Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, also known as The Patriot Act II, is draft legislation written by John Ashcroft's Department of Justice. The Center for Public Integrity obtained a copy of the draft, marked "confidential", on February 7, 2003, and posted it on its web site, along with commentary.
The draft version of the bill would greatly expand the powers of the United States government to unprecedented levels, while simultaneously eliminating or curtailing judicial review of these powers. Members of the United States Congress said they had not seen the drafts, though the documents obtained by the CPI indicated that House speaker Dennis Hastert and US Vice President Dick Cheney have received copies.
Some commentators speculated that Ashcroft did not actually believe that any of the measures outlined in the bill would be passed, but that he deliberately asked for such radical measures to preclude controversy when a trimmed down version is later introduced which contains somewhat less far-reaching plans. It has also been suggested that, had the text of the bill not been leaked, the administration would have delayed its deployment to co-incide with a future terrorist attack in an attempt to secure a wider basis for approval of its measures.
Provisions of the February 7th draft version included:
Removal of court-ordered prohibitions against police agencies spying on domestic groups
The FBI would be granted powers to conduct searches and surveillance based on intelligence gathered in foreign countries, without first obtaining a court order
Creation of a DNA database of suspected terrorists
Prohibition of any public disclosure of the names of alleged terrorists, including those who have been arrested
Exemptions from civil liability for people and businesses who voluntarily turn private information over to the government
Criminalization of the use of encryption to conceal incriminating communications
Automatic denial of bail for persons accused of terrorism-related crimes, reversing the ordinary common law burden of proof principle.
All alleged terrorists would be required to demonstrate why they should be released on bail, rather than the government being required to demonstrate why they should be held.
Expansion of the list of crimes eligible for the death penalty
The Environmental Protection Agency would be prevented from releasing "worst case scenario" information to the public about chemical plants
United States citizens whom the government finds to be either providing material support to or members of terrorist groups could have their US citizenship revoked and be deported to foreign countries
USA PATRIOT Act as Passed by Congress
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (Oct. 25, 2001)
To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.
.....And for other Purposes...???????????
TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES
Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.
Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses.
Sec. 203. Authority to share criminal investigative information.
Sec. 204. Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications.
Sec. 205. Employment of translators by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Sec. 206. Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Sec. 207. Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power.
Sec. 208. Designation of judges.
Sec. 209. Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants.
Sec. 210. Scope of subpoenas for records of electronic communications.
Sec. 211. Clarification of scope.
Sec. 212. Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb.
Sec. 213. Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant.
Sec. 214. Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA.
Sec. 215. Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Sec. 216. Modification of authorities relating to use of pen registers and trap and trace devices.
Sec. 217. Interception of computer trespasser communications.
Sec. 218. Foreign intelligence information.
Sec. 219. Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism.
Sec. 220. Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence.
Sec. 221. Trade sanctions.
Sec. 222. Assistance to law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 223. Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures.
Sec. 224. Sunset.
Sec. 225. Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap.
EFF "Intellectual Property: Emulation & Emulators" Archive
The Bush administration is actively seeking to gag or punish social service organizations that challenge the party line on such matters as health care for poor children and HIV prevention, according to a new report.
Nonprofits that disagree with the president's own solutions, or go further and blame him for problems in the first place, have come to expect unpleasant consequences.
Those might include audits of federal-funds spending and reviews of content, such as workshop literature.
September 2003: Bush is seeking broad new authority to allow federal agents without the approval of a judge or even a federal prosecutor to demand private records and compel testimony.
Here is the full outline why to impeach Bush NOW!
Every crime relies on three primary elements; Means, Motive and Opportunity.
Oil, money, power beyond comprehension. Plans for an Iraqi "Regime Change" are not at all -- as the administration would have us believe -- a result of the attacks of September 11th. In fact, plans for an Iraqi regime change, at the behest of Mr. Bush were scripted into the GOP's published platform statement for 2000.
There are heavy connections between the Bush Administration and US oil corporations.
The interests of those oil giants are the cornerstone of this Administration's policy.
Control of Iraqi oil fields would be worth incalculable profits the very corporations whose former executives permeate the ranks of the Bush Administration. Oil is the Bush family business -- politics is the shield that protects it.
In addition to the oil, the business of militarism itself promises a mountain of gold for those who promote this act of military aggression. At the center of all spending for the administration's "war on terrorism" is the Carlyle Group.
Contracts for the construction of military aircraft, artillery, vaccines for small pox, transportation infrastructure - everything a war on terrorism needs - are awarded to companies connected to the Carlyle Group.
Who is the Carlyle group?
Essentially they are defense industry investment brokers. The management team includes none other than former US President George Bush Sr., James Baker and Frank Carlucci to name a few. If you want to invest your millions in the defense industry, the smart money goes to the Carlyle Group.
In fact, that is precisely what the family of Osama bin Laden did. They were Carlyle clients in good standing at the time of the attacks, having invested two million dollars through Carlyle in the US defense industry. After the attacks, Carlyle severed relations with the bin Ladens, but not before the family of the worlds most notorious killer pocketed a tidy profit from their dealings.
It should be noted that the bin Laden family investment was well timed to capitalize on the wave of US defense spending that would be generated by Oasma's attacks. Carlyle stood ready to assist them. I wonder how FOX News missed that.
The most powerful military the world has ever known, assembled expressly for the purpose of defending the United States of America, has been commandeered by Bush & Co. for personal equity enhancement.
The attacks of September 11th. have provided the perfect opportunity, indeed the perfect catalyst. Those attacks can only be described as crimes against humanity. There can no doubt today whom those crimes have benefited most.
"The World Has Spoken With One Voice"
Mr. Bush offers as justification for the coming slaughter unified worldwide opinion. It is true, the world has spoken. The problem is, the Bush Administration refuses to hear what is being said.
"The world has said Iraq should not be in possession of weapons of mass destruction; they also said; "Don't launch a full scale military assault aimed at gaining control of the lucrative Iraqi oil fields. And most importantly, work in accordance with the UN Security Council." That last part is routinely omitted by Mr. Bush as he plays the role of war salesman.
At every turn the Bush administration has made false and misleading statements in building their case for war. At every turn the Administration has misstated the support and intentions of our historic allies in a blatant attempt to fan the fires of war. At every turn the Administration undermines attempts by the United Nations Security Council to resolve the issues peacefully.
The continued massing of US assault forces on Iraq's border clearly signals Mr. Bush and his associates have no intention of working with the UN or anyone else. They are treasonous men with guns in their hands and gold in their eyes.
Mr. Bush and his associates have repeatedly made a point of derailing and obfuscating the International Criminal Prosecution Process. They have berated and bribed nation after nation for assurances of immunity from International War Crimes prosecution.
For these men, immunity from criminal prosecution should never be granted.
They are guilty of treason against the United States.
They must be impeached, NOW!
Now should we also try congress or give them the chance to come clean?
Bracing for Bush's War at Home
by Chisun Lee
March 26 - April 1, 2003
Continue to 911 UPDATE
An ugly theory popped up in the nation's capital several weeks ago. The Bush administration would wait until war began, and worry gripped the homeland, to ram a staggering package of domestic security measures through a Congress silenced by fears of seeming unpatriotic.
Such measures would radically expand the executive branch powers already inflated by the 2001 USA Patriot Act.
On Friday—as the U.S. began suffering combat fatalities, and the terror alert on whitehouse.gov glared orange for "high"—Justice Department spokesperson Mark Corallo confirmed to the Voice that such measures were coming soon.
Exact details are confined to "internal deliberations," he said, but the proposals "will be filling in the holes" of the Patriot Act, "refining things that will enable us to do our job."
But a new, comprehensive review of Bush's growing presidential power hardly reveals any "holes." Rather—using court positions, internal policy changes, and secret decisions as bricks—the administration has built the executive branch into a fortress, nearly invulnerable to the checks of the judiciary and Congress.
Most alarming, according to the watchdog authors of the 96-page report, "Imbalance of Powers," the complexity of this historic expansion continues to mask its true proportions.
"You have to connect the dots," said Elisa Massimino, Washington, D.C., director of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (LCHR), a 25-year nonprofit defender of civil liberties and humane policy. LCHR analyzed hundreds of pages of legislation, policy directives, and congressional records, plus a spate of major court cases such as the suit challenging the indefinite detention, without representation, of accused American "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla.
The big picture shows an "executive branch amassing so much more power," said Massimino, even in the past six months alone. But since many developments have occurred "under the radar," she said, few members of Congress, let alone of the public, could easily map out such a blueprint on their own.
Briefly, the dots connect like this:
The administration's refusal to release Patriot Act-related records to Congress, the refusal to release the names of detainees and open their court hearings to the public, and the Freedom of Information Act exemptions under the Homeland Security Act add up to a secretive government, acting outside the scrutiny of the public and its representatives.
The development of the Total Information Awareness program, the mining of individuals' shopping and library records, and the melding of spy and arrest functions add up to government invasion of privacy and restriction of expression.
The indefinite detention of U.S. citizens deemed by Bush to be "enemy combatants," the secret detention and deportation of immigrants not charged with a crime, and the tracking and questioning of nationals from particular countries add up to unilateral executive power to deprive people of their physical liberty.
Even with the existing behemoth, Massimino said, a "quantum leap" in executive branch authority is possible. She referred to the recently leaked Justice Department draft bill, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, commonly known as Patriot Act II.
"It would make over 100 changes to existing law," she said. But as recently as March 4, Attorney General John Ashcroft was being coy about it, refusing to discuss any of the 86-page draft at a Senate hearing.
Among the more extreme powers Patriot Act II would grant the executive branch: The ability to strip citizenship from an American who supports a group the feds label as terrorist. Secret arrests—the government could avoid revealing the location of, charges against, and evidence on someone it was holding. Far looser checks on search-and-seizure activities of law enforcement. And a DNA database for people deemed to be terrorist suspects.
Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin was among the first constitutional experts to condemn Patriot Act II as "a new assault on our civil liberties."
Last week he told the Voice, "What we're really worried about here is something being proposed while all eyes are on Iraq. People are whipped up into a frenzy. The executive will propose what, at a certain time, it thinks it can get away with." That, he said, could be the draft bill "in its most virulent form."
Before the war began, there were signs that Congress might fight future presidential power-hogging and bring more heft to the legislative branch. Some Democrats excoriated Ashcroft for his furtiveness on Patriot Act II. Some Republicans were talking about subpoenaing records that the Justice Department refused to release on its use of Patriot Act I powers.
Yet wartime has traditionally meant deferring to the executive. The entire post-September 11 period may have seemed like one big state of war, with the Justice Department successfully skirting Congress and pushing every constitutional challenge to higher, more administration-friendly courts. But given the actual war in Iraq, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said last week, Americans can expect that "protections [of their individual rights] will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum."
Ashcroft deflected angry Senate queries on Patriot Act II, saying "it would be the height of absurdity" to imagine the administration's hustling through a law without congressional review.
Yet on October 25, 2001, 98 out of 99 voting senators hurriedly passed the 342-page Patriot Act I—without any public debate and before most of them had read it.
The White House made clear their votes would be spun as a test of their patriotism.
Votes on Patriot Act II could also be a test—of who has the patriotism to right democracy's severely lopsided structure of checks and balances.
My country, right or wrong, for example, may sound patriotic, at first glance, but it's also frighteningly amoral
-- it's the sort of thing a
Nazi might say...
True "patriots" are heroes, who do the *right* thing,
not necessarily what a leader tells them to do "for their
Supporting that sort of unprovoked action, regardless of how wrong it may be, just because it's an *American* action, strikes me as the very definition of
*** Notes ***
I hate to disillusion you, but this illegal War is about the oil.
Oil reserves in America are in fatal decline, wells that were producing 100 barrels a day are now only producing 7, and the reserves in Alaska have also started to decline. The two largest oil reserves on this planet are Saudi Arabia and Iraq respectively.
In a documentary on BBC 2 last night they showed two open letters written by Donald Rumsfeld, including in one of them was the urging of the attack of Iraq to preserve "American energy security" for it's oil reserves, and to get an American "friendly" administration in so that the oil would go to America before any other country could get it.
If America keeps consuming its oil at the current rate without importing it will use its reserves up in less than 5 years. The USA is the largest oil importers in the world. The action against Iraq was made even more important after the action in Venezuela. The administration then decided it needed a "friendly" country with a lot of oil.
Due to the stability of Saudi Arabia they had no choice but to go for the second largest reserves in Iraq.
But are you sure your on the right path if you believe that innocent people should be killed for oil and to deal with a dictator?
There are worse in the world. After all America is going after the most defenseless country. This action will not decrease the risk of weapons of mass destruction only increase them, after all, it looks like the only way to avoid being attacked is to "Control" them.
Pakistan, North Korea for example are dictatorships and they have nuclear weapons, but they are not being attacked. –"Not such easy pickings?"
You do know that it is against international law to invade a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change, and that if this is made to be the case all those involved are war criminals?