You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front
Anti-terror laws increasingly used against common criminals
2003-09-15
Tip to Drudge on this one
Boo Friggin Hoo to the criminals
In the two years since law enforcement agencies gained fresh powers to help them track down and punish terrorists, police and prosecutors have increasingly turned the force of the new laws not on al-Qaida cells but on people charged with common crimes.
Let’s not mention the cells that were caught in Buffalo, Spokane, Detroit, etc. They don’t count
The Justice Department said it has used authority given to it by the USA Patriot Act to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers.
Hmmm? Using a law to put CRIMINALS away! How novel!
Federal prosecutors used the act in June to file a charge of "terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction" against a California man after a pipe bomb exploded in his lap, wounding him as he sat in his car.
No, no they should let him go so he an cook some more crack!
Can't see a bomb as a "weapon of mass destruction," though. Weapon, yes. Why go overboard?
A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.
He won’t be missed, trust me.
Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn’t abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.
My teeth are sore from gritting them...
Civil liberties and legal defense groups are bothered by the string of cases, and say the government soon will be routinely using harsh anti-terrorism laws against run-of-the-mill lawbreakers. "Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."
This is just too funny. Everyone go their ACLU card?
Presumably that's ordinary citizens who're doing the same things terrorists do. But he's right, in that we have other laws that cover them. This is in the same category as the abuses of the RICO act...
Prosecutors aren’t apologizing.
So there!
Attorney General John Ashcroft completed a 16-city tour this week defending the Patriot Act as key to preventing a second catastrophic terrorist attack. Federal prosecutors have brought more than 250 criminal charges under the law, with more than 130 convictions or guilty pleas. The law, passed two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, erased many restrictions that had barred the government from spying on its citizens, granting agents new powers to use wiretaps, conduct electronic and computer eavesdropping and access private financial data. Stefan Cassella, deputy chief for legal policy for the Justice Department’s asset forfeiture and money laundering section, said that while the Patriot Act’s primary focus was on terrorism, lawmakers were aware it contained provisions that had been on prosecutors’ wish lists for years and would be used in a wide variety of cases.
Sounds like it's being used to prop up lazy prosecutors — or that opponents are cherry picking abuses to bolster their own position...
In one case prosecuted this year, investigators used a provision of the Patriot Act to recover $4.5 million from a group of telemarketers accused of tricking elderly U.S. citizens into thinking they had won the Canadian lottery. Prosecutors said the defendants told victims they would receive their prize as soon as they paid thousands of dollars in income tax on their winnings.
Another good application of a law to PROTECT citizens!
But bunco laws have been on the books for at least 100 years...
Before the anti-terrorism act, U.S. officials would have had to use international treaties and appeal for help from foreign governments to retrieve the cash, deposited in banks in Jordan and Israel. Now, they simply seized it from assets held by those banks in the United States.
Sounds easier to me!
"These are appropriate uses of the statute," Cassella said. "If we can use the statute to get money back for victims, we are going to do it."
It sounds like having it, they didn't bother looking for any other methods...
The complaint that anti-terrorism legislation is being used to go after people who aren’t terrorists is just the latest in a string of criticisms. More than 150 local governments have passed resolutions opposing the law as an overly broad threat to constitutional rights.
Ask the oldsters that got their money back if they like the law.
Critics also say the government has gone too far in charging three U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, a power presidents wield during wartime that is not part of the Patriot Act. The government can detain such individuals indefinitely without allowing them access to a lawyer.
Terrorists can kill you, and you'll be dead for an indefinite period without access to a lawyer. Tough bananas...
And Muslim and civil liberties groups have criticized the government’s decision to force thousands of mostly Middle Eastern men to risk deportation by registering with immigration authorities.
Excuse me Achmed, you are SUPPOSED to register to remain in the country. That was true BEFORE 9/11, they just are making a big deal about it now.
"The record is clear," said Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way Foundation. "Ashcroft and the Justice Department have gone too far."
I have to hate this org. just based on the title.
Neas was saying that before Ashcroft was appointed...
Some of the restrictions on government surveillance that were erased by the Patriot Act had been enacted after past abuses — including efforts by the FBI to spy on civil rights leaders and anti-war demonstrators during the Cold War. Tim Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said it isn’t far fetched to believe that the government might overstep its bounds again.
I'm sure they will. It's one of those pendulum things. At this moment, though, I think that the tough approach is more appropriate than the wienie approach. It's my opinion, at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, that we don't have the wartime mentality. We're in a war we can't afford to lose. This isn't Vietnam, where the poor Viets took it in the shortz when we left. This is an aggresive crusade launched against us by people who hate us, hate our way of life, hate everything we stand for. Non-jihadi Americans in the Islamist world aren't treated with consideration. Just ask Daniel Pearl or Martin Burnham.
"I don’t think that those are frivolous fears," Lynch said. "We’ve already heard stories of local police chiefs creating files on people who have protested the (Iraq) war ... The government is constantly trying to expand its jurisdictions, and it needs to be watched very, very closely."
"We’ve already heard stories" Without getting into names and charges? I got a ’story’ for you: I haven't read any stories about attacks in the U.S.? I like my story!
Posted by:Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)

#15  Well, good points both...but I really didn't want to go there. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of the politically selective piety...oops..I mean pity.

There are lots of things we can cry over.... but if one wants to feel superior to me by proclaiming to care more than me about human suffering caused by war or gun possession...then it is only fair that I be allowed to point out my own far greater superiority (heh, heh) for being more concerned with the far greater level of human suffering, created by drug abuse (legal or no), auto accidents, AIDS or unattended children drowing in buckets.

I know it's a double edged sword...but I think it's safe to say that heroin, meth, crack and ...yes..alcohol are WMDs. Not trying to execute anyone or make public policy...just making an observation that it's not inaccurate to acknowledge drugs as a WMD. If you take the political consequences out of the picture (if only it were possible) then I'm just making a statement of fact.
Posted by: Becky   2003-9-16 2:21:12 AM  

#14  Finer points. Like the rules of engagement at Waco? Ruby Ridge?

Drugs as WMD? Are you including alcohol? The biggest killer of all the drugs.

Becky, I see your intentions and they are noble. But as was pointed out, unscrupulous leaders will twist the fruits of your good intentions against whatever group is not THEM. And eventually that will include YOUR group. Our constitution was framed primarily to protect us from our government. Limiting the Hillaries (and the Ashcrofts) is precicely the reason why.

You want to execute drug dealers? Fine. Pass a law. Enforce THAT law. But do not let the government assume powers that it was not specifically given. Sooner or later, we're gonna get a Hillary.
Posted by: Scott   2003-9-15 6:35:55 PM  

#13  Sorry Becky, but that argument doesn't fly. FAR MORE people are addicted in this country to a LEGAL intoxicant (alcohol) than are to the illegal variety. Further, far more of the driving deaths and "episodes of violence" are attributable to the consumption of alcohol than are to illegal drugs.

I'm all for law and order, but for the law to be taken seriously, it has to have a logical foundation. One cannot simultaneously POUND on the societal costs of "illegal drugs" while simultaneously smoking a Marlboro and sipping a cold Coors--the logical inconsistancy in such a position won't allow it to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Flaming Sword   2003-9-15 6:29:46 PM  

#12  All finer points aside, there is one interesting point being brought out here. And that is that drugs like heroin, crack, etc. really are weapons of mass destruction. Maybe it's time we point out to our bleeding hearted democratic friends that if they really care about saving lives and preventing suffering, perhaps their time would be better spent educating the populace about the dangers of glorifying drug use...rather than, oh, say, the dangers of having a gun in the house. And perhaps they can spare of few of the tears that they use to sobb themselves to sleep at night over regretful civilian casualties of wars being fought to rid the world of mass murdering despots ..to shed a few tears of compassion to the millions "civilian casualties" who are the result of their MTV-esqe glorification of drugs.

But...since all is political in their selective pity, I'm sure we can expect them just to continue to look away from the fact that drugs kill far, far, more people annually than do bombs.
Posted by: Becky   2003-9-15 6:01:52 PM  

#11  Sounds like when they used the RICO statutes against abortion protestors, doesn't it? Gotta agree with S-master. Jefferson would be crying, 'foul'!

If you need a law, make a law. Then only use it for the reasons for which it was written.
Posted by: Scott   2003-9-15 4:29:15 PM  

#10  Secret Master, I see your point but even if that come to pass I will have to put my faith in the law. Also IF Billary does get into the White House she will be under a BIG microscope, just like President Bush. If there were any funny business vis-a-vis the ACT, the fat-ankle shrew Hillary would be the FIRST one to start clucking (rightfully so). So far we have ACUSATION of wrong and very little proof. I stand firm and like Tom, I want to see a list of 'political' prisoners.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)   2003-9-15 3:30:19 PM  

#9  Oddly, few of the actual examples in the article have anything to do with the Patriot Act. The meth dealer was charged under a state law, for example. Lots of prosecutions are being laid at the foot of the Act that have nothing to do with it.

