Unfathomed Dangers in PATRIOT act Re-Authorization

Navigation

User login

Online users

GooseKaler
Logarithm
Rick
agathafrye

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

GooseKaler
LongRider
non illegitimi ...
acreatureapart
eristalis

Unfathomed Dangers in PATRIOT act Re-Authorization

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 01/23/2006 - 10:36pm.

By Paul Craig Roberts

A provision in the "PATRIOT Act" creates a new federal police force with the power to violate the Bill of Rights. You might think that this cannot be true, as you have not read about it in newspapers or heard it discussed by talking heads on TV.
Go to House Report 109-333 USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and check it out for yourself. Sec. 605 reads:
"There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.'"
This new federal police force is "subject to the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security."
The new police are empowered to "make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

Robert Whitlock's blog
Login or register to post comments

If a crime was committed "in

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 01/23/2006 - 10:40pm.

If a crime was committed "in their presence," why would they need a warrant?

They would need a warrant to

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 01/23/2006 - 10:42pm.

They would need a warrant to be there in the first place I think.

The problem is that the wordi

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 01/23/2006 - 10:42pm.

The problem is that the wording is loose in terms of how they can interpret what constitutes a crime.

I can see how "any crime agai

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 01/23/2006 - 10:44pm.

I can see how "any crime against the United States" could be interpreted in a vague manner.

Other than that, though, I don't see how this is any different than the FBI other than they appear to be more proactive (similar to a local police department) rather than focusing on investigations.

Which is to say, I don't see why it's necessary. The Department of Homeland Security is probably the worst idea ever, after the Pet Rock.

Pet Rock. That reminds me

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 01/23/2006 - 10:48pm.

Pet Rock.

That reminds me of a hilarious movie I saw recently. "I Love (heart - it doesn't actually say love in the title on the jacket - just a heart icon) Huckabees"

recommended. - very funny. There is a rock, which figures prominently in the film.

I tried to watch it once but

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 01/23/2006 - 10:49pm.

I tried to watch it once but got pretty disinterested in it (I have Netflix). I'll order it again, though, and try to sit through it.

Usually I'm a fan of movies which are off-beat, like Wes Anderson flicks.

I heart huckabees

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 01/23/2006 - 10:52pm.

I heart huckabees

TFI- I really hope you're pl

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 01/24/2006 - 10:06am.

TFI-

I really hope you're playing devil's advocate on this. It seems to go against most of the ideas you've expressed in the past about government limitations.

Why does the executive branch need their own police?

I absolutely detest it when people compare "whoever" to Hitler or "whatever" to Nazi Germany. But, for the life of me, I can't find a better comparison. This is big brother/big government to the T.

It has already been established in a lot of peoples minds (about half) that if you are a dissenter, either against the President or against the war, that you are unpatriotic and aiding the enemy. It seems that the mission of this new federal police force (thus far) is so vague that it could turn into a way to silence dissent.

Again, I cringe to make the comparison, the German people voted for Hitler and accepted his policies. They compromised their liberty for a greater sense of safety and security. This has happened to some degree here as well. People might say, "Oh, they haven't really taken many of our freedoms. It's OK." What people don't realize is that it's not about this little right or that little right, it's about the precedent set when we allow it to happen. We give an inch and they will take a foot.

I hope no one reading this will be the one saying in the end: "Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

Rob:It doesn't appear this is

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 01/24/2006 - 2:12pm.

Rob:

It doesn't appear this is a step toward a Secret Police. It would appear, at least from the original post describing the function of this agency, that this would essentially be a local police agency on a national level (if that makes any sense). I don't have a huge problem with the theory of having a federal police agency because, since the Civil War, this country is based not on a collection of independent states loosely connected but rather on a central government controlling smaller branches (states). So enforcing federal laws (most of which I don't agree with) is a necessary function of government today.

With all of that said, I think creating another federal law enforcement agency is ridiculous. We have the ATF, FBI, airport screeners, et cetera, et cetera. And now we're going to create another? It would almost seem like this agency is being created to justify having a Department of Homeland Security.

I view this more as a waste of money than I do as a threat to my own safety. Of course, creating another branch of law enforcement will mean the people working for such an agency will need to justify their paycheck, thus leading to more citizens being arrested for various offenses.

My earlier question was aimed to at least calm the fear that we might start disappearing in the middle of the night. I'm certainly not naive enough to believe Germany circa 1930s couldn't happen, I just don't think we're anywhere near that point.

In short, there's a variety of reasons why I disagree with this agency, from why the Executive would need their own police agency to the fact that there's already a barrage of federal law enforcement agencies at its disposal.

The amount and style of propa

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 01/24/2006 - 4:39pm.

The amount and style of propaganda used today, I think, does rival that of 30's Germany. I think our system will prevail, I think people will snap out of it before it gets too out of control. Call me a dreamer.

I think any time you sacrifice liberties you are sacrificing security. We have been convinced, over the years, that we are more secure because we sacrifice liberties. This is simply not true in my opinion. There is no trade off there. We are personally less secure even if as a nation we are more secure. It's not about what's happening now, it's about how these powers could be used should they become accepted as the norm.

now we can sleep well. terror

Submitted by will_is_ok on Tue, 01/24/2006 - 4:26pm.

now we can sleep well. terror will be no more

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: