The Bush Administration has apparently prepared draft legislation called the ‘Domestice Security Enhancement Act of 2003.’ Although the Administration has denied Capitol Hill rumors about the existence of such a proposed Act (a "Patriot Act II"), a copy of the text has recently been leaked (see below link). On reviewing this draft, Georgetown University Law professor Dr. David Cole commented that, if enacted, the Act would:

"radically expand law enforcement and intelligence gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive ‘suspicion,’ create new death penalties, and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups.”

Cole speculates that the Administration's denials surrounding the proposed Act indicate a desire to shield its contents fromp public scrutiny, perhaps with a view toward introducing it in a situation of crisis & limited public discussion--for example, during wartime. (This would mirror the crisis circumstances surrounding the introduction of the original Patriot Act, right after 911.)

I really think we all need to be aware of this. Please follow the below link (or copy the address into your Web browser) to see an article on the Domestice Security Enhancement Act of 2003:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/repo...&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0

Another link, to the text of the Act itself, is provided in the article.

If this bill passes and is signed into law, they won't have to 'expatriate' me... I'll leave voluntarily. Rules like this are written for dictatorships, not free nations. Shame on the Bush administration for even conceiving of such a thing. I'm not generally one for blanket attacks, but this particular bit of genius to come out of Ashcroft's office deserves it. THE ENTIRE BILL IS FACIST GARBAGE!

YOU LIVE IN A POLICE STATE! EITHER GET USED TO IT, OR GET OFF YOUR DUFF, AND DO SOMETHING!

just a quick qoute:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --THAT WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE TO THESE ENDS IT IS THE RIGH OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

voting clearly does not work so we are left with but one choice, the 1776 option (aka revolution) and this aint all shrubya's fault. the foundations were laid in the late 80's to early ninteys, the framework in 95 after the OKC bombing, and was finished late 2001, with the passing of the USA PATRIOT act. and yes I am a "conspiracy theorist" ( a term whch not unlike anti-semite, has lost all meaning thorugh overuse, now anyone that dare ask a question the deviates from the official stories is a "conspiracy theorist")

There's always more than "one choice". While seeing a bill such as this angers me, and I'd hate to see it pass, I have to keep the faith that the system in place will allow us to resolve it peacefully, in the courts, and by directly lobbying our representatives and senators. Our system here may not be perfect, but its certainly preferable to anarchy, as illustrated by Somalia.

I'm hopeful because it took a long time for the Total Information Act to be seen for what it was and blocked. This proposal is getting attention from day one and I have hope that it won't pass.

I'm also annoyed because this administration seems intent on passing these kinds of bills to limit our freedom and privacy and limit the judicial oversite of it all.

We all hope so, Danya--but I'm concerned about the extent to which people are aware of this proposed new Act. So far, the only places I've seen it reported are on the Center for Public Integrity's website & on Bill Moyers' "Now," on Friday. (Have you seen it reported elsewhere?) People need to be aware, so that they can mobilize against this the way that they did against T.I.P.S.

Of course, there's no reason not to get started with that mobilization, right here: If you would like to contact your Congressional representatives about this, go to the below website & let them know you're concerned about reported Administration proposals to further limit civil rights:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

they will not try to pass the bill without some sort of "attack" first. TIA was not blocked and stopped, it simply is called something else, and has been hidden a lot better. don't kid yourself. (rememeber "COINTELPRO" was supposedly stopped as wel) the courts are controlled by the very people trying to pass this bill, they installed feurer bush in the first place remember? (or is you memory really that short) yes there is more than one option: you can muster a militia, and recruit like minded people, and take your place as a sovereign citizen, or you can believe the lie that the system still works like it's supposed to, and become a subject to the american throne. your choice.

again:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --THAT WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE TO THESE ENDS IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " (I assume and hope you know where this is from)

saavedra - Drudge is carrying the story also, which one hopes means it is getting good coverage. It would probably also help explain why I can't pull up the actual text of the proposal. I am really interested in reading it myself rather than try and debate the bits quoted in related articles.

the text here in PDF format: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/patriot2-hi.pdf

hope that helps

Jaime- 120 pages of

and all in government speak which takes a certain ability to understand.

I'm a paralegal in my other life; I'm semi-fluent.

Thanks for the link. I'll let you know what I find.

Stefan, can I quote you on that when/if this passes?

Unabomber A conspiricy theory, in my opinion, is a theory that is only LOOSELY related to any fact. Most, again in my opinion, are so far out in left field, they hardly seem based on any proveable fact at all.

Theories, no matter how outragous they seem, as long as they are based on fact, are just fine. It's one of the things that makes this country great. Dissent is punishable by death in Iraq (but not before your loved ones are tortured in front of you first) :/ Thank God we don't have to worry about that.

Now, for this next bill. heh, well, what can I say. I'm pretty against this.... However, I won't take anyone's word for anything, until I read it myself. People are quick to jump to conclusions about stuff like this. I'd rather read it for myself, and know the facts.

I highly doubt this bill will pass in its current form. heh. The media will chew up congress like a rabid dog. No way, ain't gonna happen. So...relax....

--cheers

From a different topic, (where it went off on a tangent)

Danya:
And the problem is the government can now search through your private effects without a warrent or cause of any kind....IF the Patriot Act I and II or Total information awareness or any of the other computer spying programs they want to track you with are used.

I have yet to see any proof whatsoever, that will allow the gov't to search and seize your possesions without a warrent or probable cause

Until I do, I will think of statements like that, as exagerations.

--cheers

You can believe what you want. You seem to be trusting enough to not worry about much anyway.



I've moved the tangent part of the other thread here.

Jaime - I'm still interested in your views, on this.

I've been going over the legislative language for the past several weeks, & I'm conscious that much of this bill's import depends upon how it interrelates with previous legislation (including the first Patriot Act, naturalization law & citizenship law, etc.).

Despite the legalese, I can find passages in the text to support most of the civil-liberties criticisms that I have heard about it--particularly as I gather more about its specific interrelation with the first Patriot Act's very broad definition of terrorism ...

Have you had the opportunity to review the text?

You can follow the below link to a fairly detailed FindLaw analysis of the draft Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (the "Patriot Act 2"):

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20030217.html

The author's analysis is much more detailed than the Center for Public Integrity article I posted at the beginning of this topic. She focuses on the possible practical applications of particular provisions in the legislation, and explains how it interrelates with the provisions of the first Patriot Act and with other current law.

I recommend it very highly.

Because of your concern about the Total Information Awareness initiative, Danya, I thought that you would be particularly interested to read the below section of Anita Ramasastry's analysis of the Patriot Act 2:

"Making Total Information Awareness the Law:

'Admiral Poindexter's proposed Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, which sought to build data profiles of all Americans, sparked a wide public outcry. Congress recently warned against using TIA as a tool against US citizens. Nevertheless, Patriot II, as draft by the Attorney General and his staff, would begin to make TIA the law.

'For instance, under Patriot II, federal agents would not need a subpoena or obtain a court order to access our consumer credit reports. This provision would open the wedge for TIA to be implemented through a huge database. Our credit reports are repositories of a great deal of sensitive information - from our employment history to where we shop, borrow and transact.

'To see the information, the feds would only have to certify that they will use the information "in connection with their duties to enforce federal law." Note that they would not have to certify that the person whose information was accessed was suspected of terrorism, or indeed, any other crime. And no one would be notified that their records had been accessed. ..."

(If you want to go to the draft legislation itself to confirm what Ramasastry is talking about, look at Section 126's provisions on access to credit reports.)

Law enforcement insists that they need these new tools to do their job better. But now consider the agent in phoenix who raised the red flag about all the middle eastern men taking flight training. That agent was IGNORED. 9/11 wouldn't have happened if they had just listened to their own people. And you certainly don't need to violate my privacy to listen to your own underlings.

I didn't think they would give up on it so easily. They seemed to be well into opening the department with their creepy logo and everything until it got pulled. I haven't checked to see if they still have their site up.

Interesting Cspan hearing on this morning...maybe you caught the senate hearing of Ridge, Ashcroft, and the FBI guy.

I think it was Senator Leahy that was questioning Ashcroft about PA2. Leahy pretty much said that when the PA1 was being drafted the senate asked about what it was and Ridges department said they didn't know anything about it and were not working on anything like that.

Then 5 days later the lengthy, detailed plan was leaked to the press showing they were. He said all it could mean was Ashcroft's people weren't being truthful or someone in that department was so out of the loop they shouldn't even be there.

He said that was why he and another senator had to work to sunset many of PA1's laws because there were serious questions about how that power was to be used. Ridges office has still not come forward to explain it to them to this day. The senator seemed kind of dismissive about PA2 having any chance of passing since they won't answer to the issues about the even less sweeping PA1.

Leahy then told Ashcroft he needed to rename it because there was nothing patriotic about anything so shady and secret as this was.

But, we'll see how Bush tries to bully it into passage before the bugs are worked out like he did the last Patriot Act.

Until the bill is proposed, there is nothing to debate. As is, it is just a wishlist that the DA would like to see implemented to help streamline investigations and prosecutions.

It will be pared way down before even being proposed, then pared down again. Then pared down again in committee.



[INAPPROPRIATE INSULTING REMARKS REMOVED]

Closed for Committee Review

We now rejoin the current debate, already in progress...