Home   Films   Music   Writing   Art   Photos   Comics   Faves   Bio        

Did you know Congress passed the monstrous "USA PATRIOT ACT" -- without even reading it? -- JWH.

Congress Voted for Draconian New Anti-Terrorist Bill -- Without Reading It

by James W. Harris

The new "USA PATRIOT Act" anti-terrorism law is a major threat to American liberty, violates basic constitutional freedoms, and will do little or nothing to protect Americans from terrorist attacks.

Furthermore, this sweeping new bill was voted for and passed even though members of Congress were not able to read the very bill they were voting on.

So charges libertarian Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) and other critics of the bill in an astonishing article in the conservative magazine Insight.

The article is entitled, bluntly, "Police State."

Rep. Paul was one of only three Republican lawmakers to defy the House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against the bill

"I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it ..." Paul tells Insight.

Congressman Paul also confirms rumors that the text of the sweeping new law was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote.

"It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote -- at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote," Paul says.

Even more damning, Congressman Paul speculates that the unavailability of the bill was deliberate. "This is a very bad bill," Paul tells Insight, "and I think the people who voted for it knew it and that's why they said, 'Well, we know it's bad, but we need it under these conditions.'"

Insight magazine notes that before the vote, "efforts to obtain copies of the new law were stonewalled even by the committee that wrote it."

Congressman Paul charges the bill severely threatens fundamental Fourth Amendment rights.

"Generally," says Paul, "the worst part of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants...This law clearly authorizes illegal search and seizure, and anyone who thinks of this as antiterrorism needs to consider its application to every American citizen."

Insight magazine notes that conservatives, liberals and libertarians concerned about civil liberties are joining together to battle the worst parts of the new law. What are some of their major concerns? Insight says that, among other things, the new law:

* minimizes judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance by law-enforcement authorities;

* expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches;

* gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any noncitizen who belongs to them;

* grants the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime;

* leads to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes.

Congressman C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho), another GOP House member who considers the legislation unconstitutional, says parts of the bill violate "...the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourth Amendment protection of private property." Otter further tells Insight that "some of these provisions place more power in the hands of law enforcement than our Founding Fathers could have dreamt and severely compromises the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans."

Congressman Paul agrees. "This legislation wouldn't have made any difference in stopping the Sept. 11 attacks," he says. "Therefore, giving up our freedoms to get more security when they can't prove it will do so makes no sense. I seriously believe this is a violation of our liberties. After all, a lot of this stuff in the bill has to do with finances, search warrants and arrests."

The Insight article goes on to examine further dangers and flaws of the bill.

At the end, Insight asks Congressman Paul what he believes the Founding Fathers would think of this law.

"Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution," Paul says. "This is why they revolted in the first place...They revolted against much more mild oppression."

(Source: "Police State" by Kelly Patricia O'Meara in Insight magazine

http://insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=143236 )

Published in THE LIBERATOR ONLINE, November 13, 2001 / Vol. 6, No. 18

 

 

 


Homecontact James W. Harris