Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clark would suspend parts of the Patriot Act

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 10:22 PM
Original message
Clark would suspend parts of the Patriot Act

Clark would suspend parts of Patriot Act

By KEVIN LANDRIGAN, Telegraph Staff

MANCHESTER - Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said Wednesday that he would suspend all provisions of the USA Patriot Act dealing with "sneak-and-peek" searches and wiretaps without court orders against suspected terrorists.

"We're going to suspend that right away. If you want to go do a 'sneak-and-peak' search or do a wiretap, go back to the judge and do it the right way, none of this other stuff," he said.

Clark told a few dozen veterans and family members at the Manchester VFW Hall that he would order a top-to-bottom review of all provisions in the controversial law, which was passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"After we get all that, then we'll know if the Patriot Act was necessary or not," Clark said.

"My instinct is, it's greatly overstated, but I want to see it laid out because security is real important."

Clark said it's impossible to know whether violations of personal freedoms regularly occur because Attorney General John Ashcroft won't submit details on how many times it's been used in investigations.

"You never know, looking from the outside, how much they really need," he said.

Clark said he would oppose the tighter restrictions that Ashcroft has asked Congress to approve.

"Number one, no new Patriot Act, forget it, we're not going to do that," Clark said to applause.

Among the Democratic candidates, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has offered his support for proposals that would require law enforcement to provide more rationale before doing "sneak-and-peek" searches, which can range from personal financial records to books borrowed from public libraries.

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry supports legislation that would limit "sneak and peek" warrants only to when a life is at stake, evidence may be destroyed or there is a risk of flight, a Kerry spokesman said.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich has called for the repeal of the entire act.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman have criticized the act, but have yet to endorse any plan to change it.


Edwards, Kerry and Lieberman all voted to put the Patriot Act on the books two years ago. more...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good for him
He should suspend the whole damn thing. We've survived 200+ years without that piece of shit law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Actually, there are parts of it that deal with funding that could be kept.
The invasive sections should certainly be repealed, but funding for things like port security should stay, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Repeal all of PATRIOT
and re-enact those provisions that you think are necessary and that don't violate civil liberties. I hope that this time Congress will debate the issue and unlike the first time, read the damn bill before voting on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. That's what they mean
They're trying to be honest with the voters by not just saying 'I'll repeal the whole thing!'. What will happen is either chunks will be taken out or they'll redo the whole thing from scratch. It will depend on how bad things are when they get in there and start reviewing. One thing for sure is that a good Democratic AG won't allow the abuses that Ashcroft has, so that's a good start until they can find out what has been going on the last 4 years. (I can't believe I'm typing this, we need a new government so we can know what the old government has been up to. Is this still America?)

For me, I trust 2 people with the Patriot Act; Kerry and Kucinich. Edwards, being a civil lawyer, I think would do okay but he's seemed to have a teensy bit more gusto with it. The rest I really have no confidence that they'd see the civil rights violations the same way Kucinich, Kerry and Edwards would.

That's not a slam on Clark, it's just he does come from a different military background with a different view of things. I think he still doesn't quite believe how far this Bushies would go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. A very informative post, robbedvoter
Kucinich is 100% correct about PATRIOT and the need for an outright repeal of this Constitutional travesty.

I am happy to hear Clark come closer to Kucinich's position than the other leading antiwar candidate, Dean. (Hint to Dean: PATRIOT Act baaaaad).

Thank you for reminding us that "Edwards, Kerry and Lieberman all voted to put the Patriot Act on the books two years ago."

I will add that Kucinich voted against PATRIOT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-28-03 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. There you go Clark....
That's MY President!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrowowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
6. The whole PATRIOT ACT
Edited on Sat Nov-29-03 12:48 AM by burrowowl
should be aborogated.
Why does Clark want an amendment to ban flag burning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. He doesn't want a amendment for flag burning....
Amendments are not made by Presidents...they go through a process where a majority of states have to ratify it. Remember how impossible it was to pass the Women's equal amemdment....well this would be just as hard.

Being in the military and almost dying for the US, I guess that Clark has his own take on what that symbol means to him. here is what someone had to say about it:
http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2003/11/wes_clark.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Wedge issue
This isn't a thread about flag burning. There's probably one over in GD, usually is.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #6
17. If that's your issue, Lieberman is your guy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
7. TOO LATE..
Last week, the U.S. Congress approved an expansion of FBI powers that will allow Attorney General John Ashcroft's federal police to arbitrarily seize records from a range of private businesses without bothering a judge or grand jury with any silly-billy nonsense about evidence or even suspicion of criminal intent. All Ashcroft's boys have to do is say, "Boo! Terrorism!" and they can take whatever they want.

This expansion of Patriot (sic) Act powers was smuggled into the funding bill for the Bush Regime's security organs. Although the FBI is technically under the supervision of the Judiciary committees, Bushist bagmen in Congress routed the measure through the secret sessions of the intelligence committees to avoid any public debate, Wired Magazine reports.

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/11/28/120.html

As usual, the power grab was accompanied by earnest pledges that it would only be used in the most extreme cases of genuine terrorist danger. This was also the line given out when the Patriot (sic) Act was first passed in 2001. Ashcroft -- who is so holy that he had his daddy pour cooking oil over his head after his 1994 election to the Senate to signify that he, like King David, had been anointed with the Lord's "dominion over men" -- solemnly swore that the draconian measures would never be applied to anything but dire threats to the national security.

This was, of course, the usual load of mule manure we've come to expect from the incontinently mendacious Regime. Witness the scene in Las Vegas this month, where Ashcroft's agents invoked the Patriot (sic) Act's anti-terrorism powers to run roughshod over due process in a local probe of a lap-dancing joint. The club owner was suspected of offering bribes to Vegas officials to win approval of a law allowing a more hands-on approach between dancers and customers, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports. While the case had nothing to do with terrorism, obviously the very thought of naked flesh being fondled constituted a dire threat to the national security in Ashcroft's oily mind. And obviously, nothing will prevent Ashcroft and his minions from using the Act to pursue any other personal bee that's buzzing in their fully armed federal bonnets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trek234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
8. HE'S A DICTATOR!!!
DOWN WITH CLARK!

You know whenever Kucinich says something like this without fail he will be accused of being a "dictator" or something of the like. For example when he said he was going to stop media consolidation being allowed by the FCC.

I'm waiting to see how many Clarkies give Clark praise now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
9. Dean campaign: Sign the Petition to Stop Ashcroft
John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration want to erode the civil rights and freedoms that are vital to the American ideal. They are advocating laws that break down the trust between communities, and using fear and inflammatory rhetoric to divide us.

On August 19th, John Ashcroft begins a national tour promoting an extension of the USA PATRIOT Act. We need your help to make a strong statement to stop John Ashcroft from doing more damage to the bill of rights.

As Americans, we have a long standing tradition of defending not only our own liberties and civil rights, but also standing up for equal rights for all.

Show America the depth of our commitment to basic civil rights: add your name to the Stop Ashcroft petition, and pass it on to your friends, family, and co-workers. We will deliver your names and your comments to the Attorney General.

To John Ashcroft:

Stop compromising our freedoms. Stop eroding our basic civil rights. Stop trying to teach our neighbors to spy on each other, and American communities to mistrust each other.

I will not stand for your using fear to threaten what it means to be an American.

The rule of law and due process are at the heart of the American tradition. There is no contradiction between protecting the country from terrorism and ensuring the protection of our basic civil liberties every step of the way.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=stopashcroft&JServSessionIdr002=egzno4osu1.app193a

“Fighting terrorism does not mean compromising our freedoms”

As President, I will devote myself to protecting Americans from terrorism. I will improve the preparedness of our first responders; dedicate more resources to defending seaports, airports, and land borders; take significant steps to improve industry and infrastructure security, especially hazardous sites like chemical plants; and improve our intelligence gathering and sharing capabilities. I will work to shore up relationships damaged by this Administration’s arrogant foreign policy, because collaboration and intelligence sharing with other nations is critical to preventing terror attacks. I will also focus attention on the root causes of terror abroad.

But as we fight the war on terror, we must be vigilant in protecting civil rights and liberties. The rule of law and due process must continue to be the hallmarks of our judicial system. There is no contradiction between protecting the country from terrorism and ensuring the protection of our basic civil liberties every step of the way.

