ACLU Files First Challenge to USA PATRIOT Act

Aug 2 16:44 UTC 2003

ACLU Cites Radical Expansion of FBI Powers

July 30, 2003 - Press Release

DETROIT  The American Civil Liberties Union today filed the first legal
challenge to the USA PATRIOT Act, taking aim at a section of the controversial
law that vastly expands the power of FBI agents to secretly obtain records
and personal belongings of innocent people in the United States, including
citizens and permanent residents.

Ordinary Americans should not have to worry that the FBI is rifling through
their medical records, seizing their personal papers, or forcing charities
and advocacy groups to divulge membership lists, said Ann Beeson, Associate
Legal Director of the ACLU and the lead attorney in the lawsuit.
 
We know from our clients that the FBI is once again targeting ethnic,
religious, and political minority communities disproportionately, she added.
Investing the FBI with unchecked authority to monitor the activities of
innocent people is an invitation to abuse, a waste of resources, and is
certainly not making any of us any safer.
 
As the ACLU described in a report released today, Section 215 of the PATRIOT
Act violates constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and
seizures as well as the rights to freedom of speech and association. The
report, Unpatriotic Acts: The FBIs Power to Rifle Through Your Records and
Personal Belongings Without Telling You, describes how the law:

 Violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the FBI to search and seize records
or personal belongings without a warrant, without showing probable cause --
and without ever notifying even innocent people of the searches;
 Violates the First Amendment because it allows the FBI to easily obtain
information about a persons reading habits, religious affiliations, Internet
surfing and other expressive activities that would be chilled by the threat
of investigation;
 Violates the First Amendment by imposing a gag order that prohibits those
served with Section 215 orders from telling anyone -- ever -- that the FBI
demanded information, even if the information is not tied to a particular
suspect and poses no risk to national security.
 
The ACLU filed the lawsuit in federal court here today on behalf of six
advocacy and community groups from across the country whose members and
clients believe they are currently the targets of investigations because of
their ethnicity, religion and political associations. The lawsuit names
Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller as the
defendants.
 
 
The groups participating in the lawsuit are: Muslim Community Association of
Ann Arbor (MCA), which operates a mosque and school in Ann Arbor, MI;
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), a national civil rights
organization based in Washington, DC; Arab Community Center for Economic and
Social Services (ACCESS), a human services organization based in Dearborn,
MI that operates a medical clinic as well as a center for refugees and torture
victims; Bridge Refugee and Sponsorship Services (Bridge), based in Knoxville,
TN; Council on American-Islamic Relations, a grassroots membership
organization based in Washington, DC; and The Islamic Center of Portland,
Masjed As-Saber, which operates a mosque and school, based in Portland, OR.

 read on.. 
http://www.aclumich.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=309

response 2 of 61:

Aug 2 20:26 UTC 2003

Well, what can I say? You are welcome to migrate to India and take up 
jobs that are outsourced from the US ;-)

We are already a billion, a few more million won't hurt :D

response 4 of 61:

Aug 3 00:03 UTC 2003

Just be glad you folks have a constitution, and it's enforceable. In the UK
we folks aren't so lucky. Parliament is sovereign, and can do whatever the
hell it likes, limited only by European law. blech.

response 6 of 61:

Aug 3 05:50 UTC 2003

Uh, apparently it must come as a surprise to some that there is
currently a war on and the combatants not only don't wear uniforms
easily identifying them as the enemy but they live among us.  Even the
draconian _Patriot Act_ which I personally detest has a sunset provision
and so I for one am willing to put up with it for awhile.  And yes, I
know the quotes - I probably know more about the quotes than you do so
don't bother.  And yes I am fully aware that "temporary powers" granted
to a government are rarerly surrendered - witness the 1913 Income tax
act which was supposed to be temporary and was only on a small 2% or so
of the "super rich".  But there is a war on, so lets all sit back and
see how this plays out.  Right about now is not the time to be screwing
with the mechanism of keeping US citizens safe - that is a process that
should be reserved for peacetime.

response 8 of 61:

Aug 3 13:20 UTC 2003

The war on terrorism will *never* be over; no sooner had we put to an end most
of the violence in Northern Ireland than we found ourselves embroiled in a
war to combat terrorism in the US which can only put Europe in harm's way.
However, i do think that standing together with the US on this is important,
because they probably would have moved on to us anyway evn if we had chosen
to ignore our responsibilities at this time.

response 10 of 61:

Aug 3 20:51 UTC 2003

Yes.  And then perhaps the G-d given right of each American to be blown 
to smithereens can be added to the Bill of Rights.

response 12 of 61:

Aug 4 04:55 UTC 2003

re#11: Cheap shot, mary.  One could equally say that if the 2nd
amendment had been followed the arabs wouldn't have been able to take
over the airplanes with box cutters.

Clearly in the ACLU et al zeal to protect the ability of our enemies to
function our citzens are at greater risk than if such research programs
as the TIA and "dead pool" were allowed to function to see if useful
information to prevent future events could be found.  The next event
that occurs its likely the same liberal crackpots that will then cry
about the inability of the goverenment agencies to have prevented it
while at the same time continuing to ignore that they are very much the
cause of that inability.

response 16 of 61:

Aug 4 11:33 UTC 2003

Re #10:  Funny, Kerry, the government already had a couple of the
9/11 terrorists on watch lists long before the USA un-PATRIOTic
act.  What kept them from being nabbed (and the plot foiled) was
inter-agency turf battles and failure of management to follow
hard leads (like plans found after a terrorist was nabbeed in the
Phillipines).  The law does next to nothing to fix this.

It does, however, allow secret search and seizure of records of all
kinds, and prohibits disclosure of what is being searched.  You might
recall that the typical behavior of the government when it gets such
powers isn't to protect the citizens, but to cover the asses of the
people in authority (and the patrons who put them there).  Do please
try to make a case for J. Edgar Hoover's modus operandi as a right
and proper state of affairs.  I'm sure we will find it most enlightening.

(An example of a government using power to cover its own ass at the
expense of the citizens is China, during the SARS epidemic.  We do
not need to import Chinese Communist Party practices any more than
we needed to import SARS; they are both diseases best eradicated.)

response 18 of 61:

Aug 4 16:38 UTC 2003

Emigration to the Far East to find work?

response 20 of 61:

Aug 4 18:33 UTC 2003

Naaahhh!! Rise of the fourth Reich. ;-)

response 24 of 61:

Aug 4 18:51 UTC 2003

Doesn't sound that terribly far-fetched actually.