America's Unpatriotic Acts

      Less than six weeks after terrorists attacked America on September 11, 2001, etched into the nation’s memory as 9/11, the Department of Justice, under direction of the president of the United States, pushed onto a fearful nation and its Congress the USA PATRIOT Act. It was a 342-page bill, drafted in secret, which had minimal discussion, and which few members of Congress had read prior to its passage. The Act, which would modify almost twenty federal statutes, was designed to give the president and federal law enforcement sweeping powers. Only one of one hundred senators and sixty-six of 435 representatives voted against it.
      A terrified nation, now seeking vengeance, justifiably demanded the Bush administration do something to avenge 9/11 and never to allow such an attack to again occur on American soil. Many appeared to be willing to sacrifice their constitutional freedoms for their safety. Most, however, had little knowledge of the USA PATRIOT Act or how the administration was planning to implement it. They just wanted to feel secure from terror.
      Five weeks after President Bush signed the PATRIOT Act into law, John Ashcroft, testifying before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, stated:

About fifteen months later, again before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, he re-emphasized his earlier statements:

      However, obstruction, a reduction of public information, distrust and resentment of the press, and a curtailment of civil liberties have been central to the philosophy of the Bush administration, which has been adept at spinning truth to its political agenda.
       In Moscow, Idaho, about a hundred FBI and law enforcement agents swooped into town, interviewed all Muslims, arrested a doctoral candidate in computer science, claimed he aided terrorists by serving as a webmaster of an Islamic charity, held him in prison for sixteen months before trial, and wanted imprisonment of at least twenty-five years. Following a two-month trial, the jury said it found no basis for the prosecution.
       In San Pedro, California, the federal government arrested and detained more than three years four Iranian businessmen, each of whom had been American residents between eight and twenty-two years. They were accused of minor visa violations and of attending rallies for a terrorist organization—one that Attorney General John Ashcroft himself had supported.
       In Philadelphia, two air marshals grabbed a physician and retired Army officer, and then detained him for several hours because, as they told him, “We didn’t like the way you looked.”
       Near Greeley, Colorado, the government arrested three antiwar nuns who had slipped past a chain-link fence, symbolically used a ball-peen hammer to tap the lid of a Minuteman silo, and held a peace vigil. Although the Air Force readily acknowledged they did nothing to compromise national security, the Department of Justice wanted to imprison each of them for up to thirty years.
       In Miami, in an attempt to declare Greenpeace a terrorist organization, the Department of Justice used a federal law that had been dormant for more than a century to prosecute the world’s leading environmental protection organization for unfurling a banner aboard a ship that carried illegal cargo. The jury disagreed with the government’s claims.
       In the Bush–Cheney era, dissent is not tolerated; jingoism is encouraged. In Des Moines, Iowa, the FBI ordered Drake University to identify the membership of an organization of law students who had organized a seminar about the war against Iraq, including a session on nonviolent protest. Before the national political conventions in summer 2004, police and FBI agents kept several peaceful antiwar activists under constant surveillance, and then interviewed them for no apparent reason other than to chill their free speech rights.
       In Columbia, South Carolina, a fifty-four-year-old man was arrested for carrying a sign, “No More War for Oil.” In Tampa, Florida, two grandmothers and a gay rights activist were arrested for peacefully holding protest signs. Near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a sixty-five-year-old retired steel worker was arrested when he refused to go to a “free-speech zone.” Under restrictive policies in violation of the First Amendment, anyone with a message not in agreement with the administration’s beliefs had to be isolated, some as much as a half-mile away, during presidential and vice presidential public appearances.
      At every Bush or Cheney appearance, official or political, persons are prescreened, allowed into rallies if they aren’t vocal critics of the administration, and then expected to follow the Republican agenda. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, persons wanting to hear Dick Cheney had to sign loyalty oaths. In Saginaw, Michigan, a woman was thrown out of a Bush rally because she had a rolled-up pro-choice T-shirt. On Independence Day, 2004, at an official presidential appearance, two people were arrested when they refused to turn their T-shirts inside out so an anti-Bush message didn’t appear. In Scranton, Pennsylvania, a woman was ordered to remove a small metal peace button from her lapel. In Hamilton, New Jersey, where Laura Bush was rallying the faithful to support the war in Iraq, a mother whose son was killed in Iraq was escorted out because she wore a T-shirt that declared, “President Bush You Killed My Son,” and had the audacity to ask what the Republicans believed was a hostile question. Outside the auditorium, while talking with a reporter, she was ordered to leave, didn’t do so, and then was handcuffed and arrested on defiant trespass charges. In Medford, Oregon, three peaceful women were thrown out of a campaign rally, and then threatened with arrests. Their offense? They wore T-shirts that said, “Protect Our Civil Liberties.” Their cases are just a few of thousands throughout the country.
