The Patriot Act: the US slides into totalitarianism?

[fable]

I've been worried over the last several months by the much-heralded "Patriot Act," whose exact parameters are being played down by the Bush administration. Recently I came across this Newsday piece by Joan Bertin (executive director of the US National Coalition Against Censorship) from the end of last year. Please read and comment; I find it's implications alarming:

"Among the less well-known aspects of the Patriot Act are provisions permitting the Justice Department to obtain information secretly from booksellers and librarians about customers' and patrons' reading, Internet and book-buying habits, merely by alleging that the records are relevant to an anti-terrorism investigation. The act prohibits librarians and booksellers from disclosing these subpoenas, so the objects of investigation don't know and therefore cannot defend themselves and their privacy, or contest the government's actions in court.

In a sample of 1,000 libraries responding to a survey last February, 85 reported receiving requests to turn over information about patrons to police or FBI agents. We have no way to know how many other libraries, and how many booksellers, received similar requests. We don't know how many requests were made under the Patriot Act, because of its secrecy provisions. What we do know is that the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain information secretly from librarians and booksellers about customers' and patrons' interests and activities, and that law enforcement officials are seeking such information. The Justice Department has refused to provide any data about these investigations, even to Congress.

Librarians and booksellers have voiced their dismay at being conscripted, under court order and threat of prosecution, to report covertly on their patrons and customers. Secretly obtaining information about what people read, to try to figure out what they think, undermines more than privacy; it threatens core First Amendment principles, as many librarians and booksellers understand.

The Constitution clearly protects the right to read a book, embrace an idea or express a thought -- even an unpopular or `unpatriotic' book, idea or thought. The freedom of thought and expression is so fundamental to our democracy that, as the Supreme Court recently noted, the ``government may not prohibit speech because it increases the chance an unlawful act will be committed `at some indefinite future time'.'' In so holding, the court relied on the `vital distinction between words and deed, between ideas and conduct.' In other words, the government is free to prohibit and punish illegal conduct, but may not criminalize ideas or punish people for their thoughts. Perversely, under the Patriot Act, reading certain books or researching certain topics -- both constitutionally protected activities -- now apparently provide grounds for criminal investigation.

The Justice Department's recent decision to repeal the domestic terrorism surveillance guidelines unmistakably sends this signal. The guidelines were adopted in 1976 in response to revelations that, under the infamous COINTELPRO (`counterintelligence') program, civil rights and anti-war activists who were neither accused nor suspected of crimes became targets of government investigation because of their outspoken criticism of government policies. To prevent such abuses, the 1976 guidelines authorized surveillance of political, religious and other groups only if there was actual evidence of criminal activity. Without this restriction, covert surveillance of political dissidents with no known connection to criminal activity is bound to resume.

According to a brief recently filed by the Justice Department in defense of secret immigration hearings, the `First Amendment creates no general right of access to government information or operations.' The gag order imposed on librarians and booksellers goes even further in withholding information from the object of an investigation. As a result, proceedings under the act will be shrouded in secrecy, not only making it impossible for targeted individuals to counter the government's allegations, but also preventing the public at large from making an informed judgment about whether the government is effectively countering terrorism or unfairly targeting innocent people.

The rush to enact programs with reassuring-sounding names may have been understandable a year ago. Now, however, it would be patriotic to consider whether, despite their appealing acronyms, some hastily enacted programs threaten the freedoms we value most. It is peculiar, to say the least, for our government to fight terrorists by adopting their techniques -- secrecy and intimidation. Besides, exactly how many terrorists does the FBI expect to find through the local library or the bookstore?

[Morlock]

I am getting more and more ashamed of being an American citizen.

I think you could strike off 'free' and 'democracy' from any official US document. I've said it before and I'll say it again- 9/11 is a small price to pay for your freedom- from there eventualy you'll get to the hell of Minority Report- you get arrested for your thoughts.

I think all these post 9/11 laws are the most shamefull ones I've seen since by a Democracy since the Australian's law of breeding half Aboriginees(SP) with themselves to eliminate the dark color from Australia. Wait a few years and it will be the cold war all over again- with the un-American laws, and even like Communist Russia- you read the wrong book, and they'll disappear you.

Unless this changes soon- what's the difference between Tyrany and the US? There are limitations on your thoughts, actions, reading material, friends, relatives in 'if-y' countries, and, (what will be the first to go) Freedom of speech.
At least saddam doesn't try to trick you.

[Robnark]

bloody hell. that is quite frankly disturbing. I haven't heard of the Patriot Act before, but I wouldn't of guessed it would be used to allow covert investigation of people to see if they're reading books that the Justice Department doesn't approve of. that's just twisted.

[dragon wench]

*shudder*
Some people I know have suggested that the US is evolving into a police state..... and I have replied that perhaps they are being paranoid and extreme.....
But the "Patriot Act" seems to indicate that such fears are entirely justified....

Not that this is exactly new... Indeed, it recalls the witch hunts of the McCarthy era. The only real difference is that the focus is now upon "terrorists" rather than "communists."
Even the wording --"patriot"-- evokes that period.... communism was dubbed as "un-American"
To quote George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."


I can understand the fears of Americans following 9/11. Nothing, IMO can ever justify the horror of such an attack. But.... I find this defacto suspension of individual liberties profoundly alarming....

As Morlock notes, what differentiates the above legislation from the savagely undemocratic policies practiced by Saddam Hussain?

