Request for help re: Patriot Act (and a good report from a NC County Convention)

[GunnyFreedom]

Not only is participation up 200% (based almost entirely on new participation by Ron Paul people) but we passed all our resolutions by a vote of 60 to 2. Every single Constitutionalist and Liberty-minded delegate got passed up to the District and State conventions, and for the most part we are being treated -- not as pariah's, but as desperately needed activists for a dying party.

But that's not all! Lots and lots of unofficial debates and discussions resulting in fresh looks on key elements of our platform. Waking people up to the difference between a Constitutionally fought Barbary Pirates War resulting in swift, decisive, and total victory; compared to an unconstitutionally fought Global War on Terror resulting in a protracted endless meaningless war that only creates more enemies than it destroys. The re-stressing of strict Constitutionalism and an unwavering commitment to the Bill of Rights, and even...EVEN some traction on the Patriot Act!

Speaking of the Patriot Act, I was in discussion with one higher up muckety-muck who strongly favored the Patriot Act because we are "in a new kind of war" and we need to give the Gov't the "tools needed to protect us" and besides, the Patriot Act only applies to foreign citizens.

I stated my case that 1) we already had the required tools inherent in the FISA Act, 2) any abrogation of American Liberty is heinous and anathema to the principles of the Founders and the US Constitution, and 3) that the slippery slope argument is validated by the evidence that following a US Department of Justice audit which found over 1000 abuses of the Patriot Act used against US Citizens, instead of changing practices to fall more in line with the original intent of the Act, our legislature offered up new law to make the original abuses legal under the Domestic Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorist Act.

Now, he wants me to e-mail him more detailed information and sources on the above argument.

I will be doing so over the next 24 hours. I have some sources, and have no problems constructing the logical structure of the argument through the proper structure of premises, syllogisms, and conclusions. However, I think the more quickly I answer him, the better; so if anybody can help me with source materials for the above argument I will be most grateful.

I plan on also using as support addenda the case for habeus corpus via the Military Commissions Act of 2007, and the case for Posse Comitatus via the John Warner Defense Appropriations Bill of 2007.

So, if folks would be so kind as to dump sources on me, I thank you very much. We very well could turn the whole party leadership of the number one fastest growing county, inside one of the fastest growing states in the nation with this argument. So the more support material on this the better. Thanks so much.

Due to the nature and import of the request for assistance, I'll post this message both in North Carolina, and Grassroots. If you folks in North Carolina could attach your substantive answers (regarding the argument) to the grassroots thread so it keeps getting bumped, and anybody who wants to comment on the success at the county convention do so in North Carolina to keep off topic stuff out of Grassroots, that would be most welcome.

Again, thank you so much!

[Banana]

No sources here but wanted to say GREAT JOB for winning yet another conventions.

[kirkblitz]

gov spitzer got brought down by the patriot act.

[LibertyIn08]

Congratulations on the successes! This is the kind of footwork we need.

[Bradley in DC]

Speaking of the Patriot Act, I was in discussion with one higher up muckety-muck who strongly favored the Patriot Act because we are "in a new kind of war" and we need to give the Gov't the "tools needed to protect us" and besides, the Patriot Act only applies to foreign citizens.

That is partially true. Parts of the USA PATRIOT Act only apply to foreign citizens (but those are a small minority of the entire bill). The greater truth is that parts of it apply only to the Federal government, or state governments, or private commercial institutions, or charities--and private American citizens in the US.

Here is a summary of the Act by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress:

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf

[slacker921]

Also remind him that the 9/11 terrorists were spotted or hit the existing surveillance radars and they were ignored or simply missed. Adding multiple tens of layers of surveillance to our society won't guarantee that upcoming threats will be detected and acted upon.

Another way to look at it.. in Iraq, which clearly is FAR more controlled, monitored, patrolled, etc than the US will hopefully ever be... the terrorists have no problem at all carrying out their tasks. The Iraqi people have almost no rights, there are loads and loads of troops in a very small area, and yet the terrorists can attack on a daily basis.

And another way.. with all of the increased security that should be in place.... we still see test after test showing that weapons can be smuggled onboard airplanes, containers with WMDs can be brought into ports, etc.. at what point do we realize that the terrorists have won by simply causing our society to tack on incredibly expensive measures that slow our production and simply don't work?

