Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/26/2001 4:43:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/26/2001 4:37:53 AM EDT by NOVA5]
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0%2C2100%2C47901%2C00.html But the Dec. 2005 expiration date embedded in the USA Act -- which the Senate approved 98 to 1 on Thursday -- applies only to a tiny part of the mammoth bill. After the president signs the measure on Friday, police will have the permanent ability to conduct Internet surveillance without a court order in some circumstances, secretly search homes and offices without notifying the owner, and share confidential grand jury information with the CIA. Also exempt from the expiration date are investigations underway by Dec. 2005, and any future investigations of crimes that took place before that date. On Thursday, Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to publish new guidelines as soon as the president signs the bill, which is expected to happen Friday. "I will issue directives requiring law enforcement to make use of new powers in intelligence gathering, criminal procedure and immigration violations," Ashcroft said. President Bush said this week that he looks forward to signing the USA Act, which his administration requested in response to the Sep. 11 hijackings, "so that we can combat terrorism and prevent future attacks." During the Senate debate Thursday, the lone critic of the bill was Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), who introduced an unsuccessful series of pro-privacy amendments earlier this month. "We in this body have a duty to analyze, to test, to weigh new laws that the zealous and often sincere advocates of security would suggest to us," Feingold said. "This is what I have tried to do with this anti-terrorism bill. And that is why I will vote against this bill." Feingold said the USA Act "does not strike the right balance between empowering law enforcement and protecting constitutional freedoms." But not one of his colleagues joined him in dissent. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) seemed to speak for the rest of the Senate when saying "the homefront is a war front" and arguing that police needed new surveillance powers. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) did not vote. Other sections of the USA Act, which the House approved by a 357 to 66 vote on Wednesday, that do not expire include the following: Police can sneak into someone's house or office, search the contents, and leave without ever telling the owner. This would be supervised by a court, and the notification of the surreptitious search "may be delayed" indefinitely. (Section 213) Any U.S. attorney or state attorney general can order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system and record addresses of Web pages visited and e-mail correspondents -- without going to a judge. Previously, there were stiffer legal restrictions on Carnivore and other Internet surveillance techniques. (Section 216) Any American "with intent to defraud" who scans in an image of a foreign currency note or e-mails or transmits such an image will go to jail for up to 20 years. (Section 375) An accused terrorist who is a foreign citizen and who cannot be deported can be held for an unspecified series of "periods of up to six months" with the attorney general's approval. (Section 412) ((Edit for spell correction in topic))
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 4:44:27 AM EDT
Biometric technology, such as fingerprint readers or iris scanners, will become part of an "integrated entry and exit data system" with the identities of visa holders who hope to enter the U.S. (Section 414) Any Internet provider or telephone company must turn over customer information, including phone numbers called -- no court order required -- if the FBI claims the "records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism." The company contacted may not "disclose to any person" that the FBI is doing an investigation. (Section 505) Credit reporting firms like Equifax must disclose to the FBI any information that agents request in connection with a terrorist investigation -- without police needing to seek a court order first. Current law permits this only in espionage cases. (Section 505) The current definition of terrorism is radically expanded to include biochemical attacks and computer hacking. Some current computer crimes -- such as hacking a U.S. government system or breaking into and damaging any Internet-connected computer -- are covered. (Section 808) A new crime of "cyberterrorism" is added, which covers hacking attempts causing damage "aggregating at least $5,000 in value" in one year, any damage to medical equipment or "physical injury to any person." Prison terms range between five and 20 years. (Section 814) New computer forensics labs will be created to inspect "seized or intercepted computer evidence relating to criminal activity (including cyberterrorism)" and to train federal agents. (Section 816) --------- .... they can secretly enter my home without telling me. best hope im not home. one thinks they would have a severe disadvantage. home territory. bad juju this way comes. NOVA5
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 5:41:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/26/2001 5:35:40 AM EDT by bunghole]
I've seen alot of people here say that they were not worried about this bill because they said it would be temporary. As I read their posts I tried to remember how many freedoms the govt has taken away that we have gotten back.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 6:03:34 AM EDT
While I deplore the attacks on our liberties in this bill, is it any surprise? we all knew the government would capitalize on 9/11. Let us hope it stops here (unlikely). In any event, do you doubt they were already doing these things and just "legalized it"?
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 6:26:22 AM EDT
What are you willing to bet that agencies will need no practice before legally exercising their new powers?
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 6:39:01 AM EDT
they'll tell us that the measures are temporary. they'll tell us it has happened before (Lincoln, FDR, etc.) they'll tell us not to worry if we have nothing to hide will you listen?
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 6:47:21 AM EDT
Temporary, ayuh. I buy that. 'temporary' to me means a couple months, not 4 years with the possibility of extending, and extending, and extending, etc.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 6:59:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/26/2001 6:54:48 AM EDT by Quarterbore]
I agree that it is extreemely unfortionate but these laws will likely never go away as you can't beleave that the threat will ever go away! As the seperation between the developed world and the non-developed world continues to become more and more distinct, I am afraid that the Terror tactics is the only way for these states and the people within them to attack a giant like us. If a country, say Iraq was stupid enough to directly attack us like occured on 9-11, we as a country would level the country and if Biological weapons could be traced to Iraq, which may still happen, I would welcome my country to NUKE THEM!!!! I just think this is TEOTWAWKI and I am not sure that there are many options. I wish there was a way to protect the honest, law abiding citizen's rights that also allows the government to hunt those that wish to do us harm.... I just don't see how it can be done and it really sucks! I heard the other day that there are more people in the US that were NOT born here than there are of us that were. Now, that is a scarry thought as well, not that I suggest we export all non-native born people in the US...... at least not yet!
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 7:37:50 AM EDT
It's not the beginning of the end. That happened some time ago.
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 7:44:42 AM EDT
Heres another link related to the terrorism bill that bush signed. [url]dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011026/ts/attack_bush_dc_1.html[/url]
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 7:52:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Halfcocked: It's not the beginning of the end. That happened some time ago.
View Quote
What Halfcocked said!
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 8:50:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/26/2001 8:47:36 AM EDT by cnatra]
Originally Posted By NOVA5: [url]www.wired.com/news/conflict/0%2C2100%2C47901%2C00.html[/url]
View Quote
Slowly but surely.....like the frog in the pot of water....slowly trun the heat up....
Link Posted: 10/26/2001 9:30:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By gardenWeasel: What are you willing to bet that agencies will need no practice before legally exercising their new powers?
View Quote
Gotta go with the weasel here.... All that happened is that they gained legal authority to do something they have been doing all along. Me?? I always say "Hello" to the wiretappers on any phone conversations that involve firearms.
Top Top