This Administration has unnecessarily compromised our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have adopted a series of anti-terror tactics that erode the rights of average Americans and cannot be justified on national security grounds. Reports of the Department of Justice Inspector General and numerous watchdog groups document a troubling pattern of hostility to civil rights and liberties since September 11.

Sometimes public outcry has thwarted these tactics, such as when the Justice Department proposed a program to reward Americans for spying on their neighbors. But dissent has been stifled by an Attorney General who told Congress that opposition to his policies give “ammunition to America’s enemies” and by an Administration that goes to great lengths to avoid the scrutiny of Congress and the public.

While the Administration’s overzealousness diminishes the rights of all Americans, it has taken its greatest toll on communities whose cooperation we need in the fight against terror. Policies that single out immigrants for special registration procedures and coercive interviews amount to ethnic and religious profiling. These tactics antagonize minority communities without enhancing security. The detention of thousands in secretive federal custody for weeks and months, sometimes without formal charges, is also unacceptable. And recently the Justice Department’s Inspector General identified credible allegations that detainees have suffered physical abuse in custody.

Other anti-terror tactics are similarly offensive. There is no justification for the Bureau of Prisons to monitor communications between prisoners and their lawyers without a court order, a policy that undermines the attorney-client privilege. The FBI should not be authorized to spy on religious and political organizations and individuals without evidence of wrongdoing. Military tribunals that fail to protect the basic rights of the accused lessen our moral credibility in the eyes of the world. And labeling American citizens as “enemy combatants” to hold them indefinitely in military custody without access to counsel and the courts offends everything our nation stands for.

I am also deeply troubled by some provisions in the USA Patriot Act, which was enacted in the wake of 9/11 without meaningful debate. The Act gives overly broad investigative and surveillance powers to the government and strips federal courts of their traditional authority to curb abuses of power by the executive branch. Many of the Act’s provisions have little or nothing to do with combating terrorism; in fact some had been previously rejected by Congress. But the Ashcroft Justice Department took advantage of the climate of fear following the attacks to make fundamental changes in law enforcement procedures. I am concerned that this Act:
  • allows law enforcement agents to obtain information about an individual from a library, bookstore, bank, telephone company, credit card company, hotel, hospital or university without individualized suspicion and without meaningful judicial review;
  • expands the use of “sneak and peak” searches, even in non-terror cases;
  • allows the police to collect information about an individual’s internet use without a showing of probable cause;
  • allows the government to conduct wiretaps in criminal cases using the looser rules intended for intelligence investigations;
  • authorizes the Attorney General to detain immigrants based on a mere certification that there are "reasonable grounds to believe" the immigrant endangers national security.
Now the Attorney General is seeking to supplement the Patriot Act with Patriot Act II, included in the Administration’s so-called “Victory Act” proposal. Rather than expanding the Patriot Act, we should reconsider the wisdom of the original bill.

The September 11 terrorists sought to disrupt the American way of life, including our constitutional freedoms. They must not succeed. As President, I will lead the war on terror in a way that protects civil rights and civil liberties while protecting our safety. I will ensure that the United States is not merely a military or economic leader in world affairs, but a moral leader as well.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_patriotact
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. We were not talking
about Dr. (Unelectable no foreign relations wants to raise taxes on the middle class and is the media whores job to bring him to the GOP to run and lose against Bush) Howard Dean
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. And not endorsed a plan
to change it. No plan Howard.

"Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman have criticized the act, but have yet to endorse any plan to change it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
12. Just parts? And this is good enough for some people?
Suspend the whole damn thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. Yeah. The non-civil rights parts can stay.
Unlike some here, I happen to believe terrorists DO exist and we need to take measures to protect ourselves. (Ex: track bank accounts, explosives etc)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VolcanoJen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 03:24 AM
Response to Original message
16. Link to The Telegraph (NH) article here...
http://nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?SectionID=25&SubSectionID=354&ArticleID=94437

robbedvoter, in the future please limit your article excerpts to four paragraphs or less, per DU Forum copyright rules.

Thanks!
VolcanoJen
DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
19. Repeal all the parts from...
"An ACT...." to the last "..."Witness my Hand:"

The funding parts for port security and the USCG can be put into a less-Orwellian law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-03 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
20. Get your erasers ready!!!!.....The life according to Pugs might be gone.
Go Clark Go!!!!!
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC