hummingwolf (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
hummingwolf) wrote2002-09-23 11:14 am
hummingwolf) wrote2002-09-23 11:14 am
Entry tags:
For Reference: Your Rights
A couple of Associated Press articles early in September dealt with the changes in Americans' legal rights after last year's terrorist attacks. Since most news sites remove stories after about 2 weeks, I'm posting the text of the articles here for future reference.
Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
Thu Sep 5,11:44 AM ET
By The Associated Press
Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks:
_ FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.
_ FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.
_ FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
_ RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
_ FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
_ RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
_ RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
How Rights Changed After Sept. 11
Thu Sep 5,11:45 AM ET
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
The government has imposed many new limits on Americans' legal rights as it fights a war on terror, fundamentally altering the nation's delicate balance between liberty and security.
The changes — including the authority in terror cases to imprison Americans indefinitely, without charges or defense lawyers — substantially expand the government's ability to investigate, arrest, try and detain.
They grant law enforcement easier access to Americans' personal lives while keeping many government operations secret. And the idea that law-abiding citizens can freely associate with other law-abiding citizens without the threat of government surveillance no longer holds.
The Bush administration will not abuse these far-reaching powers, said Viet Dinh, an assistant U.S. attorney general: "I think security exists for liberty to flourish and liberty cannot exist without order and security," Dinh said.
Still, even supporters are wary.
"One has to pray that those powers are used responsibly," said Charlie Intriago, a former federal prosecutor and money laundering expert in Miami who said the new provisions could help intercept terrorists' finances.
The USA Patriot Act, hurriedly adopted by Congress and signed by Bush six weeks after the terror attacks, tipped laws in the government's favor in 350 subject areas involving 40 federal agencies.
The Bush administration has since imposed other legal changes without congressional consent, such as allowing federal agents to monitor attorney-client conversations in federal prisons, and encouraging bureaucrats to deny public access to many documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The FBI ( news - web sites) can monitor political and religious meetings inside the United States now, even when there's no suspicion a crime has been committed — a policy abandoned in the 1970s amid outrage over J. Edgar Hoover's surveillance of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and other activists.
The American Civil Liberities Union, media companies and other organizations are challenging many of the changes.
"Are we any safer as a nation? I don't know," said Anthony Romero, the ACLU's executive director. "Are we less free? You bet."
In a poll conducted for The Associated Press by ICR/International Communications Research of Media, Pa., 63 percent said they were concerned that the new measures could end up restricting Americans' individual freedoms. Of those, 30 percent of the 1,001 responding adults were "very concerned" and 33 percent "somewhat concerned."
The telephone poll taken Aug. 2-6 has an error margin of 3 percentage points.
"I don't think government should interfere too much in our lives," said Kelly Beaver, 19, a student in North Carolina.
But Arizona caregiver Daniel Martell, 42, said he wasn't concerned at all — "To me, it's not restricting my freedom. There's all kinds of things going on every day to protect freedom."
Americans may never know how valid their concerns are, since everything about terror-related investigations is secret. The administration isn't required to disclose how it is implementing the fundamental changes, making oversight — let alone court challenges — exceedingly difficult.
The Patriot Act allows "black bag" searches for medical and financial records, computer and telephone communications, even for the books Americans borrow from the library.
Judges approve these top-secret warrants in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. Established to target "foreign powers," FISA now also applies to U.S. citizens, who are no longer protected by the bread-and-butter legal standard of probable cause — prosecutors need only say the search will assist a terror probe.
Dinh credited these changes with reducing the risk of terror, but he wouldn't reveal specifics. "Many of our successes will have to be celebrated in secret," he said.
What is known is that thousands of Middle Eastern men who entered the United States since 2000 have been questioned and detained. Many were quietly deported after immigration hearings that are no longer public.
The administration is appealing a judge's order to reveal their names, saying the president's prosecution of the terror war can't be challenged, and that civilian courts have no authority over their detention.
Some of the new surveillance measures expire by 2006, but Congress can extend them if the open-ended war on terror continues.
"At what time is this war over?" Dinh said. "That I cannot answer."
[While I'm here... I ran across a commentary on the USA PATRIOT Act this morning that I'll want to check out in more depth later, so here's the link.]
Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
Thu Sep 5,11:44 AM ET
By The Associated Press
Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks:
_ FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.
_ FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.
_ FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
_ RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
_ FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
_ RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
_ RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
How Rights Changed After Sept. 11
Thu Sep 5,11:45 AM ET
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
The government has imposed many new limits on Americans' legal rights as it fights a war on terror, fundamentally altering the nation's delicate balance between liberty and security.
The changes — including the authority in terror cases to imprison Americans indefinitely, without charges or defense lawyers — substantially expand the government's ability to investigate, arrest, try and detain.
They grant law enforcement easier access to Americans' personal lives while keeping many government operations secret. And the idea that law-abiding citizens can freely associate with other law-abiding citizens without the threat of government surveillance no longer holds.
