Susan's Place Transgender Resources

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In its entirety....for your reading pleasure.

HR 3162 RDS
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3162IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESOctober 24, 2001http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chronology of the USA PATRIOT Act, 2001
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Sect...ontentID=11185



Following are some of the more controversial sections of the Patriot Act: Section 215 modifies the rules on records searches so that third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it's trying to protect against terrorism.
Section 218 amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), authorizing secret searches without public knowledge or Department of Justice accountability, so long as the government can allege a foreign intelligence basis for the search.
Section 213 warrants -- "Sneak and Peek" -- extend the authority of FISA searches to any criminal search. This allows for secret searches of one's home and property without prior notice.
Section 214 permits the removal of the warrant requirement for "Pen registers" which ascertain phone numbers dialed from a suspect's telephone and "Trap and trace" devices which monitor the source of all incoming calls, so long as the government can certify that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing investigation against international terrorism.
Section 216 clarifies that pen register/trap-and-trace authority applies to Internet surveillance. The Act changes the language to include Internet monitoring, specifically information about: "dialing, routing, and signaling." It also broadens such monitoring to any information "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."
Section 206 authorizes roving wiretaps: allowing taps on every phone or computer the target may use, and expands FISA to permit surveillance of any communications made to or by an intelligence target without specifying the particular phone line or computer to be monitored.
Section 505 authorizes the use of an administrative subpoena of personal records, without requiring probable cause or judicial oversight.
Section 802 creates a category of crime called "domestic terrorism," penalizing activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States," if the actor's intent is to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."
Section 411 makes even unknowing association with terrorists a deportable offense.
Section 412 gives the attorney general authority to order a brief detention of aliens without any prior showing or court ruling that the person is dangerous. http://www.answers.com/topic/patriot-act
The resistance of state and local governments

Eight states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana and Vermont) and 396 cities and counties (including New York City; Los Angeles; Dallas; Chicago; Eugene, Oregon; Philadelphia; and Cambridge, Massachusetts) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties. Arcata, California was the first city to pass an ordinance that bars city employees (including police and librarians) from assisting or cooperating with any federal investigations under the Act that would violate civil liberties (Nullification). The Bill of Rights Defense Committee is helping coordinate local efforts to pass resolutions. Pundits question the validity of these ordinances, noting that under the Constitution's supremacy clause, federal law overrides state and local laws. However, others have opined that the federal employees, in using such procedures for investigations, violate the Constitution's clauses in the fourth amendment, and in these cases, the Constitution overrides the USA PATRIOT Act's provisions.
http://www.answers.com/topic/patriot-act
__________________

And just look at all the "bad people cells" they have broken and paraded before us on the tele with this act.   Hmmmmmm there was that group of young kids who went over for training with you know who. They got scared out of their minds and fearing for their lives, the ran away to come home.  They all sit in prison.

Then there was this guy and his son that live only 100 miles away from here.  His son went to visit family in the old country.  When he returned home, they were arrested, paraded in front of the media, and imprisoned without cause for months.  Finding no evidence, they were released.... of course after losing their business and source of income.

Two weeks ago, I heard on the tube that the government was now reading mail personal mail at its leisure.  It was a passing thought.  No one cared.  Have we given up the fight against this unjust law? It has proven useless.

I even write my posts in fear of some computer somewhere yanking key words and pulling me in for questioning.   Sheesh.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 06, 2007, 03:24:09 PM
And just look at all the "bad people cells" they have broken and paraded before us on the tele with this act.   Hmmmmmm there was that group of young kids who went over for training with you know who. They got scared out of their minds and fearing for their lives, the ran away to come home.  They all sit in prison.

Then there was this guy and his son that live only 100 miles away from here.  His son went to visit family in the old country.  When he returned home, they were arrested, paraded in front of the media, and imprisoned without cause for months.  Finding no evidence, they were released.... of course after losing their business and source of income.

Two weeks ago, I heard on the tube that the government was now reading mail personal mail at its leisure.  It was a passing thought.  No one cared.  Have we given up the fight against this unjust law? It has proven useless.

I even write my posts in fear of some computer somewhere yanking key words and pulling me in for questioning.   Sheesh.

