Posted by theodore on 02/11/11

Please see the below article from the Cato Institute.  This is probably one of the best articles I have seen that succinctly explains in a logical fashion why the Patriot Act, including these three provisions that Rep. Harris will be voting on next week, should not be extended.  The author is responding to well circulated attempts by the Heritage Foundation to justify extension of the Patriot Act provisions.  He takes the Heritage Foundation talking points, which are the same talking points that GOP House leadership are using, and addresses them on their lack of logic or fact, piece-by-piece.  This writing listed below gives links to information and data that further explain why extending the Patriot Act is a terrible idea.  I would encourage you to talk with Mr. Julian Sanchez, the author of this writing, to get more information about this law.  In a nut shell here are the key objections to these three provisions that are better enumerated below:

1) At the very least it is inconclusive on all three of these provisions as to how they have actually aided us in apprehending terrorists or stopping terrorist plots
2) The Patriot Act permits roving wiretap warrants that do not name an individual target--THIS IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
3) Prior FISA law did not require "probable cause" for obtaining warrants for business record orders and the Patriot Act requires even less than FISA--THIS IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
4) The Lone Wolf provision has never been used--yet somehow we are still told that we need it?  Why?  Explained further below.
5) Federal Courts have already found gag provisions of the "National Security Letter" statutes of the Patriot Act to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
6) The Inspector General of the Dept. of Justice has said that his office found that FBI misuse of Patriot Act authority is "widespread and serious."
7) The FBI has been breaking the law and shredding up the Constitution under Patriot Act authority for years. [Read this report]

Please call Rep. Andy Harris at 202-225-5311 to tell him to vote against extension of the Patriot Act provisions this upcoming week. 

Thanks,

Ted

________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

The Heritage Foundation on the Patriot Act

Posted by Julian Sanchez

If you wonder why House Republicans were so keen on ramming through an extension of the Patriot Act without hearings or debate, take a gander at the Heritage Foundation's blog post and Web memo on the topic. I want to run through the latter in some detail, because I think it's telling just how poorly the case against reform stands up to scrutiny in the rare instances when the law's defenders feel obliged to make an argument more sustained than "Boo! Terrorists!"  Here's how they begin:

With at least 36 known plots foiled since 9/11, the United States continues to face a serious threat of terrorism. As such, national security investigators continue to need these authorities to track down terror leads and dismantle plots before the public is in any danger. These three amendments-which have been extensively modified over the years by Congress and now include significant new safeguards, including substantial court oversight-are vital to this success.

I've debated co-author Jena McNeil Baker on Patriot a few times, and she invariably leads off with a running tally of foiled terror plots. I'm not sure exactly which cases make her current list, but in the past she's cited yahoos like the Lackawanna Six, who don't appear to have had any actual plot to dismantle, and since our last exchange the FBI has augmented the count via its innovative strategy of planning terror attacks for itself to foil.

But let's all agree the terror threat is real and serious even without this sort of inflation. What evidence do the authors have that any of the three expiring authorities were "vital" in any of those cases? There just isn't any. Even if it were true, the authors would have no basis in the public record for the assertion. The evidence we do have, however, suggests just the opposite. Lone Wolf has never been used, so it certainly wasn't vital. FISA roving authority has been granted an average of 22 times per year since Patriot, and in many of those cases, investigators found they didn't end up needing to use it. And none of the reports I can recall reading on apprehended wannabe-terrorists suggested that they were practicing sophisticated countersurveillance tactics. The Office of the Inspector General couldn't find any major case developments attributable to 215 business record orders, which also don't seem to be used that frequently. If one of the sunsetting powers had played an important role in disrupting a concrete plot or attack, though, you'd think Justice Department officials would have every incentive to say so loudly and unambiguously, even if they couldn't get into operational specifics. While these facts are suggestive, of course, I can't say with certainty that the two powers that have actually been used definitely didn't play a vital role in any of those (let's be generous) 36 cases. It would be more convenient if I could say so, but I'm at something of a disadvantage here: In the absence of evidence, I lack the panache needed to make whatever sweeping assertions would help my position. I can only say that all the evidence we do have cuts against that bold claim.

We move to roving wiretaps, which we're told are a "garden variety" surveillance tool used "routinely" in criminal investigations. The authors seem to be operating with highly idiosyncratic definitions of those terms: In 2009, there were 2,376 wiretap warrants issued for criminal investigations, of which 16 were roving. But routine or not, pretty much everyone in fact agrees that roving authority should be available for intelligence investigations. Astonishingly, the Heritage memo never even mentions the actual issue civil libertarians have with this provision: that unlike the parallel criminal authority, it permits roving warrants that don't name an individual target. So the authors spend five paragraphs mounting an irrelevant defense of a power nobody contests in principle, but never bother to so much as inform their readers about the real point of controversy, let alone argue for the asymmetry.