[HighLordDave]

The government can do anything they want until they are sued and ordered by the courts to stop. I have no doubt that should anything like this ever make its way to an appellate court, it would be overturned. However, that means that someone (or several someones) would have to have their civil rights trampled on before this absurdity is done away with.

I should say that these sorts of measures are not unexpected; from day one, Dubya has had a "either you're with us or against us" attitude, and this started even before his "war" on terrorism. I am all for collective security, yet in the grand scheme of things, I believe that our collective civil rights are more important. Western democracy is founded on the idea that any belief or speech, no matter how distasteful to the mainstream or those in power, must be defended; it is only actions that must be regulated.

I am interested to see how Dubya's successor (who hopefully will be take office in 2005) will deal with the messes our current president is creating.

[Sojourner]

This Patriot Act is only the latest in what is to me a very dismaying trend. It seems that German minister wasn't too far off the mark, after all.

[Tamerlane]

Its one thing to bring in an act such as that one, but surely the national body (Congress?) have to vote in favour of it, don't they?

[fable]

Originally posted by Tamerlane
Its one thing to bring in an act such as that one, but surely the national body (Congress?) have to vote in favour of it, don't they?

It was passed by Congress by in October of 2001. It has been quietly implemented since that time.

[Tamerlane]

Ah, well a similar thing happened here in Australia. A bunch of laws or improvements were passed in, under the guise of protecting Australians from terrorism after 9/11. They had more to do with trying to give the Australian intelligence agency powers that would make the FBI and CIA go green with envy. However nothing to the extent of that piece, it smacks of McCarthyism to be honest.

[fable]

it smacks of McCarthyism to be honest.

I wouldn't call it so much McCarthyism, as Big Brotherism. Another term for McCarythism is "a political witchhunt," and nobody is currently going after hundreds of thousands of people who favored a certain political or social POV. On the other hand, the Patriot Act is setting us up for an era of Big Brotherism, of spying on all our activities, compiling files about us and everything we do, with the potential of arrest and action on the basis of nothing more than suspicion.

What we're seeing, then, is a revival of the tactics used by the LBJ administration, to curb dissent against the Vietnam War. Of course, it soon spread to all sorts of other activities. And I feel fairly certain that the Patriot Act will be used to tar and feather people for a variety of beliefs and ideas.

Of course, it could become McCarthyism. We could see all that information gathering turn into a series of highly polarized political announcements, such as the kind Rumsfeld seems addicted to, egging the cultural mentality towards a blood frenzy. And that could end with anybody who fits a "profile" losing their job.

We'll just have to see. It's yet another ringside seat I'd gladly give up to the next person.

[Aegis]

To be quite honest, This is just a sign that we have entired the "Second Cold War"...

[ARcheR_S_]

Well, I myself live in Holland, and IMO, the USA is kinda acting against his own policy.

I mean, they want too invade Irak, because they think it has chemical and mass destruction weapons. They dont have real concrete evidence of this yet (even the latests foundings of those "empty missiles" are not concrete enough), but still they move an army in its direction. They want too invade Irak, regardless of what the VN says or advices...
Well whats the use of sending VN-investigators anyway then??

Then there is the fact that at the moment North-Korea is posing an even greater threat, but the USA are not threatening them! They are talking about peacefull solutions and all, while USA does not even want too talk with Irak......I mean, whats the catch?? Irak has oil and Korea doesnt?? Or do they want too finish what they started in the Gulf War?? Or is it possible that the USA will lose too many men in a war with North-Korea?? Dont get me wrong.....peacefull solutions ARE better.......but threat country's the same then.

Completly dumb is that the USA itself has the largest arsenal of Chemical weaponary in the world. Well, why dont they destroy there own arsenal first then?? And then attack Irak...
I know USA doesnt pose a threat too the world as much as Irak does, but who says that the USA (and Bush) arent proceding with there Imperialism..

With such acts and saying: these and those lands are the axis of evil in the world, a new WW can be summoned...

The USA should take it more easy IMO and make love, not war

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by fable
It was passed by Congress by in October of 2001. It has been quietly implemented since that time.

It was passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support. Which just goes to show that, when pressed, neither the Republicans nor Democrats have any clue as to what the United States is all about.

I hope to see this criminal bit of legislature removed from the books, but I am not holding my breath.

[fable]

Originally posted by Lazarus
It was passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support. Which just goes to show that, when pressed, neither the Republicans nor Democrats have any clue as to what the United States is all about.

I just saw a pig flying by, outside--it seems we're in agreement. Though actually, I'm sure quite a few senators and representative knew perfectly well what they were signing. They just don't care, since they want to get re-elected, and nobody has the cajones at the moment to stand up to the oilman why said "Hussein tried to kill my daddy."

I hope to see this criminal bit of legislature removed from the books, but I am not holding my breath.

Not for a good while, no. If it were a simple matter of a challenge in the courts, I suspect that would have already been done following several FBI-instigated incidents during 2002.

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by fable
I just saw a pig flying by, outside--it seems we're in agreement. ...

I hesitated to post in this thread because I knew it would ruin our perfect record of disagreeing on every subject under the sun. Ha! Someday, this may come back to haunt you.

EDIT (so this isn't spam): I don't think it was mainly fear of going up against Bush that prompted our esteemed congress-persons to sign the thing. I think most of them really think that they are working for the people, and I think that they thought this is what the people would want to see done. And maybe it is. But they should also know better than the average American what the US Constitution is all about, and not be so quick to cut it to ribbons. That is one reason we don't have or want a true democracy in the US - so that we have some checks and balances against the majority voting away the rights of the minority.