[GunnyFreedom]

OK ladies and gents - here is my argument thus far. PLEASE help polish this (especially with regard to sourcing), bearing in mind that the audience for this argument is a highly placed functionary in the Franklin County NC GOP, mostly leaning towards paleoconservatism with a little bit of neoconservative bent thrown in on account of "9/11 made this a new world"

Argument follows:

Regarding the USA PATRIOT Act and Constitutional questions at the center of the controversy.

First and foremost I will restate the argument as stated on the night of 28 April, and then I will construct the premises and conclusions in a cogent manner.

The argument as stated was that the USA PATRIOT Act is reprehensible to the core foundational principles of the US Constitution and the American people because of the erosion of American liberties delineated in the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights; that it greatly and unnecessarily expands federal power, and that the few tools it does provide which may be construed as necessary for the security of the United States were already contained in previously existing federal regulations and legislation.

Pre-existing powers contained in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978

On the existence of surveillance powers inherent in federal regulations prior to the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, I stated that the Federal Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) already provided a broad range of surveillance powers to the Federal Government.

According to Wikipedia,

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 is a U.S. federal law prescribing procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers" on territory under United States control.[1]

FISA is codified in 50 U.S.C. §§1801–1811, 1821–29, 1841–46, and 1861–62.[1] The subchapters of FISA provide for:

* Electronic Surveillance
* Physical Searches
* Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes
* Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

The only additions to FISA powers provided by the Patriot Act were the specific mention of terrorism and of stateless entities. Such mentions were in fact irrelevant as the definition of "foreign powers" within FISA did not limit foreign powers to state sponsored activity, but to any powers originating outside of United States territories, which by any definition includes non state terrorist entities.

Furthermore, the Protect America Act of 2007 amending the Patriot Act removed the oversight of the FISA courts for any communications originating from or destined to points outside of United States territory.

Therefore, it is clear that the tools provided by FISA had already been in existence since 1978, and did not require extreme expansion in Federal powers in order to provide such tools for surveillance of suspected terrorists. If any closer definitions of foreign powers were required to include terrorism and non-state entities, a simple single-line amendment to the definitions section of FISA could have been added to clarify any potential questions. Furthermore, continuing activity amending the Patriot Act has worked to remove the critical checks in power from existing FISA provisions, through the removal of FISA court oversight from any cases involving a broadly defined concept of "terrorism."

On the erosion of the rights contained in the US Bill of Rights and the "Slippery Slope" argument.

It is well-recognized that the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act represent the first step along a slippery slope through the potential erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights. Arguments in favor of the Patriot Act despite recognition of this danger tend to rely on 1) the premise that the Patriot Act only applies to foreign nationals and not to US Citizens, and 2) reliance on the Federal Government as a matter of trust to not proceed towards further potential violations.

Contrary to the belief that we need not worry because the provisions of the Patriot Act apply only to foreign nationals, a recent Justice department audit revealed over 1000 abuses of the Patriot Act after having only reviewed 10% of the cases where the act had been invoked.

On March 9, 2007, a Justice Department audit found that the FBI had "improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain personal information" about United States citizens.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/09/politics/main2551665.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/usa

This fact, in and of itself, might not be nearly so frightening if it had resulted in correcting the Justice Department procedures leading to those abuses. Instead of taking action to correct those abuses, new law was introduced in the Legislature to make most of those original abuses legal, through the introduction of HR 1955, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" on 24 October 2007

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml
http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5068
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071227/COMMENTARY02/620257774/1012/COMMENTARY
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/the-violent-radicalizatio_b_74091.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/violent-radicalization-and-homegrown-terrorism-prevention-act

Which act is supported by Barack Obama:
http://www.indypendent.org/2007/12/10/obama-supports-homegrown-terrorism-bill/

Among the many legitimate concerns raised over this bill (currently in the US Senate and having passed the House) is the overly broad definition of "use or threats of force" as being opposed to actual violence, which could be used against someone threatening a simple letter-writing campaign to strip them of citizenship and thus expose them to all the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Instead of revising Justice Department practices after having over a thousand abuses revealed in an audit of 10% of Patriot Act invocations (meaning there are potentially 10,000 such abuses in total), the Federal Government drafts new law to legalize those abuses, and to expand even more executive power against American Citizens. Opponents to the Home Grown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 refer to the bill as the "Thought Crimes Act" with good reason.

