“Americans must trade some privacy for security"

Mission creep? A new bill could expand the Pentagon's ability to gather intelligence inside the United States
By Michael Isikoff
Investigative Correspondent
NewsweekJune 21 issue

Last February, two Army counterintelligence agents showed up at the University of Texas law school and demanded to see the roster from a conference on Islamic law held a few days earlier. Their reason: they were trying to track down students who the agents claimed had been asking "suspicious" questions. "I felt like I was in 'Law & Order'," said one student after being grilled by one of the agents. The incident provoked a brief campus uproar, and the Army later admitted the agents had exceeded their authority. But if the Pentagon has its way, the Army may not have to make such amends in the future. Without any public hearing or debate, NEWSWEEK has learned, Defense officials recently slipped a provision into a bill before Congress that could vastly expand the Pentagon's ability to gather intelligence inside the United States, including recruiting citizens as informants.

advertisement

Ever since the 1970s, when Army intel agents were caught snooping on antiwar protesters, military intel agencies have operated under tight restrictions inside the United States. But the new provision, approved in closed session last month by the Senate Intelligence Committee, would eliminate one big restriction: that they comply with the Privacy Act, a Watergate-era law that requires government officials seeking information from a resident to disclose who they are and what they want the information for. The CIA always has been exempt—although by law it isn't supposed to operate inside the United States. The new provision would now extend the same exemption to Pentagon agencies such as the Defense Intelligence Agency—so they can help track terrorists. A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee says the provision would allow military intel agents to "approach potential sources and collect personal information from them" without disclosing they work for the government. The justification: "Current counterterrorism operations," the report explains, which require "greater latitude ... both overseas and within the United States." DIA officials say they mainly want the provision so they can more easily question American businessmen and college students who travel abroad. But Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman concedes the provision will also be helpful in investigating suspected terrorist threats to military bases and contractors inside the United States. "It's a new world we live in," he says. "We have to do what is necessary for force protection." Among those pushing for the provision, sources say, were officials at northcom, the new Colorado-based command set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to oversee "homeland defense." Pentagon lawyers insist agents will still be legally barred from domestic "law enforcement." But watchdog groups see a potentially alarming "mission creep." "This... is giving them the authority to spy on Americans," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a group frequently critical of the war on terror. "And it's all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night."

Patriot Act: Scary in any context. Especially if you are a law abiding, Arab American.

But my question is: What would you think if your entire family was killed by an Anglo American man on a mission from Allah?

On the lighter side:

This guy has some entertaining things to say.
http://www.celebrityhypocrites.com/dmiller1.jpg

Dennis Miller ACLU Rant

Quote:

---

Originally posted by interloper
http://alberta.indymedia.org/uploads...explosives.jpg

---

Off topic, but interesting (to me).

I'm not too sure that Interloper knows where that photo comes from... or at least what the hell those red lines mean. (If I'm wrong, sorry interloper... you weren't too clear man.)

That image is taken from a conspiracy theory. I've seen it lots of places, but that particular one comes from IndyMedia. (I love IndyMedia because it allows anyone to post anything... but.... it allows anyone it post anything.)

That image is seen as "proof" for the conspiracy theory that the towers were rigged to explode. The red boxes are meant to indicate evidence of explosive charges blowing out the lower floors, thus allowing the upper floors to fall. The larger red boxes are meant to indicate that shape that some believe the upper tower would hold as it collapsed.

I'm no structural engineer, but I'm pretty sure that if the inner structure of a building collapsed, sending several floors crashing down into lower floors I suspect that:
1) before the exterior frame collapsed the windows would be blown out by the collapse of the interior. (entire floors smashing down into one another and whatnot.)
2) the collapse of floors would propogate. (am I using that word right?) The falling mass would gather such energy that even the undamaged floors of the building would also collapse.

The conspiracy theory in question also claims that had the building actually collapsed (and not been intentionally destroyed) then the upper section, above the impact zone, would hold a form similar to that of the larger red block in picture 227, 241, and 255. Of course, if you look at the undoctored photos you can see traces of the upper building holding some of its form.

...'tis a silly conspiracy theory I say.

All this plus some guy with a meth lab getting charged with producing weapons of mass destruction and an artist getting the 3rd degree for "biological warfare" when his painting involed the use of some bacteria.

http://www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/n...962597,00.html

Post-9/11 laws expand to more than terrorism
By LANCE GAY
June 14, 2004


Federal and state prosecutors are applying stiff antiterrorism laws adopted after the 9/11 attacks to broad, run-of-the-mill probes of political corruption, financial crimes and immigration frauds.

If the government gets its way, even routine transactions of buying or selling American homes could soon come under the scrutiny of money-laundering provisions of the USA Patriot Act. The Treasury Department, which already has caught up financial transactions in casinos, storefront check-cashing stores and auto dealers for scrutiny, wants to expand Patriot Act coverage to home purchases as well.

Since 9/11, critics say the greatest effect of new state and federal antiterrorism laws has been on crimes already covered by other laws.

Washington-area snipers John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo were both convicted under a post-9/11 Virginia antiterrorism statute making it a death-penalty offense to be involved in more than one murder in a three-year period. Muhammad was sentenced to death, and Malvo was given life imprisonment without parole.good!

The FBI has used Patriot Act provisions in a political corruption probe involving a Las Vegas girlie bar, and the Justice Department reported to the House Judiciary Committee last year that it used the new law in probes of credit-card fraud, theft from a bank account and a kidnapping.

In the first action of its kind, the Treasury Department also used the Patriot Act this year to put Syria's largest commercial bank and two commercial banks in Myanmar on blacklists - actions that forbid any U.S. financial institution from doing business with them.

Legal experts say they're not surprised that antiterrorism laws are being used for more than just terrorism.

Peter Swire, a law professor at Ohio State University, recalled that Congress adopted antiracketeering laws in 1970 with the intent to thwart mobsters, but the punitive laws have since been broadened and put to use in civil cases against corporations, and most recently against the organized campaigns of pro-life protesters against abortion clinics.

Swire worked in the Clinton administration and chaired a White House working group looking at issues involved with electronic surveillance. He said many Patriot Act provisions, which sped through Congress within days after 9/11, were proposals that either Congress or the White House had previously rejected. Many provisions are slated to expire next year unless Congress makes the changes permanent.

Swire said one little-noted impact of that law on the judicial system is that prosecutors can add more charges against defendants, even when terrorism isn't involved.

"Prosecutors like to have more arrows in their quiver - it gives them more leverage in plea bargaining," he said. Plea bargaining is the process where prosecutors offer to drop some charges in return for a defendant's guilty plea in order to avoid costly, time-consuming trials.

Swire contends the Patriot Act has been so controversial that the Justice Department has been very cautious in using all of its provisions.

"They are careful because they know people are checking to see if it is abused," he said. "Once it becomes permanent, I think it will be used more widely."

The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups are campaigning for Congress to terminate some of the more controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, contending the law unnecessarily expands government powers.

The ACLU says the government already has sufficient investigative tools, and the Patriot Act has been used for non-terrorist-related crimes such as seizing stolen funds from bank accounts in Belize.

Michael Mello, a law professor at Vermont Law School, disagrees and said the Patriot Act made some needed changes in government procedures, including provisions that tore down barriers that prohibited the FBI and CIA from sharing information.

"There's been a sea change by tearing down that wall," said Mello. "To forbid the FBI from getting spooks' (CIA) information that someone in the United States was carrying out a significant criminal enterprise is insane."

In spite of the criticism from the ACLU and others, Mello said he doesn't believe the Patriot Act has been misused or has resulted in any expansion of government powers. "In the absence of evidence, the critics lose," he said.

Mello agrees that there are some provisions in the Patriot Act that should be allowed to expire. He opposes a controversial provision allowing the Justice Department to use so-called "national security letters" to obtain library records, medical records and banking records of people put under surveillance. The Patriot Act wasn't needed when police searched library records in the hunt for Unabomber Ted Kaczynski or the effort to track New York's Zodiac killer, Mello noted.

Many government activities under the Patriot Act remain shrouded in secrecy. One of the provisions not expiring is an expansion of police powers to obtain "sneak-and-peek" warrants allowing surveillances - including break-ins - without notifying the people being watched.

The government is being more aggressive in asking courts for surveillance warrants. The Justice Department last year made a record 1,727 requests for wiretap approvals from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, but does not publicly disclose how many investigations that might involve.

Attorney General John Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that the Patriot Act has been used judiciously, and he urged Congress to give speedy consideration to extending it.

(Contact Lance Gay at GayL(at)shns.com. Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.shns.com)

...'tis a silly conspiracy theory I say. Agreed.

Add "political dissident" to the list of reasons such investigative tools can be utilized and you got yourself a Cold War Russia.

That mr. egyptian got his pilot's license.

hey, Handy Sam. pull your head out of the proverbial conspiracy theory ass for two seconds and read SummitCo's post. Prosecutors are using the Patriot Act in much the same fashion as Rudy Giuliani used the RICO statutes to convict members of the Mob. Was it wrong for him to utilize a different law to prosecute previously Teflon Don's?? NO, emphatically not.

again, inquiring minds want to know.

Yet again, mr_gyptian's logic is incredibly poor and flaccid. Note what RICO stands for. Go ahead, use this lovely information highway. Then consider the comparison of RICO to presecute organized crime vs. the Patriot Act to prosecute meth manufacturers.
Also, note the lack of enforcement regarding well known IRA support here in the good ol' boy USofA. Can you say jingoist?

Understanding the blinders don't even have peepholes in your case, m_e, I'll state the obvious one more time:

Add "political dissident" to the list of reasons such investigative tools can be utilized and you got yourself a Cold War Russia.

When Prof. Bradley at Notre Dame started to build what would become RICO it was mainly for anti-trust law enforcement. The illegitimate enterprise was an add in before the law got passed.

Though not a perfect corrolation, I didn't say it was in the above.

A more apt comparison would be to Hate Crime legislation. If someone plans and then commits a murder, you prosecute them as such. Regardless of the victim's race, creed, color it's First Degree murder. A higher level of prosecution or conviction is not necessary.

The Patriot Act serves as another arrow in a prosecutor's quiver. Fine by me. If Chef Meth gets twelve years rather than three months under a provision of the Patriot Act. Tough shit, shouldn't have been cookin' in the first place.

Oh, and I've mentioned many a time my severe problems with passing the hat for the IRA. Though buster, they seem like your kind of revolutionary.

CONCLUSION: KEY CONCEPTS OF RICO JURISPRUDENCE


There are 17 key concepts of RICO jurisprudence. Before bringing any civil RICO action or before responding to any civil RICO complaint, a practitioner or party should understand and be able to apply all of these concepts:


RICO encompasses both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises. United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981).


Under RICO, section 1962(c), there must be a distinction between the RICO "person" and the RICO "enterprise." An individual cannot "associate" with himself. This is known as the person / enterprise distinction. River City Markets, Inc. v. Fleming Foods West, Inc., 960 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1992).


With regard to the person / enterprise distinction, one can associate with a group of which he is a member while the member and the group remain distinct. Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339 (3d Cir. 1995).


RICO's person / enterprise distinction is NOT met by alleging that a corporation associated with its own employees, agents, subdivisions or affiliates. Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339 (3d Cir. 1995).


Under RICO, section 1962(c), there also must be a distinction between the enterprise and the racketeering activity; in other words, members of an enterprise must be linked by more than their participation in the same pattern of racketeering activity. This is known as the racketeering activity / enterprise distinction. McDonough v. National Home Ins. Co., 108 F.3d 174 (8th Cir. 1997).


A RICO enterprise need not be economically motivated. National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1993).


To be liable under section 1962(c), a person must participate in the operation or management of the enterprise itself. Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1993).


Since 1995, a civil RICO claim cannot be based upon allegations of a securities fraud violation; a defendant must be criminally convicted of securities fraud before he can be subject to civil liability on the basis of securities fraud violations. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).


A RICO claim can be predicated on mail and wire fraud alone but should not be so predicated. RICOAct.com.


The factors of continuity plus relationship combine to produce a pattern. H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tele. Co., 492 U.S. 299 (1989).


A close-ended pattern must generally last one year. Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506 (9th Cir. 1996).


A plaintiff has standing only to the extent that she has been injured in her business or property "by reason of" the conduct constituting the violation; a defendant who violates section 1962(c) is not liable for treble damages to everyone she might have injured by other conduct (e.g., breach of contract or negligence) nor is the defendant liable to those who have not been injured. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 (1985); Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992).


Always bring a section 1962(d) claim; never bring a section 1962(a) or (b) claim without a 1962(c) claim. RICOAct.com


A RICO claim must be brought within 4 years of accrual. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff Associates, Inc. 483 U.S. 143 (1987).


Aa RICO claim accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the victim discovers or reasonably should have discovered its injury. Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997); Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000).


A plaintiff can bring a federal civil RICO claim in either state or federal court. Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990).


If agreed to by the parties, RICO claims may be arbitrated. Shearson / American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987).

