From: Barbara Lamar (barbaralamar@sanmarcos.net)
Date: Sat Aug 30 2003 - 18:55:15 MDT
Greg Burch wrote:
> What,
> specifically counts as a "wholesale denial of fundamental rights"
> under the
> cited statutes? I'm particularly interested in ways in which
> *citizens* are
> subject to such a result upon mere application of the cited labels.
I can't answer the question exactly as asked, because I don't know what is
meant by "wholesale denial of fundamental rights." But I can tell you the
aspects of the PA's that disturb me. I'll start with a specific incident
that occurred around three months ago. A certain CPA was informed by the FBI
that he must turn over all the papers he held relating to one of his
clients, and that he would be in violation of the law if he informed his
client that the papers had been taken. The CPA, shocked at being told he
could not inform his client what had happened, called his own lawyer. The
lawyer himself had never heard of any such law. I had read the PA and told
the lawyer that, yes, amazingly enough, under this law the FBI could seize a
person's papers without ever informing the owner of the papers and could
even prevent the custodian of the papers from telling the owner. The owner
of the papers bore no resemblance to a terrorist.
In fact, Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra was quoted in the
Washington Post as saying "We would use whatever tools are available to us
to prosecute violations of any law," in the context of discussing the PA,
and the wording of the PA is such that it could be used against just about
anyone.
The 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says: "The right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things
to be seized."
If you look at British common law from the 1600's on, and at U.S. case law
since the 4th Amendment, it's clear that secret "fishing expeditions" of the
sort that are being conducted under the PA are exactly the sort of
government behavior the 4th Amendment was meant to protect people from.
Here are some of the other provisions of the PA's that could be used to bad
ends:
--People can be detained in prison without charged with a crime and without
being allowed access to a lawyer and obviously, with no trial.
-- Bank accounts can be frozen without a court order.
--Information can be obtained about subscribers from ISP's, libraries, and
stores.
--Phone conversations can be monitored without a court order.
These broad powers invite fishing expeditions and invasion of privacy. I'm
rather sensitive about this, since my own property was invaded by the
police, without a warrant, under the direction of the BATF -- because BATF
agents flying over my land in a helicopter saw a Vitex tree growing on my
land and mistook it for marijuana. A very nervous young man held me at
gunpoint and could easily have made a mistake and blown me or my daughter
away. We did not even remotely fit the profile of "drug dealer" or "grower"
or any other sort of criminal.
As Lord Acton wrote in 1887, 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely.' When there are laws on the books that give tremendous
power to one group of people over another, the power will surely be abused
in at least some cases.
Whether such abuses of power will be helpful enough in preventing terrorist
attacks to be worth the price is another question. I think not, particularly
when I see how laws that existed before the PA's were not and are not used
effectively. Based on the history I've read, I would predict that the
ordinary person will still be in about the same amount of danger of
terrorist attacks as he or she was before the PA's but will now be in danger
of acts by overzealous police as well.
Barbara Lamar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 30 2003 - 19:29:16 MDT