Patriot Act

[Chitah]

Voici un blog proposant des débats autour du Patriot Act: http://www.patriotdebates.com/

[Invité jabial]

Voici un blog proposant des débats autour du Patriot Act: http://www.patriotdebates.com/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Je ne vois pas trop l'intérêt pour un libéral… C'est un peu comme débattre du bien fondé de l'économie dirigée

[Chitah]

Un avis intéressant sur le Patriot Act, j'ai souligné les parties importantes (dont notamment le caractère "provisoire" de certains clauses du PA), ou les formules que je trouve brillantes.

PATRIOT Act hinders U.S. rights, not terrorists

Emerald editorial board

April 07, 2005

Take a moment and consider that we are living in the year 2005. Almost four years have passed since the infamous and devastating Sept. 11 attacks, and much has changed in our nation during that span of time. Along the lines of instigating a pre-emptive war and imprisoning Saddam Hussein, the United States government has made terrorism the defining force in both national and international policy, and the USA PATRIOT Act is a prime example of this new national agenda.

Since its passage on Oct. 26, 2001 the PATRIOT Act has been hotly contested by both liberal and conservative groups, the most vocal of those being the American Civil Liberties Union. The act was, and still is, touted by supporters as an important mechanism in fighting terrorism because it grants U.S. government and federal officials powers specific to an international tone of terrorism. The right of federal investigators to search and seize electronic information without a warrant, for instance, could be key to swiftly understanding and stopping a future terrorist attack. Yet many deem the act an infringement on constitutional rights. The Emerald stands as one of those many.

Now, three-and-a-half years later, 15 sections of the PATRIOT Act will expire if Congress does not renew them at the end of 2005. Among others, those provisions being considered for renewal, and heavily discussed this week in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, include: Section 505, which allows the FBI to seize records without a specific or concrete subpoena; Section 214, which allows investigators to watch and record the numbers of all incoming calls to a particular phone line; and Section 207, which gives federal officials the right to monitor any individual communications, through a wiretap or other means.

This means that were you, a university student, fingered as a potential terrorist by a federal investigator, it is legal for him or her to listen in on your phone calls, analyze your text messages and read your e-mail -- without your knowledge. Shall we play a game of Are You Nervous?

The provisions within the PATRIOT Act as a whole are still largely unnecessary. Sept. 11 did not occur because the FBI didn't have time to get a warrant and go through someone's library records. The attacks occurred primarily because of a government that chose to ignore both the world community at large and the warning signs that members of that community were preparing a massive act of vengeance. Unwarranted seizure of documents can hardly make up for the terrorists' belief that the United States is inherently evil and deserving of violence.

It is important to remember that guarantees of liberty found within the U.S. Constitution were not designed to be applicable in only times of peace. Rather, provisions such as the fourth amendment right to privacy, or the guarantee of a fair trial by jury, were created so that even in times of country-wide turmoil, the needs and rights of the individual could be ever-present.

The U.S. Congress should remember the values that this country was built on, as it failed to do at the original passage of this act, and begin a disintegration of the PATRIOT Act this year by rejecting the renewal of any provisions.

[Chitah]

http://www.patriotdebates.com/the-debates/…irculating.html

D'après l'Electronic Frountier Foundation, le nouveau brouillon du Patriot Act (il va bientot s'éteindre de lui-même, il était à durée limitée).

L'analyse du Department of Justice, sur l'intérêt de renouveler ce Patriot Act.

[Invité jabial]

Ouayayaye…

[Chitah]

USA Patriot Act Applied to Regulate Jewelers and Dealers, Recognizing Diamonds-Terrorism Link

The U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FinCEN") has issued interim final rules to force "dealers in precious metals, stones, and jewels" (large Acrobat file) to establish anti-money laundering programs, pursuant to the Patriot Act and the Bank Secrecy Act. The rule discusses instances where precious stones have been issued for illicit purposes, including money laundering and possible terrorist activity. The rule represents official recognition of Contributing Expert Doug Farah's longtime work in proving terrorists' interests in the diamond trade, especially in West Africa.

[melodius]

Bientôt, le Patriot Act invoqué pour réglementer le prix du papier-toilette. On ignore généralement que le terrorisme islamique est financé avec du papier-toilette, mais il est temps de réagir.

L'esclavage, c'est la liberté !

[timburton]

USA Patriot Act Applied to Regulate Jewelers and Dealers, Recognizing Diamonds-Terrorism Link

The U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FinCEN") has issued interim final rules to force "dealers in precious metals, stones, and jewels" (large Acrobat file) to establish anti-money laundering programs, pursuant to the Patriot Act and the Bank Secrecy Act. The rule discusses instances where precious stones have been issued for illicit purposes, including money laundering and possible terrorist activity. The rule represents official recognition of Contributing Expert Doug Farah's longtime work in proving terrorists' interests in the diamond trade, especially in West Africa.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ca vise surtout le Libéria et Charles Taylor en fait.

[Taisei Yokusankai]

Ca vise surtout le Libéria et Charles Taylor en fait.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Charles Taylor qui n'est plus au Libéria….

[Chitah]

Ca vise surtout le Libéria et Charles Taylor en fait.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Charles Taylor qui semble être mouillé dans des histoires avec Al Qaeda si mes souvenirs sont bons.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Bientôt, le Patriot Act invoqué pour réglementer le prix du papier-toilette. On ignore généralement que le terrorisme islamique est financé avec du papier-toilette, mais il est temps de réagir.

L'esclavage, c'est la liberté !

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On n'en est vraiment pas loin ! Dans la même veine (le sujet t'intéressera au moins doublement, vu la profession et le hobby de l'un des types cités dans l'affaire):

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts106.html

Orchestrating Terrorism

by Paul Craig Roberts

         

The US has a vast and very expensive Homeland Security bureaucracy with nothing to do. There hasn’t been a terrorist attack in America since 2001. There have been a vast quantity of terror alerts, the purpose of which was to scare Americans into supporting an unnecessary and illegal aggressive attack on Iraq.

As very few, if any, real terrorists have turned up, the FBI has resorted to creating terrorists by soliciting Muslim-Americans and appealing to them with schemes to aid "jihadists." Recently, two American citizens were caught in a FBI sting. One, an Ivy-League educated physician, is charged with agreeing to provide medical care to wounded holy warriors in Saudi Arabia. The other, a famous jazz musician, is charged with agreeing to train jihadists in martial arts.

According to the Washington Times (June 1) the FBI began its sting in 2003, so it took two years of work and cajoling to manufacture the case against these two Americans.

What the FBI has done to Dr. R.A. Sabir and to Tarik Shah was once known as entrapment. Judges would throw out entrapment cases, because crime was believed to require intent to commit a crime. If the intent was given to the accused by the police through enticement or threats, it was not regarded as criminal intent on the accused person’s part.

Unfortunately, "law and order" conservatives used fear of crime to "give our police more effective measures to clear criminals off our streets" and managed to eliminate the entrapment defense.

Some years ago the FBI, posing as Arab oil sheiks, entrapped US Representatives in a sting operation. The FBI handed out large bundles of cash to Congressmen who accepted the offer to represent the fake sheiks’ interests. Film footage of the Congressmen stuffing their pockets with money was all the FBI needed to convict the members. The fact that campaign contributions come from interest groups that expect to be represented did not count in the stung US Representatives’ favor.

Note that the two latest victims, Sabir and Tarik, could not have offered their services to jihadists, because no jihadists were present. Note also that Sabir and Tarik are not accused of actually performing an act of service. Sabir and Tarik had no contact with real jihadists, and they committed no act of service to jihadists. Yet, both face $250,000 fines and 15 years in prison.

All that happened was that two productive American citizens were deceived by government agents for no other purpose than those agents having to show "results" in the "war on terror."

How does it make us safer to put a medical doctor and a jazz musician in prison? Why did the FBI spend two years entrapping these two American citizens?

Both men have wives and children. Suppose both men agreed to provide some service to jihadists. (We don’t know that they did. We only have the FBI’s word for it, a word that is not worth much.) The reason could easily be fear of reprisals.

Suppose you are a Muslim-American and FBI agents misrepresenting themselves as dangerous jihadists demanded services of you? Neither of the accused agreed to participate in a terrorist act: no bombs, no shootings, no hijackings. A doctor agreed to keep his Hippocratic oath if presented with wounded people in Saudi Arabia. A jazz musician agreed to teach martial arts. When was the last time a terrorist attacked with judo or karate?

Many years ago there was a movie about a British medical doctor who treated a man wounded in an act of rebellion against England. The English judge, portrayed in the movie as unjust in the extreme, ruled that being humane was tantamount to being a rebel and the doctor was sold into slavery to the Spanish. Unless memory fails, the movie was Captain Blood with Errol Flynn.

In the movie, the doctor did actually treat the wounded man. The charge against Dr. Sabir is that he agreed to treat a wounded man if presented with one in Saudi Arabia in the future. There is no way of knowing if he would have done so. But if the US is prepared to deny medical treatment to its opponents, why does anyone doubt the torture stories?

The FBI is so desperate to capture a terrorist that it spent two years setting up a doctor on this specious charge.

Like the police who find it easier to frame people than to convict them on the evidence, the FBI will find it easier to manufacture "terrorists" with entrapment than to catch real terrorists.

June 7, 2005

Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

[Disciplus Simplex]

Ca n'apporte rien au débat mais j'ai entendu une réplique dans une série "Law & Order : Criminal Intent" qui passe sur TF1 le samedi soir

"Le Patriot Act, j'ai lu l'original quand ça s'appelait encore '1984'"

Bon voilà il est vendredi soir tard et je me dis que tant qu'à la ressortir