated, are criminals, or are privacy fanatics who have read 1984 way too many times.

My problem is with the ridiculous name of the "Patriot Act" which is intended to camouflage it's true purpose and paint any detractors as un-patriotic. I have a problem with being told over and over again that its purpose is to protect us from terrorism when it is not intended or used (solely) for that purpose. And I have a problem with Bush using it as a campaigning tool. Just call it what it is, a crime fighting tool, and stop insulting my intelligence with all of this 9/11 War On Terror fear mongering.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 10318

quote:

---

that is absolute crap! the government has no business in my personal reading tastes. it's called freedom, and it is supposed to be what is valued foremost in this country.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trenchant_Troll
Point-by-Point Rebuttal

The President:
"By the way, the reason I bring up the Patriot Act, it’s set to expire next year. I’m starting a campaign to make it clear to members of Congress that it shouldn’t expire. It shouldn’t expire for the security of our country."

The Truth:
Less that 10 percent of the Patriot Act expires; most of the law is permanent and those portions that do sunset will not do so until December 31, 2005.

a) That would be "next year".

b) If 10% of your bodily functions were set to expire December 31, 2005, would you be concerned?

---

Last edited by zim on 04-26-2004 at 04:55 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged