|
ATG: Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has joined A.G. John Ashcroft
in his campaign to turn every American into a "potential" terrorist,
sponsoring a 'replacement' for the unwanted, challenged Patriot Act II. It is
obvious that Graham has no clue as to the activities presently taking place
by 'law' enforcement all over America, little of which is legal, but all of
which is completely oppressive and unconstitutional. The following report from
Casper, Wyoming, Star Tribune, is a brief synopsis of another end run
attempt to overcome the aversion to Patriot Act II.
Victory Act no Triumph for Freedom Lovers
The replacement for Patriot Act II would increase federal powers
by Charles Lavendosky, Casper Star-Tribune
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, reportedly plans to introduce legislation
in September to further expand federal police powers.
The Hatch bill, entitled the Victory Act (Vital Interdiction
of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act), is seen by some to be a substitute
for the so-called Patriot Act II - the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of
2003 - which was leaked and caused a furor in Congress as well as among liberal
and conservative civil liberties groups. A draft copy of the Victory Act has
been posted on the Web (www.libertythink.com).
Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is stumping
around the country to generate support for the draconian USA Patriot Act of
2001.
Taxpayers are paying for Ashcroft to tell them you're not
really losing your liberties and besides we need these powers to catch terrorists.
Ashcroft will be trying to sell audiences on granting the federal government
even greater law enforcement authority.
The draconian Patriot Act II would have empowered the federal
government to conduct secret arrests, collect DNA samples from anyone suspected
of terrorism and allow the government take away an American's citizenship. Despite
its comforting title, the June 27 draft of the Victory Act contains similar
provisions.(Presently 87 pages)
Section 101 creates a new category of crime called "narco-terrorism."
A narco-terrorist would be anyone who possesses even the smallest amount
of an illegal drug with the intent to distribute it to someone who is -
- with or without the dealer's knowledge - - planing to carry out a terrorist
attack. Section 103 increases criminal penalties for those convicted of narco-terrorism
and other drug-related crimes.
Section 201 prohibits money exchanges through a money-transfer
system based on trust called a "hawala." The bill calls hawalas
the crime of money-laundering. Hawalas have been used throughout the world for
centuries in small, rural communities where banks do not exist.
An immigrant goes to a "thakedar" who initiates
the transfer of funds for a 5 percent fee. He contacts (by telephone or e-mail)
a thakedar near the immigrant's hometown and confirms that funds are available
for transfer. The immigrant's relative then receives the full amount of the
transfer at no charge. The thakedars then settle the cash debt between them.
The system is based upon trust and leaves no paper trail. (An anathema to the
federal government).In many communities, it the only way for a son or daughter
to send money to the family.
The U.S. Government claims that hawalas are used to funnel millions
of dollars to terrorist organizations. The unregulated (government -
that is) nature of these transfers leaves them open to such charges.
Section 202 makes it a crime to conceal more than $10,000
on one's person or in any private or commercial vehicle with the intent to transport
that money across state lines or out of the United States - if that money was
gained in an illegal activity or is "intended to be used to promote some
form of unlawful activity." This newly created crime is called "reverse
money laundering."
A person arrested for transporting funds will forfeit the
money upon arrest, even if no charges are filed. (This is already taking place
today - illegally) The bill not only expands the asset forfeiture powers of
the federal government, it expands the definition of money-laundering to include
offshore banking as a means of tax evasion.
The money-laundering sections of the Victory Act also extends
the authority of federal law enforcement officials to issue nonjudicial or administrative
subpoenas - not needing the signature of a judge - which require the suspect
to turn over financial records and appear in a prosecutor's office to answer
questions.
The final sections of the Hatch (Graham) bill limit when unlawfully
obtained evidence from wire or oral communications can be thrown out of court.
Such evidence can only be suppressed, according to the bill, if it "involved
bad faith by law enforcement," meaning a defendant has to prove the federal
police intentionally broke the law.
Sections 503 and 504 increase the power of the federal
government by expanding its authority to use administrative subpoenas in all
terrorism investigations and to force witnesses to testify in order to apprehend
fugitives.
Other sections authorize the government to obtain consumer
records from telecommunication companies, Internet service providers and financial
institutions such as banks. It allows the government to get these business
records without a court order. An administrative subpoena for financial records
includes a 30-day delay in notifying the person whose records are being investigated.
Finally, Section 505 expands the government's authority
to intercept communications. Under this bill, a federal district judge could
authorize a roving wiretap warrant to track all a person's wireless communications,
including cell phones and laptop communications.
The ironically named Victory Act would not be a victory
for freedom loving people. It's really a wish list for those who want more federal
power.
(Comments/emphasis added. A list of today's "terrorists" includes
Christians, any who object to intrusive government, and many organizations,
including the Boy Scouts of America, listed by the most anti-American, Morris
Dees of the SPLC).
Excerpts from one of the most important court cases ever decided: Miranda vs.
Arizona, 384 US -436, 1966
"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials
shall be subjected to the same [384 U.S. 436, 480] rules of conduct that are
commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government
will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government
is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the
whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes
a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law
unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of
the criminal law the end justifies the means . . . would bring terrible retribution.
Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face."
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (dissenting opinion). 49
We start here, as we did in Escobedo, with the premise that our holding is not
an innovation in our jurisprudence, but is an application of principles long
recognized and applied in other settings. We have undertaken a thorough re-examination
of the Escobedo decision and the principles it announced, and we reaffirm it.
That case was but an explication of basic rights that are enshrined in our
Constitution - that "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself," and that "the accused shall
. . . have the Assistance of Counsel" - rights which were put in jeopardy
in that case through official overbearing. These precious rights were fixed
in our Constitution only after centuries of persecution and struggle. And in
the words of Chief Justice Marshall, they were secured "for ages to come,
and . . . designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can
approach it," Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 387 (1821).
It is also urged upon us that we withhold decision on this issue until state
legislative bodies and advisory groups have had an opportunity to deal with
these problems by rule making. 65 We have already pointed out that the Constitution
does not require any specific code of procedures for protecting the privilege
against self-incrimination during custodial interrogation. Congress and the
States are free to develop their own safeguards for the privilege, so long as
they are fully as effective as those described above in informing accused persons
of their right of silence and in affording a continuous opportunity to exercise
it. In any event, however, the issues presented are of constitutional dimensions
and must be determined by the courts. The admissibility of a statement in the
face of a claim that it was obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional
rights is an issue the resolution of which has long since been undertaken by
this Court. See Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574 (1884). Judicial solutions to problems
of constitutional dimension have evolved decade by decade. As courts have been
presented with the need to enforce constitutional rights, they have found means
of doing so. That was our responsibility when Escobedo was before us and it
is our [384 U.S. 436, 491] responsibility today. Where rights secured
by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them.
|