<< Return to Top

A poor man had so many children that he had already asked
everyone in the world to be godfather, and when still another
child was born, no one else was left whom he could invite.
He knew not what to do, and, in his perplexity, he lay down
and fell asleep. Then he dreamt that he was to go outside the
gate,
and ask the first person he met to be godfather. When he awoke,
he determined to obey his dream, and went outside the gate, and
asked the first person who came up to him to be godfather. The
stranger presented him with a little glass of water, and said,
this is a wonderful water, with it you can heal the sick, only
you must see where death is standing. If he is standing by the
patient's head, give the patient some of the water and he will
be healed, but if death is standing by his feet, all trouble
will be in vain, for the sick man must die. From this time forth,
the man could always say whether a patient could be saved or
not, and became famous for his skill, and earned a great deal
of money. Once he was called in to the child of the king, and
when he entered, he saw death standing by the child's head and
cured it with the water, and he did the same a second time, but
the third time death was standing by its feet, and then he knew
the child had to die.

Once the man thought he would visit the godfather, and tell him
how he had succeeded with the water. But when he entered the
house, the strangest things were going on within. On the first
flight of stairs, the broom and shovel were disputing, and
knocking each other about violently. He asked them, where does
the godfather live. The broom replied, one flight of stairs
higher up. When he came to the second flight, he saw a heap of
dead fingers lying. He asked, where does the godfather live.
One of the fingers replied, one flight of stairs higher. On
the third flight lay a heap of dead heads, which again directed
him to the flight beyond. On the fourth flight, he saw fishes on
the fire, which frizzled in pans and baked themselves. They,
too, said, one flight of stairs higher. And when he had
ascended the fifth, he came to the door of a room and peeped
through the keyhole, and there he saw the godfather who had
a pair of long horns. When he opened the door and went in,
the godfather got into bed in a great hurry and covered himself
up. Then said the man, sir godfather, what a strange house-hold
you have. When I came to your first flight of stairs, the shovel
and broom were quarreling, and beating each other violently.
How stupid you are, said the godfather. That was the boy
and the maid talking to each other. But on the second flight I
saw dead fingers lying. Oh, how silly you are. Those were some
roots of scorzonera. On the third flight lay a heap of dead
men's heads. Foolish man, those were cabbages. On the fourth
flight I saw fishes in a pan, which were hissing and baking
themselves. When he had said that, the fishes came and served
themselves up. And when I got to the fifth flight, I peeped
through the keyhole of a door, and there, godfather, I saw
you and you had long, long horns. Oh, that is not true. The
man became alarmed, and ran out, and if he had not, who knows
what the godfather would have done to him.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
When Prof. Bradley at Notre Dame started to build what would become RICO it was mainly for anti-trust law enforcement. The illegitimate enterprise was an add in before the law got passed.

Though not a perfect corrolation, I didn't say it was in the above.

---

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970.

Lovely backpedal you've got there. Did you learn that at dance school?

Quote:

---

A more apt comparison would be to Hate Crime legislation. If someone plans and then commits a murder, you prosecute them as such. Regardless of the victim's race, creed, color it's First Degree murder. A higher level of prosecution or conviction is not necessary.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

The Patriot Act serves as another arrow in a prosecutor's quiver. Fine by me. If Chef Meth gets twelve years rather than three months under a provision of the Patriot Act. Tough shit, shouldn't have been cookin' in the first place.

---

Geez, you can't even be consistent within the same post. You do make me so bored.

welcome back Buster, how was nap time??

back pedal? And I quote "Prosecutors are using the Patriot Act in much the same fashion as Rudy Giuliani used the RICO statutes to convict members of the Mob. Was it wrong for him to utilize a different law to prosecute previously Teflon Don's?? NO, emphatically not."

I did not say prosecutors are using the Patriot Act exactly as Rudy used RICO. I said in "much the same fashion." And it was a different strategy and law than previously used.

Lastly, in saying I don't have a problem with prosecutors utilizing the Patriot to convict criminals is not inconsistent with my opinion that Hate Crime legislation is redundant. Hate crime legislation has to do with motive. The Patriot Act(in the Meth case) has to do with the crime commited. Therefore if you are producing Meth it violates both production of narcotic laws and apparently chemical weapons statutes. Whereas, if for example you murder someone and have plotted to do so beforehand regardless of why. you still planned and carried out a murder. Thus a prosecutor charges the accused with first degree murder.


oh and Handy Sam, lay off the Murphy's Oil. It's not for oral consumption.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
welcome back Buster, how was nap time??
oh and Handy Sam, lay off the Murphy's Oil. It's not for oral consumption.

---

I find Grimm's far more interesting than your Tales From The White House. They do, however, both seem to require an extraordinary degree of gullibility. The funny thing is how much sense Grimm's makes in comparison.

people in jail never have to worry about where their next meal is coming from... or getting evicted by their landlord... oh how I envy such security

Interesting news!

They're passing Patriot act II bit by bit!

Why have a discussion when you can slip it in under the radar? A camera in every house, a file on every citizen! That's the American way!

After all, I have nothing to hide! And the government can do only good! I trust them entirely! Security before freedom!

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pi...gerprints3.jpg

I bet mr_egyptian just can't wait for that new chip implant.

He's your hero...

If Congress had intended the overbearing powers granted by USA PATRIOT act to be used outside of terrorism mitigation, they would have passed the law long ago. LEOs are abusing these powers, most of which shouldn't have been granted in the first place.

PATRIOT was clearly anti-terrorism legistlation and a power grab by authoritarian elements in congress (on both sides) and the administration.

What are we at these days?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
When Prof. Bradley at Notre Dame started to build what would become RICO it was mainly for anti-trust law enforcement. The illegitimate enterprise was an add in before the law got passed.

Though not a perfect corrolation, I didn't say it was in the above.

A more apt comparison would be to Hate Crime legislation. If someone plans and then commits a murder, you prosecute them as such. Regardless of the victim's race, creed, color it's First Degree murder. A higher level of prosecution or conviction is not necessary.

The Patriot Act serves as another arrow in a prosecutor's quiver. Fine by me. If Chef Meth gets twelve years rather than three months under a provision of the Patriot Act. Tough shit, shouldn't have been cookin' in the first place.

Oh, and I've mentioned many a time my severe problems with passing the hat for the IRA. Though buster, they seem like your kind of revolutionary.

CONCLUSION: KEY CONCEPTS OF RICO JURISPRUDENCE


There are 17 key concepts of RICO jurisprudence. Before bringing any civil RICO action or before responding to any civil RICO complaint, a practitioner or party should understand and be able to apply all of these concepts:


RICO encompasses both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises. United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981).


Under RICO, section 1962(c), there must be a distinction between the RICO "person" and the RICO "enterprise." An individual cannot "associate" with himself. This is known as the person / enterprise distinction. River City Markets, Inc. v. Fleming Foods West, Inc., 960 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1992).


With regard to the person / enterprise distinction, one can associate with a group of which he is a member while the member and the group remain distinct. Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339 (3d Cir. 1995).


RICO's person / enterprise distinction is NOT met by alleging that a corporation associated with its own employees, agents, subdivisions or affiliates. Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339 (3d Cir. 1995).


Under RICO, section 1962(c), there also must be a distinction between the enterprise and the racketeering activity; in other words, members of an enterprise must be linked by more than their participation in the same pattern of racketeering activity. This is known as the racketeering activity / enterprise distinction. McDonough v. National Home Ins. Co., 108 F.3d 174 (8th Cir. 1997).


A RICO enterprise need not be economically motivated. National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249 (1993).


To be liable under section 1962(c), a person must participate in the operation or management of the enterprise itself. Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1993).


Since 1995, a civil RICO claim cannot be based upon allegations of a securities fraud violation; a defendant must be criminally convicted of securities fraud before he can be subject to civil liability on the basis of securities fraud violations. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).


A RICO claim can be predicated on mail and wire fraud alone but should not be so predicated. RICOAct.com.


The factors of continuity plus relationship combine to produce a pattern. H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tele. Co., 492 U.S. 299 (1989).


A close-ended pattern must generally last one year. Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506 (9th Cir. 1996).


A plaintiff has standing only to the extent that she has been injured in her business or property "by reason of" the conduct constituting the violation; a defendant who violates section 1962(c) is not liable for treble damages to everyone she might have injured by other conduct (e.g., breach of contract or negligence) nor is the defendant liable to those who have not been injured. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 (1985); Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992).


Always bring a section 1962(d) claim; never bring a section 1962(a) or (b) claim without a 1962(c) claim. RICOAct.com


A RICO claim must be brought within 4 years of accrual. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff Associates, Inc. 483 U.S. 143 (1987).


Aa RICO claim accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the victim discovers or reasonably should have discovered its injury. Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997); Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000).


A plaintiff can bring a federal civil RICO claim in either state or federal court. Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990).


If agreed to by the parties, RICO claims may be arbitrated. Shearson / American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987).

<< Return to Top

---

But face it. You're a neo maxi zoom dweebie, what would you be doing if you weren't out making yourself a better citizen?

side note: Nice cut and paste. YOu really think anybody gives a shit about this?