PDA

View Full Version : Domestic Security Enhancement Act Of 2003


SkinWalker
02-25-2003, 06:46 PM
Some of you may remember the "piece of legislation" that I described in another thread. That was the legislation I thought might be a follow-up to the Patriot Act that will be submitted to congress by the Bush administration during the upcoming Gulf War 2, playing soon at a Theater of Operations near you.

Well, while attempting to navigate the icey streets of Dallas last night on my way home from work, I listened to the Tavis Smiley Show on NPR (http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.jhtml?prgId=14&prgDate=February/24/2003). Look almost half way down the page to the "Ashcroft Alert."

Then go here (http://www.dailyrotten.com/source-docs/patriot2draft.html) to read the proposal for yourself.

Here are some excerpts:

1. The following will make it possible for "secret arrests."

the government need not disclose information about individuals detained in investigations of terrorism

2. Note how this section indicates "suspected terrorists." It talks about keeping a DNA database.

would allow the Attorney General or Secretary of Defense to collect, analyze, and maintain DNA samples and other identification information from "suspected terrorists" [including:] (1) persons conspiring or attempting to do so; (2) enemy combatants or other battlefield detainees (3) persons suspected of being members of a terrorist organization; and (4) certain classes of aliens... [it] would allow the Attorney General to establish databases of DNA records

3. I personally use PGP. Not often, but the following talks about encryption. Encryption has been the thorn in government's side for ages. I guess that they think, "if you have to make a message private, it must be up to no good."

Title 18 of the United States Code currently contains no prohibition on the use of encrypted communications to plan or facilitate crimes. This proposal would amend federal law to provide that any person who, during the commission of or the attempt to commit a federal felony, knowingly and willfully uses encryption technology to conceal any incriminating communication or information relating to that felony, be imprisoned for an additional period of not fewer than 5 years. These additional penalties are warranted to deter the use of encryption technology to conceal criminal activity. In addition, it [Title 18] does not address the issue of whether software companies and internet service providers should give law enforcement access to "keys" for the purposes of decoding intercepted communications.

4. Finally, this is the section (Section 501, if you want to look at it for yourself) that is the most startling. It allows the government to strip your citizenship.

Specifically, an American could be expatriated if, with the intent to relinquish nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United States has designated as a "terrorist organization," if that group is engaged in hostilities against the United States.This provision also would make explicit that the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct

Now imagine this: A person pisses off the government with his/her use of the right to Free Speech. (It's happened.... remember Senator Joe McCarthy and his witchhunt?) The government arrests you and your family is not informed. You, of course, do not get the opportunity to contact your lawyer or anyone else. Even if you are released without being ultimately charged with crime, you've had your DNA added to the database along with fingerprints, et al. In spreading the word of freedom in your criticism of the government, investigators discover the encrypted emails you sent. They charge you with the provision for "use of encryption" to commit your "crimes." Crimes they have not yet had to even prove they have evidence of. Finally, you just won't shut up.... after 5 years in jail, they strip you of citizenship. You are now without a country.

That scenario is extreme, not probable... but possible. And this link is only a draft, not the final bill, which will have a different language altogether. Remember, the idea with a bill proposal is to get enough people to buy into it to get it on the floor of Congress. The really controversial stuff might not even be introduced yet.

What do you think?

SkinWalker

C'jais
02-25-2003, 07:14 PM
My first reaction wis how much it resembles the Argentinian coup with its secret arrests and such.

I honestly don't hope this is something that European governments adopt, and especially not mine. It sounds downright frightening, though I suspect USA is on its nerves regarding terror attacks these days.

The most scary part however, is that I could easily imagine this law (if passed) would never be taken away once the terror hysteria has passed.

munik
02-25-2003, 07:27 PM
That crap is nuts. It wouldn't suprise me if something like that got passed, either. People would be so stupid as to give up rights for an imagined safety provided by the government.

Some of those things are just blatant violations of basic rights. I wonder if anyone would actually vote in favor of it.

That stuff about encryption is off the wall. Let me see if I got it straight. If you use encryption to hide your crimes, you get 5 years added to your sentence? So what are they saying? Doing the crime is bad, but trying to hide it makes it worse? That sounds like something you would threaten a 5 year old with. Of course people would attempt to hide a crime.

El Sitherino
02-25-2003, 09:22 PM
this sucks. my friends dad was arrested cuz of this kinda thing. my friend is arabic. this crap makes me mad. sorry i just dont get what the US is thinking, I think they might be smokin some funky weed.