The Bush administration will not abuse these far-reaching powers, said Viet Dinh, an assistant U.S. attorney general: "I think security exists for liberty to flourish and liberty cannot exist without order and security," Dinh said.
Still, even supporters are wary.
"One has to pray that those powers are used responsibly," said Charlie Intriago, a former federal prosecutor and money laundering expert in Miami who said the new provisions could help intercept terrorists' finances.
The USA Patriot Act, hurriedly adopted by Congress and signed by Bush six weeks after the terror attacks, tipped laws in the government's favor in 350 subject areas involving 40 federal agencies.
The Bush administration has since imposed other legal changes without congressional consent, such as allowing federal agents to monitor attorney-client conversations in federal prisons, and encouraging bureaucrats to deny public access to many documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The FBI ( news - web sites) can monitor political and religious meetings inside the United States now, even when there's no suspicion a crime has been committed — a policy abandoned in the 1970s amid outrage over J. Edgar Hoover's surveillance of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and other activists.
The American Civil Liberities Union, media companies and other organizations are challenging many of the changes.
"Are we any safer as a nation? I don't know," said Anthony Romero, the ACLU's executive director. "Are we less free? You bet."
In a poll conducted for The Associated Press by ICR/International Communications Research of Media, Pa., 63 percent said they were concerned that the new measures could end up restricting Americans' individual freedoms. Of those, 30 percent of the 1,001 responding adults were "very concerned" and 33 percent "somewhat concerned."
The telephone poll taken Aug. 2-6 has an error margin of 3 percentage points.
"I don't think government should interfere too much in our lives," said Kelly Beaver, 19, a student in North Carolina.
But Arizona caregiver Daniel Martell, 42, said he wasn't concerned at all — "To me, it's not restricting my freedom. There's all kinds of things going on every day to protect freedom."
Americans may never know how valid their concerns are, since everything about terror-related investigations is secret. The administration isn't required to disclose how it is implementing the fundamental changes, making oversight — let alone court challenges — exceedingly difficult.
The Patriot Act allows "black bag" searches for medical and financial records, computer and telephone communications, even for the books Americans borrow from the library.
Judges approve these top-secret warrants in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. Established to target "foreign powers," FISA now also applies to U.S. citizens, who are no longer protected by the bread-and-butter legal standard of probable cause — prosecutors need only say the search will assist a terror probe.
Dinh credited these changes with reducing the risk of terror, but he wouldn't reveal specifics. "Many of our successes will have to be celebrated in secret," he said.
What is known is that thousands of Middle Eastern men who entered the United States since 2000 have been questioned and detained. Many were quietly deported after immigration hearings that are no longer public.
The administration is appealing a judge's order to reveal their names, saying the president's prosecution of the terror war can't be challenged, and that civilian courts have no authority over their detention.
Some of the new surveillance measures expire by 2006, but Congress can extend them if the open-ended war on terror continues.
"At what time is this war over?" Dinh said. "That I cannot answer."
[While I'm here... I ran across a commentary on the USA PATRIOT Act this morning that I'll want to check out in more depth later, so here's the link.]
no subject
anyway about politics and govt, i think when it comes to voted officials, that most people who make it to highly-visible govt offices are *already* willing to compromise themselves to gain the power... b/c i don't see how someone w/stricter lines of right and wrong could actually *win* against someone willing to gray those lines... those already corrupt have an advantage, and so power gets this slimy feel to it... *ick*
altho i also think it would take a VERY strong person, no matter how fair their sense of ethics, to keep proper perspective from a seat of power... i think it would be easy to lose sight of "the little people", and easy to get used to the luxuries and perks holding an office would bring... so, does that mean power itself corrupts?? possibly is a strong catalyst for ethical decay...
i dunno, over the years, i have hesitated to pin the rap on "power" or "money", etc... power gets such a bad rap as it is, but power in itself does not act, it is the person who holds the power who acts... power in itself is neither good nor bad, it represents so many things: authority, influence, legal decision-making rights... again, w/rt politics, these things have a bad rap.. i'm sure you can thing of global, community and even personal instances of power of authority used to positively influence people's views or to create new, just boundaries (or even gray a boundary to help someone)... i don't want to start lecturing ;)
w/rt corruption by power, i wonder if it might come down more to a person's identity, and how closely they tie their identity to the power they have... for that is when they become a slave to their power, and therefore willing to sacrifice people in order to maintain their power... (just like i have worked in corporate america all these years trying to find a way to fulfill both my soul and my wallet... it's hard to step down out of a certain lifestyle; you get tied into bills, monthly commitments... takes a strong person to give up *comfort*)
dunno... power is such an interesting concept... when it comes to politics, i'm pretty cynical too... but there are so many instances in history as well as just my own daily little life, that power is a positive force, and enabling force, and can be a catalyst for justice...
i think a large part of power is *how* someone uses it. why do they want it? how did they get it? how are they using it? if they have power over other peoples' lives, what are the checks and balances on their use of power? do they monitor themselves? what do they do in the truly grey areas, how do they use their power then?....
and on a much lighter note -- *hee* i just watched buffy; apparently it's all about power!! *giggle*