RE: Why vote if you have no rights? -- MIDRANGE-NONTECH

> From: jpcarr@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Anyone care to discuss the implications to the Patriot Act II?
> Does anyone really even care?

Damn.  You had me going for a minute.  And so I've now wasted two  and a
half hours of my life doing due diligence because of this irresponsible load
of crap.

First, there IS no PATRIOT Act II.  The "Center for Public Integrity" (that
highly reknowned bastion of journalistic ethics) says there is a draft.  I
dug around and found it.  There's a PDF that MIGHT be from the White House
and MIGHT be being circulated, although there's no proof of even that much;
the White House still says no comment.

However, reading the draft, I sense that it may indeed be intended as an
update of the original PATRIOT Act.  Why?  Because it's - well, it's a
well-thought out and carefully written set of enhancements to the original.
I saw no star chambers, no ending of civil liberties, no internment camps,
nothing like that.  What I saw was some level-headed people figuring out how
to plug some loopholes in legislation that was a little rushed in the
initial version.

Here's an example of reality vs. whatever you might find in the tabloid
Internet:

>From the PDF document (this is what the Center for Public Integrity says is
the horrible truth):

"Section 501: Expatriation of Terrorists
  Under 8 U.S.C. % 1481, an American can lose his citizenship by
voluntarily, and with the intent to relinquish nationality, taking any of a
number of actions including: (1) obtaining Nationality in a foreign state;
(2) taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign state; and, most importantly,
(3) serving in the armed forces of a foreign state that are engaged in
hostilities against the United States.  The current expatriation statute
does not, however, provide for the relinquishing of citizenship in cases
where an American serves in a hostile foreign terrorist organization.  It
thus fails to take account f the myriad ways in which, in the modern world,
war can be waged against the United States.
  This provision would amend 8 U.S.C. % 1481 to make clear that, just as an
American can relinquish his citizenship by serving in a hostile foreign
army, so can he relinquish his citizenship by serving in a hostile terrorist
organization.  Specifically, an American could be expatriated if, with the
intent to relinquish nationality, he becoms a member of, or provides
material support to, a group that the United States has designated as a
"terrorist organization", if that group is engaged in hostilities against
the United States.
  This provision would also make explicit that the intent to relinquish
nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from
conduct.  (Several relevant Supreme Court citations)  Specifically, this
proposal would make service in a hostile army or terrorist group prima facie
evidence of an intent to renounce citizenship."

Lemme get this straight.  Serve with terrorists, and you're no longer a
citizen.  Build bombs, go live in Libya.  Give money to guys who distribute
anthrax, and relocate to a nice desert climate.  Kill civilians, hang out in
the caves of Afghanistan with your good buddies and their goats.

Gee golly, Gomer, I can live with that.


The scary thing is how it was interpreted in your email quote.  It has no
even slight similarity.  Here's what you're spreading around:

"SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration's
"enemy combatant" definition to all American citizens who "may" have
violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. (Section 802
is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is "any
action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State
law.") Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section
125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the
incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn't broad enough
and that a new, unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.
  Under Section 501 a US citizen engaging in lawful activities can  be
grabbed off the street and thrown into a van never to be seen again. The
Justice Department states that they can do this because the person "had
inferred from conduct" that they were not a US citizen. Remember Section 802
of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or State
law can result in the "enemy combatant" terrorist designation."

Um, that's not what I read.  I didn't even SEE the words "enemy combatant".
Perhaps that was in the new invisible ink that only specially trained dogs
can see.  Where in what I quoted does it say anything about grabbing people
off the street?  "inferred from conduct" is specifically spelled out as
engaging in activites with or providing material support to a "designated
terrorist organization".

And then they cap it off with a reference to Section 802 of the first
PATRIOT act, saying some balderdash about how "any violation of Federal or
State law can result in the "enemy combatant" terrorist designation."
That's a complete fabrication:


Section 802. Definition of Domestic Terrorism.
Section 802 adjusts the definition of international terrorism in 18 U.S.C.
2331 and borrows from it to define domestic terrorism. Section 2331 has for
some time defined international terrorism as those criminal acts of
violence, committed primarily overseas or internationally, that appear to be
intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence a
governmental policy by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of
a government by assassination or kidnaping, 18 U.S.C. 2331(1). Section 802
simply modifies this last element to include acts that appear to be intended
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or
kidnaping.
It defines domestic terrorism as those criminal acts dangerous to human
life, committed primarily within the United States, that appear to be
intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence a
governmental policy by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of
a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnaping, 18 U.S.C.
2331(5).


Yes, there's a certain amount of leeway in the words "appear to be intended
to", but for gosh sakes, it doesn't mean that spitting on the sidewalk will
be a terrorist activity.  It means that if you look like you're trying to
blow up a voting booth with fertilizer and fuel oil, then you're a domestic
terrorist.


Um, you know what?  I can live with that, too.


Anyway, more hours than were necessary went into this.  But PLEASE, PLEASE
do a little bit of research before posting something that you got in an
email.


Joe