Cindi

yeah I hear ya. This is gonna sound silly, but I wish someone would flippin vote me as one of Cosmo's fun fearless females because I like am totally fearless when it comes to this stuff. I do not hide what I do. In fact, I try to make as much noise as possible. I make sure my local reps and media know where I am going and why before I head to any protest - I have been to the biggest and the smallest. I tell them I will hold them acountable if I do not get to return. I place it in their corner and I make sure the politicians know the media got the same message and vice versa. I have a whole safety network for this. If I ever came up missing there would be an uproar. These ->-bleeped-<-s don't know who they are messing with when we finish waking the people.

We cannot be afraid. We cannot bow down to this and them. When we let fear rule our reactions we lose.

Cindi,

Certain websites are monitored and have been long before the Patriot Act.  The first few questionings I became aware of happened late in the second term of Clinton's administration and targeted politically active gun owners.  Nothing like having the SS wake you up in the wee hours to ask you questions about why you defend the second amendment.  If you are on a site where someone even jokes about bringing death to a current president or other VIP (at the time), you can count on it getting picked up and watched for a bit.

Online monitoring picked up before the start of the new millenium and has not appeared to have slowed at all since then.  For every X amount of people who have their rights trampled, they actually find someone who is a bad guy and use that as an excuse for their trampling of the others.  Not to mention there are those gaining power within the new Intelligence infrastructure who are using that power for their own little vendettas.

Out of the new items that the Patriot Act actually introduced (some were just restating powers already granted to the feds) the only one I can support are the roving wire taps.  I believe that wire taps should be for a suspect and not a particular number.  back in the day of wired phones it was a pretty safe bet you could catch what was going on.  Today you can walk into a store, pick up a new phone, be a bad guy, and get away with it.  heck, just changing your home phone # can sometimes stop an investigation cold if the original warrant is not worded correctly.  For computers I believe that probable cause should be shown for any computer outside of the suspect's home or work environments.

I don't have a problem with the Feds monitoring web sites.  I don't have problems with them monitoring any public information.  I would welcome them (especially the president) to read the newspaper! It is after all, public.

I don't want them monitoring my mail, listening to my calls, or visiting my home without a warrant.  As far as I can see, the only result of their actions have been to trample rights and falsely arrest people.

Franklin once wrote something to the effect that those who are willing give up their rights for security, don't deserve those rights in the first place.

Cindi

From a website on Franklin:

n 1755 (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755), Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This phrasing was also the motto in Historical Review of Pennsylvania, attributed to Franklin

It's important to note that this sentiment, with many variations, was much used in the Revolutionary period by Franklin and others.

Why do we, the "freaks of society", see these things so clearly for what they are?   Do we need to hang a dress on every man for a year to make them realize just how wrong they can be?

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 07, 2007, 05:50:38 PM
Why do we, the "freaks of society", see these things so clearly for what they are?   Do we need to hang a dress on every man for a year to make them realize just how wrong they can be?

Cindi

I see that the problem is that for the vast majority of people go through life without having to worry about having their rights abused or denied.  As an outsider looking in it seems that main stream average joe has little to fear it's folks like us that do and as a result we are more aware of the situation and those who would try and deny our rights.

I dunno the paranoia generated by 9/11 seems to have spiraled out of control.

Steph

One of our first flags to represent our fair land featured a rattle snake set against a field of yellow.  Underneath were the words "Don't Tread On Me".  I believe that if any saying were to represent the sentiment of the people of the United States, it would be this. 

Admiral Nagumo of the Japanese attack fleet was heard to have said after bombing Pearl Harbor that he feared all he had done was to awaken the terrible resolve of a sleeping giant.  He was right.

We are a country of mixed races, nationalities, religions, beliefs... you name it.  But there is one thing that you can count on.... If you piss us off, we will react with the bite of a very nasty rattle snake. 

When I saw the events of the attack on the twin towers unfold on that September day, I could feel a wave of dread swell within me for fear of how we would respond.  It wasn't a maybe, it would soon be a fact.  We did.  And we will again. 

Our big problem is that we couldn't clearly define who the enemy was.  Our power mongers seized on that opportunity to take us into a war to satisfy corporate greed and not to embattle our real enemies.

For all the things wrong with my country, I have adopted this single sentiment from its past.... Don't Tread On Me!  I bite back.

Cindi

Actually it is called the PATRIOT Act, it is an acronym for: Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.  Whatever the case, it is unconstitutional, for it violates basic civil rights, so yeah, I am terrified, for I am one of those people who values her privacy inmensely.


tinkerbell :icon_chick:

What Tink said: I would be terrified too if I lived in the US. As it is, since that Act came into effect, I've gone through great lengths to avoid travelling to the US and the one time I had to, for surgery, I went in drag as female. And I'm sure most of you can imagine how bad it has to be to make you dress in drag to go to another country.

I hope the pendulum swings back for you soon.

Dennis

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 07, 2007, 07:51:05 PM
...>
We are a country of mixed races, nationalities, religions, beliefs... you name it.  But there is one thing that you can count on.... <....

Cindi

It is strange that we are also country of the same mixed races, nationalities, religions, beliefs... you name it, but it seems that there is a huge difference between us.   It's probably due to the fact that the U.S. was born out of violence, which in turn probably led to your right to bare arms, that you're patriotic to a fault, and militaristic beyond belief I am not criticizing here, as I'm not in a position to do so, I'm just making an observation as history from Peal Harbor to 9/11 would indicate that the U.S. is quite justified.  So many differences between so many similar race mixes - interesting.

Steph

Quoteyour right to bare arms

Is that also known as the right to wear tank tops?

;)

Dennis

Actually the founding fathers warned us to not give Congress the purse strings.  We did not listen.
We were also warned about standing armies.  We have not listened.

The right to bear arms is to enable the People, who are the ultimate check, to amend or overthrow the government as they see fit.

The founding fathers were students of history and tried to pass on the lessons, the warnings, and give us the tools to avoid the fate of past Republics.  The Republic will fall one day and as it is with these things, it will collapse from it's own weight.

Patriot Act, DMCA.... all just symptoms of the main diseases of apathy and lack of knowledge when it comes to history.

Quote from: LostInTime on February 07, 2007, 10:36:22 PM
Actually the founding fathers warned us to not give Congress the purse strings.  We did not listen.
We were also warned about standing armies.  We have not listened.

The right to bear arms is to enable the People, who are the ultimate check, to amend or overthrow the government as they see fit.

Thank you, this is excellent.

Shoot... Eisenhower, a republican, warned us of letting the "industrial military complex" get out of control.  We didn't listen to him either.

Cindi

Patriot Act Fact Sheet

What it is: The so-called "Patriot Act" was pushed through congress in the days following Sept. 11, 2001. Few congressmen had time to read the bill, let alone analyze it. The Bush administration threatened that Congress would be blamed for its inaction following future terrorist attacks if it did not pass. In reality, the bill does little to protect us from terrorism and contains numerous items that Congress had rejected in earlier bills. No discussion or amendments were permitted. It gives the Department of Justice sweeping new unconstitutional powers despite that law officials, many of them Reagan-Bush appointees, say it actually hinders our ability to protect ourselves from terrorism. The proposed "Patriot II" act goes even further to curtail American rights and freedoms.

What it does:
The Patriot Act
Allows the FBI to access your records without a warrant or probably cause. It forces any third party, including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers- to turn over records on their clients or customers.
Forbids disclosure of their seizures. In other words, the FBI can, without a warrant, review what books you are reading and forbid the librarians from informing you that you are being watched.
No longer requires the government to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
Frees the FBI from showing reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement to show "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment.
Removes judicial oversight, a part of checks and balance. Judges would not have the authority to deny any investigation.
Allows surveillance orders to be issued based on one's First Amendment activities. You could come under investigation because of the books you read, the Web sites you visit, letters to the editor you write, or even attending this rally.
Forbids disclosure of an investigation, denying the individual the right to challenge illegitimate searches.
Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, where there is no real need for secrecy.
Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to conduct investigations of American citizens in part of exercising their free speech.
Violates the Fifth Amendment by failing to provide notice – even after the fact – to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Notice allows one to question irregularities in the warrant and forces law enforcement to operate in the open. Without notice, we have created a secret Gestapo.
Allows wiretaps without warrants for criminal prosecution. It effectively revokes your right to speak without your conversations being monitored. The justice department has regularly acted irresponsibly in this area. The FISA (Federal Intelligence and Security Act) Court noted that federal agents applying for warrants had regularly filed false and misleading information.
Puts the CIA back in the business of sping on Americans. This was outlawed due to abuses in the 1970s and earlier when the CIA engaged in widespread spying of protest groups and other Americans.
Creates the crime of "domestic terrorism" in which those supporting groups such as Operation Rescue, Greenpeace, or PETA could come under investigation. Any non-citizen providing assistance to any such group could be detained or deported.
Allows for the indefinite detention of non-citizens, denying them due process.

