Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The U.S. Patriot Act - 363 pages, 57,896 words - who wrote it?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:57 PM
Original message
The U.S. Patriot Act - 363 pages, 57,896 words - who wrote it?
As counted by NeoOffice Writer. That's at lot of text to write in less than 40 days, especially when you consider there were only 25 working days between Sept. 11 and the day the bill was introduced on the House floor. Now, given that people probably worked weekends on this, you could say it was created in 30 days, but damn, 363 pages that the House passed pretty much unanimously... means that bill had to be reviewed pretty carefully for mistakes before it was submitted... and a ton of people would have to have been involved to make it happen so quickly.

Asking all writers out there how many people it would have taken to write such a beast in such a short period of time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. Karl Rove?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. One person could not have written this document unless they had months to devote to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I kid! People tend to cloak him with supernatural powers, so thought I
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 06:04 PM by babylonsister
would, too. OK, second guess; all those Regent U. grads?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. This bastard wrote it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. you got that right,
the bastard part
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. 100% Federalist Society.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. Hell of a question there, and I bet the answer is that it had already been written.
Little bit from THIS rightwing "Think Tank," little bit from THAT rightwing "Policy Institute," and hey, Presto! You got "Das Akt fur das ewiges Sicherheit von dem Vaterland..."

Oh, excuse me, the USA PATRIOT Act. (Yes, "PATRIOT" is officialy all-upercase.)

Redstone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. It was written well in advance by some Vietnamese-American politician,
IIRC. They had it sitting on the shelf ready to go at the right opportunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
8. The War on Drugs wrote it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razors edge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. Frank Zappa tried to warn us.
"They are rewriting the constitution in tiny pieces, so we won't notice." (close to the actual quote.)

Joe's Garage. The Central Scrutinizer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slowry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
9. iunno... internet? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
10. I bet it was in the works long before 9/11 happened.
And 9/11 was the perfect excuse for that bullshit to get passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tyedyeto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. You are spot on!
Although I believe 9/11 was LIHOP or MIHOP in order to push some of these bills through Congress. It is part and parcel of the entire 'package'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. I'm also willing to bet that half the people who voted for it didn't read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
11. The SCOTUS Alito and Roberts both worked in the Reagan yrs
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 06:40 PM by EVDebs
rubbertamping the executive orders for martial law, then under REX8 and Ops Garden Plot and Cable Splicer with FEMA interment camps for any dissenters out there. The ruse was that this would be for illegal immigrants but we all know it's for dissenters; ICE now has the round 'em up powers not FEMA.

The Patriot Act shows 27 "Safeguards" were added for re-authorization, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

with its questionable relaxation of warrants etc. that were already in place, makes you wonder "why" ?

Maybe to go after those darn Quakers, who posted this apparently so that the NSA could retaliate against their right to dissent

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

which, if you overlay a copy of the oil fields in Iraq, makes you wonder,

http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf

if the plans that Nixon had made up in '73 were just 'tweaked' in order to do the Iraq war,

Document reveals Nixon plan to seize Arab oil fields
'70s embargo sparked 'last resort' measure, says British memo
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01...

This was ALL planned well in advance...and none of it "preserves, protects, or defends the Constitution of the United States", in fact it denigrates the Constitution.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Decruiter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
12. We can always stop it if we want to
<...> Andy Janssen, a long-time Madison political activist, said, "Since September 11th I have been angered by the outright contradictions in the Bush administration. While they claim to be fighting for freedom, our civil liberties are being abridged in the name of U.S. security. I am proud of the Madison City Council in taking a stand against the so called Patriot Act and fighting to restore the very freedoms Bush and Company want to take away. I am especially proud of our young people for leading on this."

The resolution reads in part:

"...IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED that the City of Madison remains firmly committed to the protection of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. The City of Madison will completely avoid discrimination in every function of city government, and vigorously uphold the constitutionally protected rights of all persons to peacefully protest and express their political views without any form of governmental interference.

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Madison joins communities across the nation in expressing concern that the USA Patriot Act threatens civil rights and liberties guaranteed under the United States Constitution.

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, and is the policy of the City of Madison, to forbid in the absence of probable cause of criminal activity:

1.any initiation of, participation in, assistance or cooperation with any inquiry, investigation, surveillance or detention; and 2.the recording, filing and sharing of any intelligence information concerning any person or organization, even if authorized by federal law enforcement, acting under new powers granted by the USA Patriot Act or Executive Orders. This includes collection and review of library lending and research records, as well as book and video store sales and/or rental records; and 3.the retention of intelligence information. Information that is currently held shall be thoroughly and carefully reviewed by the City Attorney or other appropriate City official to be designated by the Mayor, for its legality and appropriateness, using the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions. <...>


http://www.counterpunch.org/leon1016.html



Copy and paste (and resist) as you see fit.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
13. Actually a good part of it was written during the Clinton Administration by Democrats
Republicans were greatly opposed to it at the time..They didn't think terrorism was really much of a threat at the time and in my opinion they were provbably correct. I think the odds of getting struck by lighting exceed those of being involved in a terrorist attack. It was a bad bill when the Democrats created it and it is an even worse bill now that Republicans have added to it.. We do not need to give up our freedom for security. Live Free.. Die Free..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
14. I remember reading it was written by
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 06:25 PM by BlackVelvet04
Senator Bob Graham, Democrat, Florida.

It seems part of it was indeed written by Graham:

WASHINGTON - When Sen. Bob Graham campaigned in Iowa last weekend, at least two Democratic activists complained that the USA Patriot Act threatened civil liberties. They asked what he planned to do about it.

The Florida senator replied that he was unhappy with Attorney General John Ashcroft's implementation of the antiterrorism law, but Graham neglected to mention an important fact: He co-wrote it.

The controversial law puts Graham in a difficult spot.

As the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he wrote sections of the bill dealing with foreign intelligence. But as a presidential candidate, he doesn't want to alienate supporters.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/14/Worldandnation/Graham...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
18. Viet Dinh
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 06:40 PM by seemslikeadream
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/02/62388


Viet Dinh has been called a "political pit bull" and "a foot soldier" for Attorney General John Ashcroft. But the 36-year-old author of the Patriot Act prefers to be called an "attendant of freedom."

In May 2001, the professor of law at Georgetown University was tapped by the Justice Department to work for two years as an assistant attorney general, working primarily on judicial nominations for the department. But three months later the World Trade Center towers collapsed, and Dinh was drafted to work on the USA Patriot Act, a bill that would give the government some of its most controversial surveillance powers. The bill, coupled with the government's subsequent treatment of immigrants and native-born citizens, prompted critics to charge the administration with overthrowing "800 years of democratic tradition."

Ironically, Dinh is an immigrant himself. The youngest of seven children born in Vietnam, he was 7 years old when communists took over the country and imprisoned his father, a city councilman, for "reeducation." Three years later, Dinh's mother escaped with him and five of his siblings to the United States. His father arrived eight years later.




Paul Craig Roberts's Response

I stand by my characterization of Viet Dinhs remarks in his debate with Bob Barr at the recent CPAC annual meeting and by my statement that conservatism has morphed into brownshirtism.

Viet Dinh is one of the authors of the so-called "PATRIOT Act," an anti-American piece of legislation recognized throughout the civil libertarian community as an assault on American civil liberties. Former Republican congressman Bob Barr has fought to restrain the acts more egregious intrusions into the constitutionally protected privacy of American citizens.

Even Republican US senators, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, are concerned about the Bush regimes proclivity for warrantless spying in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Senator Specter is drafting legislation with which he hopes to curtail President Bushs illegal activity. As far as I can tell, the legal community recognizes that Bushs warrantless spying is illegal, except for members of the Republican Federalist Society, a group of lawyers dedicated to concentrating unaccountable powers in the executive.

There are several news reports on the CPAC conference and the debate between Bob Barr and Viet Dinh. My observations follow from these news reports.

Writing in the Washington Post on February 11, "Bob Barr, Bane of the Right?," Post reporter Dana Milbank, for example, reports that Barr asked the CPAC audience, "Are we losing our lodestar, which is the Bill of Rights" to the Bush regimes zeal in its war against terror?

Barr confronted the conservatives: "Do we truly remain a society that believes that every president must abide by the law of this country" or "are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle?"

Barrs questions were greeted with silence followed by booing. According to Milbank, "Dinh brought the crowd to a raucous ovation when he judged: The threat to Americans liberty today comes from al Qaeda and its associates and the people who would destroy America and her people, not the brave men and women who work to defend this country!"

How else are we to interpret Viet Dinhs words? Clearly, he is saying that it is more important for Bush to seize powers to protect America from Osama bin Laden than to obey the law and abide by the separation of powers. The entire position of the Bush regime is that protecting the country from terrorists is more important than loyalty to habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions, the proscription against torture, open government, and an accountable executive.

Dinh himself endorsed the Fhrer Principle and urged it upon the conservatives when he declared, "The conservative movement has a healthy skepticism of governmental power, but at times, unfortunately, that healthy skepticism needs to yield." Yield to what? To the Leader who works "to defend this country."

Thats exactly what Hitler said following the Reichstag fire, a staged incident that he used to remove himself from accountability.