       Reporters usually don’t fare any better. In Tucson, Arizona, the Republicans demanded to know the race of some photojournalists before issuing them credentials. In Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, two reporters were thrown out of a Dick Cheney rally; they were never told the reason, nor would the paid staffers identify themselves. At the Republican National Convention, paid staff, police, and Secret Service constantly harassed reporters, especially those who did not have a national audience, and who may have seemed to be the least bit noncompliant with the Bush–Cheney philosophy.
       In Las Vegas, during a two week period before New Year’s Day 2004, almost a hundred FBI agents moved into town and seized personal information about more than 350,000 tourists. None of them knew the government now had them in a database; under the PATRIOT Act, casinos, airlines, and car rental agencies were forbidden from even mentioning they had been contacted.
       Throughout the country, libraries have put up signs warning that the FBI, under authority of the PATRIOT Act, may seize library records to determine reading habits of patrons. The congressional authority extends to bookstores, physicians’ offices, grocery stores, Internet service providers, and virtually any business or organization that has personal data of customers.
       Enforcement of the PATRIOT Act butts against the protections of six amendments to the Constitution: the First (freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances), Fourth (freedom from unreasonable searches), Fifth (right against self-incrimination and due process), Sixth (due process, the right to counsel, a speedy trial, and the right to a fair and public trial by an impartial jury), Eighth (reasonable bail and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment), and Fourteenth (equal protection guarantee for both citizens and non-citizens). How the federal government has implemented the PATRIOT Act also violates Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to petition the courts to issue a writ of habeas corpus to require the government to produce a prisoner or suspect in order to determine the legality of the detention. Only Congress may order a suspension of the right of the writ, and then only in “Cases of Rebellion or Invasion.” Congress did not act to suspended this right; nothing during or subsequent to the 9/11 attack indicated either a rebellion or invasion under terms of the Constitution.
       “It becomes increasingly difficult for the American government to look at its allies, or even enemies overseas, in the eye and defend human rights, when the U.S . government itself is engaging in efforts that erode personal privacy, that further racial profiling, that limit judicial review, that diminish due-process rights,” said Anthony Romero of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU ).
       The New York Times almost two years after the Act first passed, bluntly stated, “Rather than do the hard work of coming up with effective port security and air cargo checks, and other programs targeted to actual threats, the administration has taken aim at civil liberties.” Innumerable political leaders agreed. “The PATRIOT Act crossed the line on several key areas of civil liberties,” Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of the Senate’s Com-mittee on the Judiciary, stated later that year. Al Gore, speaking to an audience in Washington, D.C., forcefully told the nation:

      Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), one of the strongest civil liberties proponents in the House of Representatives , and one of the few who had voted against the PATRIOT Act , summed up the feeling of those opposed: “This administration has over-reached in the area of civil liberties. Government shouldn’t have that power. It’s not consistent with what we are as a nation.”
       Among dozens of national organizations that uncover abuses and fight for the preservation of American constitutional and civil rights are the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American Civil Liberties Union, American Library Association , Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center , Free Congress Foundation, Free Expression Policy Project, National Coalition to Repeal the Patriot Act , Open the Government , and People for the American Way, all of which have challenged how the PATRIOT Act is being enforced.
       Vanity Fair , the Sacramento (Calif.) Bee, Las Vegas Review-Journal , American Reporter, Bushwatch , Counterbias, Counterpunch , Democratic Underground, Dissident Voice, Liberal Opinion Week , Liberal Slant, Smirking Chimp , The Dubya Chronicles, The Dubya Report , and several other newspapers, magazines, and alternative publications have been at the forefront of coverage of the effects of the PATRIOT Act . But most media, like most of society, were late in recognizing and reporting the critical issues. Even worse, many were far too deferential to the Bush administration following 9/11, perhaps believing that it would be unpatriotic to oppose the tools the president said he needed to fight the war on terrorism. Many didn’t even publish much about the issues, pro or con, perhaps incorrectly believing they were being “journalistically objective.”
       Almost three years after its passage, two-thirds of Americans believed the USA PATRIOT Act either didn’t go far enough (21 percent) or was “about right” (46 percent) in protecting Americans’ civil liberties and freedom. The groups that are “least likely to say the Act goes too far,” according to the Gallup Poll, which conducted the survey on behalf of CNN and USA Today , are “women . . . Republicans, conservatives, people from rural areas, and those with no college education.”
       That same CNN /USA Today /Gallup poll also revealed that most Americans aren’t familiar with the PATRIOT Act , with 41 percent saying they either are “not too” or “not at all” familiar with the provisions of the Act, while 46 percent claim to be “somewhat” familiar with it.
       It is for this reason, combined with the general lack of knowledge about the reach of the Act, why America’s Unpatriotic Acts was written.
       This book isn’t meant to be a comprehensive analysis of all 150 sections of the USA PATRIOT Act , nor is it meant to be a legal analysis of the Act and the six constitutional amendments it violates. Because of methods of enforcement of the PATRIOT Act and opposition to it, this book can never be current. But, this book is meant to be an overview of a number of areas, both of the Act itself and of related actions that help explain a part of the Bush administration ’s political philosophy and how the administration has dealt with civil rights, including fair and humane treatment of American citizens, immigrants, and prisoners. More importantly, it looks at the rights of privacy, free speech , and due process, as well as related rights, including access to public records for American citizens. Perhaps this book might answer PATRIOT Act supporters who believe, “if you’re innocent, you have nothing to fear.”
       Although the PATRIOT Act forms the base for this book, violations of constitutional and civil liberties aren’t confined to one political administration, or to one piece of legislation; all governments and all leaders—some more so than others—develop policies that threaten Americans’ rights. When the people allow intrusions upon the Bill of Rights, they effectively destroy the foundation that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and the other Revolutionaries fought so hard to build.
       The “war on terrorism,” like Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty” and Ronald Reagan’s “war on drugs,” may never end. But Americans must ask themselves if the way America has chosen to fight this war is worth the cost to their Constitutional rights and if the greatest subversion to our country may not be foreign terrorists but our own fears.



America’s Unpatriotic Acts The Federal Government’s Violation of Constitutional and Civil Rights by Walter M. Brasch
Preface Less than six weeks after terrorists attacked America on September 11, 2001, etched into the nation’s memory as 9/11, the Department of Justice, under direction of the president of the United States, pushed onto a fearful nation and its Congress the USA PATRIOT Act. It was a 342-page bill, drafted in secret, which had minimal discussion, and which few members of Congress had read prior to its passage. The Act, which would modify almost twenty federal statutes, was designed to give the president and federal law enforcement sweeping powers. Only one of one hundred senators and sixty-six of 435 representatives voted against it. A terrified nation, now seeking vengeance, justifiably demanded the Bush administration do something to avenge 9/11 and never to allow such an attack to again occur on American soil. Many appeared to be willing to sacrifice their constitutional freedoms for their safety. Most, however, had little knowledge of the USA PATRIOT Act or how the administration was planning to implement it. They just wanted to feel secure from terror. Five weeks after President Bush signed the PATRIOT Act into law, John Ashcroft, testifying before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, stated: “Since lives and liberties depend upon clarity, not obfuscation, and reason, not hyperbole, let me take this opportunity today to be clear: The Justice Department is working to protect American lives while preserving American liberties.” About fifteen months later, again before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, he re-emphasized his earlier statements: I want to assure the Committee that . . . we have carefully crafted our post-September 11 policies to foster prevention while protecting the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. As I have often said, we at the Department [of Justice] must think outside the box, but inside the Constitution. I take seriously the concerns of civil libertarians, for I, too, believe that protecting America does not require the sacrifice of those very freedoms that make us Americans. Speaking to students and faculty of China ’s Tsinghua University on February 21, 2002 , President George W. Bush stated: I am concerned that the Chinese people do not always see a clear picture of my country. . . . [S]ome Chinese textbooks talk of Americans bullying the weak and repressing the poor. Another Chinese textbook published just last year teaches that special agents of the FBI are used to repress the working people. Now, neither of these is true . . . [T]hey are misleading and they are harmful. Those who fear freedom sometimes argue it could lead to chaos. But it does not. Liberty gives our citizens many rights. However, obstruction, a reduction of public information, distrust and resentment of the press, and a curtailment of civil liberties have been central to the philosophy of the Bush administration, which has been adept at spinning truth to its political agenda. In Moscow, Idaho, about a hundred FBI and law enforcement agents swooped into town, interviewed all Muslims, arrested a doctoral candidate in computer science, claimed he aided terrorists by serving as a webmaster of an Islamic charity, held him in prison for sixteen months before trial, and wanted imprisonment of at least twenty-five years. Following a two-month trial, the jury said it found no basis for the prosecution. In San Pedro, California, the federal government arrested and detained more than three years four Iranian businessmen, each of whom had been American residents between eight and twenty-two years. They were accused of minor visa violations and of attending rallies for a terrorist organization—one that Attorney General John Ashcroft himself had supported. In Philadelphia, two air marshals grabbed a physician and retired Army officer, and then detained him for several hours because, as they told him, “We didn’t like the way you looked.” Near Greeley, Colorado, the government arrested three antiwar nuns who had slipped past a chain-link fence, symbolically used a ball-peen hammer to tap the lid of a Minuteman silo, and held a peace vigil. Although the Air Force readily acknowledged they did nothing to compromise national security, the Department of Justice wanted to imprison each of them for up to thirty years. In Miami, in an attempt to declare Greenpeace a terrorist organization, the Department of Justice used a federal law that had been dormant for more than a century to prosecute the world’s leading environmental protection organization for unfurling a banner aboard a ship that carried illegal cargo. The jury disagreed with the government’s claims. In the Bush–Cheney era, dissent is not tolerated; jingoism is encouraged. In Des Moines, Iowa, the FBI ordered Drake University to identify the membership of an organization of law students who had organized a seminar about the war against Iraq, including a session on nonviolent protest. Before the national political conventions in summer 2004, police and FBI agents kept several peaceful antiwar activists under constant surveillance, and then interviewed them for no apparent reason other than to chill their free speech rights. In Columbia, South Carolina, a fifty-four-year-old man was arrested for carrying a sign, “No More War for Oil.” In Tampa, Florida, two grandmothers and a gay rights activist were arrested for peacefully holding protest signs. Near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a sixty-five-year-old retired steel worker was arrested when he refused to go to a “free-speech zone.” Under restrictive policies in violation of the First Amendment, anyone with a message not in agreement with the administration’s beliefs had to be isolated, some as much as a half-mile away, during presidential and vice presidential public appearances. At every Bush or Cheney appearance, official or political, persons are prescreened, allowed into rallies if they aren’t vocal critics of the administration, and then expected to follow the Republican agenda. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, persons wanting to hear Dick Cheney had to sign loyalty oaths. In Saginaw, Michigan, a woman was thrown out of a Bush rally because she had a rolled-up pro-choice T-shirt. On Independence Day, 2004, at an official presidential appearance, two people were arrested when they refused to turn their T-shirts inside out so an anti-Bush message didn’t appear. In Scranton, Pennsylvania, a woman was ordered to remove a small metal peace button from her lapel. In Hamilton, New Jersey, where Laura Bush was rallying the faithful to support the war in Iraq, a mother whose son was killed in Iraq was escorted out because she wore a T-shirt that declared, “President Bush You Killed My Son,” and had the audacity to ask what the Republicans believed was a hostile question. Outside the auditorium, while talking with a reporter, she was ordered to leave, didn’t do so, and then was handcuffed and arrested on defiant trespass charges. In Medford, Oregon, three peaceful women were thrown out of a campaign rally, and then threatened with arrests. Their offense? They wore T-shirts that said, “Protect Our Civil Liberties.” Their cases are just a few of thousands throughout the country. Reporters usually don’t fare any better. In Tucson, Arizona, the Republicans demanded to know the race of some photojournalists before issuing them credentials. In Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, two reporters were thrown out of a Dick Cheney rally; they were never told the reason, nor would the paid staffers identify themselves. At the Republican National Convention, paid staff, police, and Secret Service constantly harassed reporters, especially those who did not have a national audience, and who may have seemed to be the least bit noncompliant with the Bush–Cheney philosophy. In Las Vegas, during a two week period before New Year’s Day 2004, almost a hundred FBI agents moved into town and seized personal information about more than 350,000 tourists. None of them knew the government now had them in a database; under the PATRIOT Act, casinos, airlines, and car rental agencies were forbidden from even mentioning they had been contacted. Throughout the country, libraries have put up signs warning that the FBI, under authority of the PATRIOT Act, may seize library records to determine reading habits of patrons. The congressional authority extends to bookstores, physicians’ offices, grocery stores, Internet service providers, and virtually any business or organization that has personal data of customers. Enforcement of the PATRIOT Act butts against the protections of six amendments to the Constitution: the First (freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances), Fourth (freedom from unreasonable searches), Fifth (right against self-incrimination and due process), Sixth (due process, the right to counsel, a speedy trial, and the right to a fair and public trial by an impartial jury), Eighth (reasonable bail and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment), and Fourteenth (equal protection guarantee for both citizens and non-citizens). How the federal government has implemented the PATRIOT Act also violates Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to petition the courts to issue a writ of habeas corpus to require the government to produce a prisoner or suspect in order to determine the legality of the detention. Only Congress may order a suspension of the right of the writ, and then only in “Cases of Rebellion or Invasion.” Congress did not act to suspended this right; nothing during or subsequent to the 9/11 attack indicated either a rebellion or invasion under terms of the Constitution. “It becomes increasingly difficult for the American government to look at its allies, or even enemies overseas, in the eye and defend human rights, when the U.S . government itself is engaging in efforts that erode personal privacy, that further racial profiling, that limit judicial review, that diminish due-process rights,” said Anthony Romero of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU ). The New York Times almost two years after the Act first passed, bluntly stated, “Rather than do the hard work of coming up with effective port security and air cargo checks, and other programs targeted to actual threats, the administration has taken aim at civil liberties.” Innumerable political leaders agreed. “The PATRIOT Act crossed the line on several key areas of civil liberties,” Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of the Senate’s Com-mittee on the Judiciary, stated later that year. Al Gore, speaking to an audience in Washington, D.C., forcefully told the nation: The constant violations of civil liberties promote the false impression that these violations are necessary in order to take every precaution against another terrorist attack. But the simple truth is that the vast majority of the violations have not benefited our security at all; to the contrary, they hurt our security. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), one of the strongest civil liberties proponents in the House of Representatives , and one of the few who had voted against the PATRIOT Act , summed up the feeling of those opposed: “This administration has over-reached in the area of civil liberties. Government shouldn’t have that power. It’s not consistent with what we are as a nation.” Among dozens of national organizations that uncover abuses and fight for the preservation of American constitutional and civil rights are the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American Civil Liberties Union, American Library Association , Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center , Free Congress Foundation, Free Expression Policy Project, National Coalition to Repeal the Patriot Act , Open the Government , and People for the American Way, all of which have challenged how the PATRIOT Act is being enforced. Vanity Fair , the Sacramento (Calif.) Bee, Las Vegas Review-Journal , American Reporter, Bushwatch , Counterbias, Counterpunch , Democratic Underground, Dissident Voice, Liberal Opinion Week , Liberal Slant, Smirking Chimp , The Dubya Chronicles, The Dubya Report , and several other newspapers, magazines, and alternative publications have been at the forefront of coverage of the effects of the PATRIOT Act . But most media, like most of society, were late in recognizing and reporting the critical issues. Even worse, many were far too deferential to the Bush administration following 9/11, perhaps believing that it would be unpatriotic to oppose the tools the president said he needed to fight the war on terrorism. Many didn’t even publish much about the issues, pro or con, perhaps incorrectly believing they were being “journalistically objective.” Almost three years after its passage, two-thirds of Americans believed the USA PATRIOT Act either didn’t go far enough (21 percent) or was “about right” (46 percent) in protecting Americans’ civil liberties and freedom. The groups that are “least likely to say the Act goes too far,” according to the Gallup Poll, which conducted the survey on behalf of CNN and USA Today , are “women . . . Republicans, conservatives, people from rural areas, and those with no college education.” That same CNN /USA Today /Gallup poll also revealed that most Americans aren’t familiar with the PATRIOT Act , with 41 percent saying they either are “not too” or “not at all” familiar with the provisions of the Act, while 46 percent claim to be “somewhat” familiar with it. It is for this reason, combined with the general lack of knowledge about the reach of the Act, why America’s Unpatriotic Acts was written. This book isn’t meant to be a comprehensive analysis of all 150 sections of the USA PATRIOT Act , nor is it meant to be a legal analysis of the Act and the six constitutional amendments it violates. Because of methods of enforcement of the PATRIOT Act and opposition to it, this book can never be current. But, this book is meant to be an overview of a number of areas, both of the Act itself and of related actions that help explain a part of the Bush administration ’s political philosophy and how the administration has dealt with civil rights, including fair and humane treatment of American citizens, immigrants, and prisoners. More importantly, it looks at the rights of privacy, free speech , and due process, as well as related rights, including access to public records for American citizens. Perhaps this book might answer PATRIOT Act supporters who believe, “if you’re innocent, you have nothing to fear.” Although the PATRIOT Act forms the base for this book, violations of constitutional and civil liberties aren’t confined to one political administration, or to one piece of legislation; all governments and all leaders—some more so than others—develop policies that threaten Americans’ rights. When the people allow intrusions upon the Bill of Rights, they effectively destroy the foundation that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and the other Revolutionaries fought so hard to build. The “war on terrorism,” like Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty” and Ronald Reagan’s “war on drugs,” may never end. But Americans must ask themselves if the way America has chosen to fight this war is worth the cost to their Constitutional rights and if the greatest subversion to our country may not be foreign terrorists but our own fears.

TO ORDER THIS BOOK Click on the below link to purchase the book.