Chilling. But even worse is Patriot II. It would:
Allow the government to disappear anyone it chooses by not requiring them to identify those being detained.
Allow local authorities to spy on religious and political activities.
Allow chemical plants to operate with no accountability to the communities they occupy. Chemical plants would no longer be required to disclose the public safety threats they pose.
Allow the government to revoke the citizenship of natural born Americans.
Allow property and asset seizures of those participating in civil disobedience.
Allow the deportment to any country of citizens and non-citizens alike, to stand trial before a foreign court without any review from American courts.
Effectively repeal the writ of Habeas Corpus.

It almost sounds comical, if it weren't so serious. The danger to our civil liberties is real. Just as the RICO anti-racketeering law, established to fight organized crime, was interpreted to crack-down on other groups such as pro-life organizations, these laws, once on the books, would allow the government unchecked powers to remove political opposition. Imagine what would happen if, following a WTO protest, the government seized the property and deported even a hand-full of the protest leaders. What would this sort of power due to free speech in America?


What you can do:
Copy and distribute this fact sheet.
Get more information. Visit the sites below.
Write your representatives. Many of them don't like these laws either, but are to intimidated to stand against things with such misnomers as "Patriot."
Visit the ACLU website. In about 2 minutes you can send a fax to your representative telling them to vote NO to Patriot II and repeal Patriot I. It couldn't be easier. Tell 10 of your friends to do it to!
Sign a petition demanding that libraries and other institutions say no to section 125 of the Patriot act. Librarians are staunch defenders of the first Amendment. Public libraries across the country, including Palo Alto, CA and Huntsville, AL have issued statements that they will not comply with this unconstitutional law.


Resources:
www.aclu.org or www.aclu.org/safeandfree American Civil Liberties Union
www.moveon.org Democracy in Action
www.democracynow.org Daily Radio and TV News Program
www.bsu.edu/web/harchanko/peace.htm Local activities (check often to stay connected!)
http://www.bsu.edu/web/harchanko/patriot.htm

Comparisons to historical laws

The Sedition Act of 1918 is sometimes compared to the USA PATRIOT Act because of the latter's perceived chilling effect on free speech. However, the Sedition Act had the explicit and specific purpose of quelling anti-government speech while the nation was at war. The Sedition Act was repealed in 1921. No specific accusations of chilled free speech caused by the USA PATRIOT Act have been reported.[citation needed]
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)
The AEDPA is the direct predecessor of the USA PATRIOT Act and contains many provisions that were maintained and expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act, including those relating to terrorism, FISA, immigration, and so on. See David Cole's book, listed below in the critics section.
COINTELPRO is thought of as similar to the USA PATRIOT act in that it was allowed because of fear of an enemy (the Soviet Union in this case) and permitted actions that would not be acceptable during peacetime. The primary similarity in content was that invasion of privacy could be carried out in secrecy without probable cause if the investigator felt that it was necessary for national security.[citation needed]
See also

U.S. governmental response to the September 11 attacks
Homeland security
Alien and Sedition Acts
Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act
Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, also known as PATRIOT II.
ACLU v. Ashcroft (2004) - the court opinion mentions PATRIOT Act three times but provisions of the PATRIOT Act were not adjudicated. [22]
Red Squad
Security and Freedom Ensured Act
Bank Secrecy Act
Ohio Patriot Act
Patriot Debates
http://www.answers.com/topic/patriot-act

Scarry......  very very scarry.....

So, have you all written your congress reps about this?  I have!

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 09, 2007, 05:53:13 PM
So, have you all written your congress reps about this?  I have!

Cindi

yeppers and for anyone that hasn't there is a contact list and links in this activism forum all ready for you to point and click!!!