NRO answered some questions here
Patriot Act site here
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2003-9-15 3:21:10 PM  

#8  Cyber Sarge, Swiggles, Tom:

Those of you who have seen my posts know that I am amongst the most conservative, Democrat hating, gun loving, LEO supporting Rantburghers around - but I don't like the patriot act. Why? Precedent, my friends, precedent. Can you imagine the Patriot Act in the hands of Janet Reno? Howabout President Hillary Clinton? I really don't want this golf club left in their bag; no thank you.
Posted by: Secret Master   2003-9-15 3:13:47 PM  

#7  Dcreeper, if it were a story about innocents being prosecuted for their politics, then I could see your point. But it's about bookies, con artists, drug dealers, and defrauders of the elderly! Get me a list of political prisoners if you want my attention, and preferably not the list that includes convicted cop-killers.
Posted by: Tom   2003-9-15 2:56:24 PM  

#6  Cyber Sarge,

You make a good point. I hear all these people whining about the Constitution being trampled and loosing all of their civil rights, yet I have yet to hear one of these people mention a specific case of having a civil liberty violated.

So Dcreeper, what right have you lost today? I for one have continued to live my life as normal. I critize the government where appropriate. I send lewd emails to friends. Drink my beer, watch football, go to work on Monday. I can even go to church if I want (which I don't). I don't have a gun, but I could get one if I so desired. What rights have I lost?
Posted by: Swiggles   2003-9-15 2:25:12 PM  

#5  Dcreeper, good points. And no I do not have proof that these are the only cases. I also do not have proof of any other cases and I DO NOT/WILL not feel sorry for someone who makes crack for a living. Also I APPLAUD the resourcefulness of the prosecuter that used the ACT to get the money of the swindlers. Sorry but I have some faith in my law enforcement. I have not observed a 'loss' of my civil liberties, have you? With the exception of having to wait longer to board a plane, my life continues as normal. Is that because I am not cooking meth or running a con on old people? You can play chiken little if you want, but the sky is not falling on me.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)   2003-9-15 2:00:39 PM  

#4  eh, we are talking about 2 example cases, no where in the article did it state that they are the only occurrence of it's usage.

I think ye should in account that, generally, in most cases, more happens than is reported.

Or do you really expect me to believe the additional surveillance options are not being used on non-terror suspects?


documented ?
(this bit from EFF)
FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order......
The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation.
(/EFF)
what documentation? they can just simply do it. no paper work

the Patriot Act loosely defines far too many things.

As for the Meth maker and the poor bastard with a pipe bomb.. Terrorism? my ass. If they committed a crime fine, charge them accordingly, but terrorism ? how far will this sort of thing go if it is not opposed or vilified?

what is your logic behind the belief that is ONLY these two isolated events?

Do you have no love of the American free spirit? Does the loss of your liberties bother you at all ?
Posted by: Dcreeper   2003-9-15 1:32:02 PM  

#3  Dcreeper, We are talking about ISOLATED cases where a prosecutor has applied this law (rightly or wrongly) to a particular case. Contrary to the Arab-American whiners group and then ACLU, there are NO documented abuses under the Patriot Act. As for the Meth cooker and the swindlers they get what they deserved. I hate it when the guilty cry foul when they are caught. WHAAAA WHAAAA!
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)   2003-9-15 1:01:44 PM  

#2  Cyber Sarge,

it's "power to the people" not "power to the gov"

I find your support for an Act which goes against our core values as a people, well disturbing.

The article was centered primarily on the concept of the Patriot Act being used in a manor in which we were told it would NOT be used.

The Patriot Act is supposed to be a temporary measure to combat terrorism and safeguard the american people, but now it is also being used for other purposes. This is NOT a good thing!

Why? Because law enforcement officials want to get the job done and get criminals off the street (yeah I know, duh), this act makes it easier on them to do so, which makes them happy. They are going to get used to having it around, I predict they will fight to make the Patriot Act permanent, which would of course permanently shrink the civil liberty of the american people.



I don’t know about anyone else here, but I'm not big on being lied to, I'm also not so big on having my civil liberties threatened
Posted by: Dcreeper   2003-9-15 12:47:46 PM  

#1  How many bookies, con artists, etc. hide their money overseas? .0005%?
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-9-15 12:00:13 PM  

00:00