Milbank notes that by turning the debate into the issue of who do you fear George Bush or Osama bin Laden, Viet Dinh employed "the sort of tactic that has intimidated Democrats and the last few libertarian Republicans who question the programs legality."

Milbank reports that Viet Dinhs tactic did not work on Bob Barr who nailed Dinh: "That, folks, was a red herring. This debate is very simple: It is a debate about whether or not we will remain a nation subject to and governed by the rule of law or the whim of men."

In fairness to Viet Dinh, coming as he does as an immigrant from a country without a constitutional tradition, without a Bill of Rights, and without a judiciary empowered to enforce civil liberties, Dinh may only naturally confuse patriotism with loyalty to leader. Trust the Leader, Dinh told the conservatives. They seemed to agree. This certainly is not Americas way.

Destroying America does not mean blowing up buildings. It means destroying the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers. Al Qaeda is powerless to bring about such destruction. Only our own government, enabled by the publics and Viet Dinhs and Attorney General Gonzales endorsements of the Fhrer Principle can destroy America.

February 23, 2006
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
19. What is the USA Patriot Act and how did it come about?
http://www.duncanentertainment.com/interview_vietdinh.p...

The USA Patriot Act at its core is a set of fifty proposals that the administration sent to Congress on September 19th of 2001. Those fifty proposals are the culmination of the efforts by the administration led by the Department of Justice to answer a very simple charge from the President. Right after 9/11 right after the first National Security Council meeting the President turned to the Attorney General and said, "John, you make sure this does not happen again. The Attorney General took that charge and turned to the Department of Justice and said review top to bottom all of our procedures and policies and practices as it relates to the effort to prevent another catastrophic attack on the American homeland. Where necessary revise our procedures, reform our policies, and propose new legislation to give law enforcement and our intelligence community all the tools that it needs consistent with the Constitution and only those tools that it needs to prosecute this war on terror in the short term and to win the war in the long term. After a very deliberate but obviously accelerated process we put out a call to all rank and file investigators, agents and prosecutors and asked them for their best and brightest ideas to meet that charge. Answers came in to my office, came in to other offices and then forwarded to my office at the Office of Legal Policy. We spent many days and nights combing through those proposals to make sure they meet that objective -necessary tools and only those that are necessary.

I remember very clearly sending out a directive saying that this is not Christmas in September. Do not propose what you want to have only propose what is necessary to fight the war against terror. And each one of the proposals met certain criteria: one it has to be operationally necessary, two it has to have no unintended consequences on our operations and the protection of liberties of ordinary law-abiding citizens. And three it has to satisfy all applicable constitutional standards. If that's the case then it gets advanced up the chain of command and finally approved by the White House for transmission to Congress. From September 11 until October 26 when the act was finally signed into law by the President were six weeks of uninterrupted and concentrated deliberation on that basic charge - the tools necessary and only those necessary in order to fight the war against against terror. After the act was proposed to Congress, the House Judiciary Committee deliberated, held hearings on the proposals. The Senate Judiciary Committee did the same thing. But apart from the public hearings and the deliberations that are seen in the public eye, were constant round the clock deliberations, negotiations and analysis in order to fine-tune the proposals. Some of them, two in particular, the Congress did not pass and Congress added a whole number of other provisions that it thought necessary and it had been working on a independent track.

The process through which the Congress arrived at the USA Patriot Act although very accelerated in the normal legislative process is also much more deliberative than the normal legislative process because all of the applicable energies were focused on this one particular piece of legislation. It is like sitting down and reading War and Peace in one or two sittings rather than reading one page in a thousand sittings, which is the normal legislative process. Here everybody was focused; everybody knew the monumentusness of the occasion and the awesome responsibility that they were seeking to discharge. And so the result of the act, it was passed by 98-1 in the United States Senate and overwhelmingly by a ratio of 5-1 in the House of Representatives was I think truly a bipartisan consensus that was the right response, at the right time, reaching the right need.



Some critics said that the politicians did not have time to read the Patriot Act. There were the anthrax scares and they were being told that freedoms hung in the balance and they rushed it through but would not sign off on it today. How do you respond to that viewpoint?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
20.  As counsel for the Senate Whitewater Committee, Viet Dinh
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/... /

As counsel for the Senate Whitewater Committee, Viet Dinh was chiefly responsible for investigating circumstances surrounding the removal of the Clintons' personal files from Vince Foster's office shortly after his death. Dinh was also tasked with investigating the disappearance and mysterious reappearance of the Rose Law Firm billing records. Dinh's interview covers the significance of those billing records and how they appear to directly tie Hillary Clinton to the fraudulent Castle Grande deal. Dinh currently is a professor of law at Georgetown University.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
21. Chertoff helped

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC