sergeriver wrote:
Denial of Rights: the USA PATRIOT ActAmnesty International is concerned that the USA PATRIOT Act:
Creates a broad definition of "domestic terrorism" that may have a chilling effect on the U.S. and international rights to free expression and association.
The law defines "domestic terrorism" as acts committed in the United States "dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws," if the U.S. government determines that they "appear to be intended" to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," or "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Such ambiguous language allows for loose interpretation that might violate civil liberties and international human rights.
Allows non-citizens to be detained without charge and held indefinitely once charged.
This is permissible if the U.S. government certifies that there are "reasonable grounds" to believe a person's action threatens national security. This runs counter to U.S. and international rights to due process and could also lead to violations of rights in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which guarantee that governments be notified if their nationals are detained.
Infringes on the right to privacy and removes many types of judicial review over intelligence activities.
The USA PATRIOT Act permits the government to scrutinize peoples' reading habits by monitoring public library and bookstore records, without notifying the suspect. It also allows for "sneak and peak" tactics such as physical search of property and computers, wiretapping and monitoring of email, and access to financial and educational records, without providing notification. These activities contradict the right to be free from arbitrary interference with individuals' privacy, as protected in the U.S. Constitution and the ICCPR.
In response to these measures, Amnesty International recommends that:
Individuals urge the U.S. Congress to pass reforms to safeguard individual human rights, such as the End Racial Profiling Act, and revoke aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act that are in breach of the rights protected in the U.S. Constitution and international human rights law.
Individuals urge the U.S. Congress to enforce all Sunset provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and oppose efforts to extend or eliminate them. (Note: A Sunset provision provides that a certain part of the law is automatically repealed on a certain date, unless the Congress reenacts it).
Individuals urge Congress to pass the SAFE Act and expand and enforce use of Sunset provisions to other problematic sections of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Individuals urge the U.S. Congress to block new legislative initiatives, such as the proposed CLEAR Act and VICTORY Act, which would further curtail rights of U.S. citizens and non-citizens.
Individuals should initiate and support community efforts to uphold civil and human rights as defined in the U.S. Constitution and international law.
They (Amnesty Intl.) are free to express their opinions of interpretation, just like every member of this forum. That is all this is.
Am I worried about what Google/comcast/AOL/ my bank, my library, or any other source provides to the US govt? Nope not in the least. They are not interested in my habits or yours. They are interested in people looking at specific information and when they look at that stuff, ie. how to make a bo_m8 out of the Simple supplies available at any feed store, or how about infrastructure blueprints that are open to free public records. Nothing I am interested in looking up. But someone who thinks that information is interesting, HELL YEAH I want some one (Thank You US Govt.) to be looking at their reading habits!
sergeriver wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Serge, all that does is speak to potential, not actual cases where it has occurred. Other than the one case TS mentioned, can you find a case where a US citizen's rights were infringed upon?
How do you know every one's rights haven't been infringed by this law? Invading your privacy is indeed infringing your rights, and you can't be sure the government didn't do it.
This goes back to a simple point.
You have to show the facts about your point. We have. Its just like the argument that we didn't actually land on the moon. The facts are there. But you want to make a point without showing any facts to back up your position.
When you can do that, get back with me.
RAIMIUS wrote:
That's one of the main problems--lack of public oversight. As much as government employees hate people looking over their shoulders, it is a necessary thing.
Being on a DoD network, I get a nice little "Consent to monitor" screen before I login. I'm guessing most people don't, yet many activities are monitored "for the good of the whole."
And just what public body of government do you propose should have access to that kind of information? Possibly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts, but I honestly don't know. I agree with you to a point, but come on man. You are sounding like a bleeding heart liberal that honestly believes your rights are being tampered with.
Anyone, Bueller, Bueller... Anyone seen Bueller or his rights being infringed?
And with that I give you the sound of a peaceful Texas afternoon...
the sound of crickets