Lime-Light
02-26-2003, 12:20 PM
It reminds me of Nazi Germany, and 1984.

The fear of pawns and idiots in this country (majority of population) will consume it and screw the rest of us.

But this US-Empire-crap is not new. In the 1880-1900's the US used detianment, secret police and media censorship in the Phillipines to restore order and stability, under the flag of democracy. The US always assumes other countries cannot govern themselves, and now its moved to its own citizens. And the idiots who are so proud of thier country's "superior" government system are going to vote it away.

It's all so sick and hipocrytically insane I want to explode.

SkinWalker
02-26-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Lime-Light
In the 1880-1900's the US used detianment, secret police and media censorship in the Phillipines to restore order and stability, under the flag of democracy. The US always assumes other countries cannot govern themselves, ...

The Phillipines, at that time, was strategically important. Roosevelt recognized this when he was still an assistant to the Secretary of Navy, and began planning how to use the Phillipines as a base. You have to remember, that back then ships needed coaling stations. Coaling stations needed protection. This was just so shipping could occur in parts of the world that were opening up to new consumer markets.

I used to not give much credence to the "war over oil" hypothesis, since I couldn't see the economic advantage. I find it hard to believe that OPEC won't still be able to control the price even if Iraq is defeated. Certainly, the new Iraqi regime won't simply make a gift of the oil fields as a token of their appreciation. The markets of smaller oil producing countries would be severely hurt by the lowered price of oil, if that were to occur. So there's a lot against it as a reason.

However, after reading LimeLight's post, and looking at some new information that I saw (if I find the link, I'll post it later) that describes the OPEC move from the dollar to the Euro, and the importance of this to the global economy, I'm beginning to change my mind.

SkinWalker

El Sitherino
02-26-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Lime-Light
It reminds me of Nazi Germany, and 1984.

The fear of pawns and idiots in this country (majority of population) will consume it and screw the rest of us.

But this US-Empire-crap is not new. In the 1880-1900's the US used detianment, secret police and media censorship in the Phillipines to restore order and stability, under the flag of democracy. The US always assumes other countries cannot govern themselves, and now its moved to its own citizens. And the idiots who are so proud of thier country's "superior" government system are going to vote it away.

It's all so sick and hipocrytically insane I want to explode. i seem to have a perfect clone :)

Lime-Light
02-26-2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
The Phillipines, at that time, was strategically important. ...You have to remember, that back then ships needed coaling stations. Coaling stations needed protection. This was just so shipping could occur in parts of the world that were opening up to new consumer markets.
SkinWalker

All well and good, but that doesnt mean the US had the right to practice what they did. My analogy stands; the US is concerned only with possible economic gains, not what is right, safe, or just, as it claims to be. The fact that it's moving on to its own citizens, after being secretly hated by other countries, and corrupting its own constitution is plain evidence to me that the corruption in this country has reached its apex.

Now, getting sort of off topic, look at 911. I know this sounds simply riddiculous and maybe crazy, but its been bugging me. I challenge you to find the remains of the plane that hit the Pentagon, or explain to me why the third TC building went down like a *perfect* demolition.

munik
02-26-2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Lime-Light

Now, getting sort of off topic, look at 911. I know this sounds simply riddiculous and maybe crazy, but its been bugging me. I challenge you to find the remains of the plane that hit the Pentagon, or explain to me why the third TC building went down like a *perfect* demolition.
So what are you getting at? You lost me. Some conspiracy, perhaps?

I don't remember seeing any building drop other then the two towers, and I know those came down like crap, not neat at all. Don't think I saw footage of another building go down. It was just a number for a name, right? A smaller one nearby that got damaged I think. And I never thought about the debris from the planes. Are you saying that it was never recovered? Why is that?

Lime-Light
02-26-2003, 11:39 PM
Hah, I feel stupid. I just realize that the reason the 3rd building came down was, for safety, they did a controled demolition on it instead of wait for it to collapse fomr stuctural damage unexpectadly. Or at least probably. But as for the Pentagon thing, I never saw any remnants of a plane, so why was the pentagon all busted up?

munik
02-26-2003, 11:49 PM
Dude, the pentagon is enormous. The plane went right into the outside walls I believe, and into the building. You couldn't see it because it probaly was incinerated inside the fire, it was all fire and black smoke.

Not counting the footage of the plane hitting the WTC, did you actually see plane debris in the burning tower?

Unless you aren't refering to the time of the actual event, but after. In which case I got no explanation.