Catherine Tuilerie, Mountain Finch Post
Take your pick of the talking heads on TV. Take your pick of the network. None of the “experts” have read the Patriot Act and none of the experts care anything about it except for a nice sound bite that might sound intelligent, but adds nothing to the Patriot Act discussion. Then there are the rumors. The Patriot Act allows you to: take someone off the street without notifying anyone, allows you to hold someone indefinitely without a call to their attorney, trumps your Miranda Rights, allows the NSA to collect anyone’s phone records, emails, bank accounts, credit purchases, allows the FBI to break into your home and search without a warrant, allows the US Government to transport you to a foreign country where you may be tortured for as long as it takes, and finally allows the US Government to do all this and simply say ‘We’re sorry.’, that is; if they made a mistake and put an innocent person through all of this.
You may read the Patriot Act on this site. Type patriot into the search window and the act we posted will come up. Or you can go to the Department of Justice (DOJ) site and read the same thing because we downloaded the pdf from the DOJ. The first thing you will notice is that you must also access the National Security Act of 1947 and Section 2517 of Title 18, United States Code, because like most Federal Statutes, the Patriot Act amends (redefines), previous acts of the US Congress.
If you wade through all of the definitions and redefinitions of various statutes and read the original language in the Patriot Act you will discover that the rumors are not rumors at all. They are all possible.
Here is a verbatim example from the Patriot Act:
(d) Foreign <<NOTE: 50 USC 403-5d.>> Intelligence Information.–
(1) In general.–Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be lawful for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)) or information obtained as part of a criminal investigation to be disclosed to any Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official in order to assist the official receiving that information in the performance of his official duties. Any Federal official who receives information pursuant to this provision may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person’s official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.
(2) Definition.–In this subsection, the term “foreign intelligence information” means–
(A) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against–
(i) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(ii) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or
(iii) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or
(B) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to–
(i) the national defense or the security of the United States; or
(ii) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.
I interpret this section as authority to spy on Americans; in fact, you must cooperate with me under this section, as long as this is part of my “official duties”.
Members of Congress may sing that old refrain—but, but, but, the Patriot Act was never intended…… (Fill in the blank). It doesn’t matter what our legislators intended or didn’t intend. If I, a lay person, can interpret the one example above as open season on American citizens and residents using “official duties”, do you believe a clever bureaucrat can’t do the same thing? Of course they can and do, e.g., the NSA spying debacle.
With this short introduction let’s discuss the one thing wrong with the Patriot Act—definitions.
We define things all the time. In the Patriot Act section above, for example, both sections are definitions, in other words—limits. Laws also define people.
The Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850 is a famous law that defined people as a slave because any black person might be a runaway slave.
Here’s what Wikipedia says about the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act.
“In response to the weakening of the original fugitive slave act, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made any Federal marshal or other official who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave liable to a fine of $1,000 (about $28,000 in present-day value). Law-enforcement officials everywhere now had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave on no more evidence than a claimant’s sworn testimony of ownership. The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf.[4] In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a bonus or promotion for their work. Slave owners only needed to supply an affidavit to a Federal marshal to capture an escaped slave. Since any suspected slave was not eligible for a trial this led to many free blacks being conscripted into slavery as they had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against accusations.[5]”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850).
The actual Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 from http://www.civil-war.net/pages/fugitive_slave_act.asp. Or click on ‘Legislation’ in the menu above and read excepts for the 1793 Fugitive Slave act and the actual text of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act.
There are amazing similarities between the Patriot Act and the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. Here are a few: special court, special commissioners, go to jail or fines for assisting even indirectly/unwittingly, no court trial for accused slave/suspect terrorist, local assistance required—if denied, then a crime, appearance alone suggests guilt; affidavit of ownership in case of slave, suspicion of bureaucrat in case of domestic terrorist.
Here is the Patriot Act definition of domestic terrorism.
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) Domestic Terrorism Defined.–Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking “by assassination or kidnapping” and inserting “by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping”;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking “and”;
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and
(4) by adding at the end the following: “(5) the term `domestic terrorism’ means activities that–
“(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
“(B) appear to be intended–
“(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
“(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
“(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
“(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”.
(b) Conforming Amendment.–Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
“(1) `act of terrorism’ means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;”.
Here is the definition of terrorism from Title 18 of the US Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/101).
(16) The term “terrorism” means any activity that—
(A) involves an act that—
(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and
(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and
(B) appears to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
Appearance is 100% in line with the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850. A free black could be defined under the Slave Acts as a runaway with a simple affidavit from a slave owner.
Thus the Patriot Act defines a person as a domestic terrorist with the following language:
(5) the term `domestic terrorism’ means activities that–
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended–
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and(my emphasis)
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Special Note: 5A is not connected to 5B and 5C, but 5B and C are connected by the word ‘and’.
A domestic terrorist is someone who:
APPEARS TO INTEND to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, APPEARS TO INTEND to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or APPEARS TO INTEND to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
If you, our reader, appear to intend, you can be defined as a domestic terrorist and fall within the provisions of the Patriot Act, a United Sates law whose intent appears to have been copied from the 1793 and 1850 Fugitive Slave Acts.
By using “acts dangerous to human life” (5A) and “appear to be intended” (5B) in the Patriot Act, our congress has made reckless driving a potential act of terrorism. Those of you who believe in expressing your negative thoughts about the US Government can be classified as a domestic terrorist with a keystroke.
Have we not moved beyond the years 1793 and 1850? When was the last time appearance(actually just suspicion by the government) was evidence of intent or evidence of a potential crime?
We believe that the words Appear, Appears and Appearance should be deleted from the Patriot Act and from Title 18, US Code. This would begin to separate the Patriot Act and Title 18, US Code from the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850.
In a practical sense, this simple change to proof of intention would begin to protect the constitutional rights of Americans, rights that the appearance of intention has taken.
Mountain Finch Post 