http://www.jbs.org/node/6239

As to whether we should simply trust the Federal Government to not continue on the course of illegally expanding executive powers, several subsequent acts prove that such trust is misplaced.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 effectively suspended habeas corpus in all cases where a suspicion of 'terrorism' may be raised, effectively gutting the Constitutional guarantee of Habeas Corpus -- one of the Colonists PRIMARY objections to British rule cited in the Declaration of Independence.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20061011.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800824.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act

The John Warner Defense Appropriations Bill of 2006 also contains provisions that effectively gut the longstanding Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 preventing the use of the US Military in enforcing martial law against US Citizens. Now that it has been passed, any executive invocation of power can result in the immediate use of the US Army and the US Marine Corps as a police force against American citizens.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Warner_Defense_Appropriation_ Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2007
http://www.bordc.org/threats/hr5122.php
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=7788

Therefore, we cannot rely upon the goodwill of the Federal Government to restrain itself from taking further steps down the slippery slope which it embarked upon with the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, as evidenced by the fact that in the light of Justice Department audits revealing serious abuses of the Patriot Act against US Citizens, the reaction of our Federal Government was not to amend it's own practices, but to take further steps and enact new law to apply the Act to US Citizens.

We cannot simply trust that the Federal Government will not continue eroding the provisions contained in the Bill of Rights in the face of evidences that we have ALREADY gutted Posse Comitatus and Habeas Corpus.

We did not need the USA PATRIOT Act in light of the fact that all the required tools were already provided by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, and given the understanding that these tools were already in place, the Patriot Act can be shown as nothing more than an unnecessary expansion of Federal power.

Since 9/11, speech critical of government policies have been stifled through unwarranted Justice Department abuses of the Patriot Act, such as in the case of one Steve Kurtz, a US Citizen and an outspoken opponent of government policy who was surveilled and falsely arrested and jailed for 2 weeks based on Patriot Act instruments. Thus resulting in the erosion of our First Amendment guarantees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8278-2004Jun1.html

The Patriot Act, as documented above is being applied to US Citizens and non-citizens alike, and completely side-steps the process of issuing warrants through the agent-issues national security letters; permitting electronic surveillance, tapping and tracing, physical searches and seizures, and personal arrest and imprisonment without the Fourth Amendment requirement for a warrant. Thus resulting in the erosion of our Fourth Amendment guarantees.

The Act has also led to further steps down the slippery slope, such as the Military Commissions Act of 2006, resulting in the effective suspension of habeas corpus, thus resulting in the erosion of our Fifth Amendment guarantees.




As a result of these factors, leading me to conclude that the Federal Government is incapable of restraining itself when it comes to the expansion of power, that the tools provided in the USA PATRIOT Act which have been deemed 'necessary' for the prosecution of the Global War on Terror have already ben on the books since 1978, and that the effective results of the Patriot Act have been revealed in serious erosions of our first, fourth, and fifth amendment guarantees, I have determined that the USA PATRIOT Act is reprehensible to the core foundational principles of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the American people, and that it should be opposed with all possible passion and intensity -- ESPECIALLY amongst members of the Republican Party -- as we pride ourselves on loyalty to the US Constitution, and our dedication to a complete lack of compromise on the liberties guaranteed to American citizens in the Bill of Rights.

If we are dedicated to the preservations of our rights to freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the freedom to keep and bear arms, the freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, the right to a speedy trial and the freedom from self incrimination -- these rights which are fundamental to the very concept of being American -- then we cannot in integrity support the erosion of those very rights which we claim to support.

[Working Poor]

I do not have any links but, I am rooting for you all the way. Stay strong!

[Buffalo Bruce]

Judge Napolitano: Why The Patriot Act is Unconstitutional. 6min.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNRSs6LsGeI
An Interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano
http://www.reason.com/news/show/123496.html

videos related to the Patriot Act-

What we chose to ignore 5min.19sec.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl1VIhdpl4c

Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America 48min.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

[GunnyFreedom]

Judge Napolitano: Why The Patriot Act is Unconstitutional. 6min.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNRSs6LsGeI
An Interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano
http://www.reason.com/news/show/123496.html

videos related to the Patriot Act-

What we chose to ignore 5min.19sec.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl1VIhdpl4c

Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America 48min.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

This is very helpful, thanks!

[GunnyFreedom]

That is partially true. Parts of the USA PATRIOT Act only apply to foreign citizens (but those are a small minority of the entire bill). The greater truth is that parts of it apply only to the Federal government, or state governments, or private commercial institutions, or charities--and private American citizens in the US.

Here is a summary of the Act by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress:

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf

Thanks so much Bradley, this, too, is incredibly useful.

I've included this, as well as Bruce's Napolitano links at the end of my argument. I'll be sending it in about 2 hours, 2PM Eastern, in the event that someone else has some good links to attach, or has other ways to polish the argument before that time.

[GunnyFreedom]

b-mup

[GunnyFreedom]

37 minutes left folks

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

I'd highlight the quick, good, powerful info. at the beginning
and then 'include' the rest as followup!

Please don't think that she wants to read that whole post
or follow more than a couple links!!!

[GunnyFreedom]

I'd highlight the quick, good, powerful info. at the beginning
and then 'include' the rest as followup!

Please don't think that she wants to read that whole post
or follow more than a couple links!!!

Well, he said that he wants to do intensive research, and after having listened to his speech on the floor of the county convention, it is apparent to me that he prefers a reasoned argument over an emotional punch.

anyway, what do you consider to be "the quick, good, powerful info." and what isn't?

PS -- to anybody else reading, this is your chance to help influence a leading functionary in the GOP of the fastest growing county in one of the fastest growing states in the union....

[GunnyFreedom]

guess not. 8-(

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

Well, he said that he wants to do intensive research, and after having listened to his speech on the floor of the county convention, it is apparent to me that he prefers a reasoned argument over an emotional punch.

anyway, what do you consider to be "the quick, good, powerful info." and what isn't?

PS -- to anybody else reading, this is your chance to help influence a leading functionary in the GOP of the fastest growing county in one of the fastest growing states in the union....

bump key info

ps Give him all the info. Personally, I'd arrange it so that he could view some
NEWS coverage about it (endorsement against it) and then offer all the details,
links and resources.

[orlandoinfl]

bump, great job.

[Paul Revered]

I have heard so much good news this weekend. Thank you.

[torchbearer]

It looks like we are a bunch of Ninjas crashing through the windows at these conventions...
They can't see where we come from... and then - BAM!
Full slate of delegates....
Your convention is belong to us.

[hawks4ronpaul]

A few points I recall that you can search to confirm:

PATRIOT is a capitalized acronym in USA PATRIOT Act.
No new laws are needed because the terrorists are not tougher than the Soviet KGB were.
They say they will not spy domestically but they claim they need new powers because globalization erases the international/national line, so by their own premise even the old powers might be more domestically intrusive now than when first passed.
The expiration of the recent wiretap law DOES NOT PREVENT A SINGLE WIRETAP, it just means the executive needs a normal judicial warrant instead of the reckless self-approval process.
"But we've used these powers in cases against terrorists X, Y, and Z" does not prove that the powers are needed, as they also could have used a lucky rabbit's foot during those cases but that would not prove that rabbit's feet catch terrorists.
The executive already abused its new powers with the use of new anti-terror powers to fire federal prosecutors for partisan political reasons, the illegal use of warrantless "letters," and the illegal collection of phonecall data from the phone companies. This litany of abuses in a short time after gaining new powers is why administration spokespeople say legalistic things about CURRENTLY complying with law--and that is only as far as we know since they also claim secrecy.
The administration turned the right to privacy on its head by arguing that you have less right to privacy but the government has a right of privacy FROM YOU to prevent you from knowing what it is doing, at which point the entire American system breaks down.
The old joke is very true, "official secrets" exist not to protect national secrets but to protect officials.
An administration intelligence official tried to argue that we need a new definition of "privacy"=the government collects data on you but promises to keep it secret. Of course, this is the same government that loses veterans' personal information, accidentally shipped nuclear fuses to Chinese insurgents (Taiwan, a rebel province according to Beijing), and misplaced several nuclear weapons (Air Force nukes flew around country without proper clearance).
Government secrecy is itself a danger to us, which is why the Founders felt that America was more likely to destroy itself rather than be destroyed by foreigners.
Homeland Security nonsense: http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/strengthen-intelligence-by-cutting.html