Next, business record orders. The blog post summarizing the Web memo confusingly claims that there was no FISA authority to compel the production of records before Patriot, which isn't true. There just had to be some factual basis (not even "probable cause") for thinking the records belonged to a terrorist or foreign agent. Oddly, while the Heritage memo does reference Patriot's expansion of the types of records that could be obtained, it fails to mention the elimination of this key requirement-which, again, is precisely the change to which critics have objected. We're also told that heightened standards apply to demands for records that "might have the slightest relation to freedom of speech and expression," which is ridiculous. Library and bookstore records get a bit more protection because librarians raised an admirable fuss about this provision, but there's no similar protection for records of people's online reading habits, which have at least as much bearing on modern speech and expression as someone's library borrowing. There's the usual analogy between this authority and prosecutorial or grand jury subpoenas, but (perhaps you're noticing a pattern here) the big, glaring difference between them is not even mentioned: Those processes are ultimately public, and that publicity serves as the strongest practical check on prosecutors who might be tempted to sweep too broadly, while giving third-party record holders a far stronger incentive to challenge improper requests on behalf of their customers.

By the time we get to Lone Wolf, it feels like they're not even trying anymore:

While the FBI has confirmed that this section has never actually been used, it needs to be available if the situation arises where a lone individual may seek to do harm to the United States.

Why can't they use the same criminal authority they're forced to rely on when a lone individual who's a citizen seeks to do harm to the United States? Why are the extraordinary breadth and secrecy of FISA surveillance, designed for dealing with state-sponsored espionage agencies and global terror networks, necessary when the adversary is some guy acting alone? Crickets.

Finally, we get these two howlers in the conclusion:

Little evidence has ever been proffered to demonstrate any PATRIOT Act misuse.... The act has been narrowed and refined continuously, contributing to the fact that no single provision of the PATRIOT Act has ever been found unconstitutional.

Now, as it happens, both of those claims are pretty clearly false. Federal courts have, in fact, found the gag provisions of the National Security Letter statutes to be unconstitutional-though the court opted to impose its own set of requirements rather than voiding the statutes outright. As for misuse, I'll defer to the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, who characterized the FBI misuse of that authority uncovered by his office as "widespread and serious."

But these are, in any event, absurd standards. Covert surveillance whose targets are never informed about it turns out to be rather difficult to challenge in court-harder still when the government can assert a state secrecy privilege that prevents courts from reaching the merits of the challenges that do arise. The identification of rule violations mostly relies on self-policing by intelligence agencies-which report plenty, though they often take their sweet time about it. More importantly, if the intended use of these authorities is to allow the government to siphon up vast amounts of information about thousands of mostly innocent Americans, and retain that information forever in massive classified databases, focus on "misuse" is something of a red herring. The "correct" use is too intrusive.

So this is what the best case for Patriot reauthorization without reform looks like, apparently: bold assertions offered without supporting evidence, and a persistent refusal to engage the actual objections raised by critics. No wonder they're so anxious to bypass a debate.

Posted by theodore on 02/08/11

Imagine that China someday becomes the world's only superpower, and that a declining America receives foreign aid and direction from them.

Wouldn't many Americans resent China for its meddling? And wouldn't that feeling turn to hatred if our country was governed by a DICTATOR whom Chinese politicians were supporting?

If you can imagine this then you can also sympathize with how an Egyptian feels toward America. U.S. politicians have given Egypt's Dictator-President, Hosni Mubarak, $60 billion over the past 30 years.

And Mubarak isn't the only one! That's why we're asking you to send a letter telling Congress to end foreign aid to dictators.

You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .

I'm angry that tear gas canisters used against Egyptian protesters said "Made in the USA."

I'm upset that Congress forces me to support dictators like Egypt's Mubarak.

I consider it criminal that Congress has funded Mubarak to the tune of $60 billion.

I reject the claim that foreign aid builds good relations with other countries. Instead, it makes foreigners think that we want to dominate them, and hold them in bondage to their corrupt rulers.

The $15 billion we spend on foreign aid each year buys us hatred and enemies around the world.  

The Constitution was designed to protect me from this. It confers no authority on you for my giving tax money to foreign rulers. This means that foreign aid VIOLATES the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Please honor your oath of office. End all foreign aid, especially to dictators.

I am quite competent to handle my own foreign aid program, thank you very much. I do this through the contributions I make to voluntary groups with an international reach. I neither need nor want you to coerce me to fund your aid preferences. Aid is a job for civil society, NOT politicians.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

And please tell your friends about DownsizeDC.org. "Like" our Facebook page and share this post. http://www.facebook.com/downsizedc

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

Posted by theodore on 01/08/10

  WESTERN MARYLAND CHAPTER  

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Our government has gone off track.  The government cannot continue borrowing, printing and spending our future away. Our government has grown so big and out of control that our individual liberties and freedoms are in serious jeopardy. Have you had enough?  

Make plans to join with your friends and neighbors at the next Western Maryland Campaign for Liberty chapter on Thursday January 28, 2009. 

Please note the change of venue to the downtown Frederick County Public Library.

We will be reporting on the Tea Party Rally in Annapolis and the C4L strategy for affecting change at the MD state house this legislative session. We will also cover national issues like health care, cap and tax, and the ramp up of the war in Afghanistan.   

WESTERN MARYLAND CHAPTER January 28, 2009 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm      

*** FREDERICK COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY ***  Downtown Frederick, MD You can park at the parking garage off Market Street and receive validated parking via the library, since we are using their facilities.

We live in a world of constant change.  It is up to us to make it CHANGE FOR THE BETTER!Our chapter meets monthly to discuss ways to increase individual liberty, freedom and prosperity at all levels of government; federal, state and local. Anyone who is concerned about the future of our state and country is welcome!

WWW.CAMPAIGNFORLIBERTY.COM

222,000+ members and growing!

I n d i v i d u a l  L i b e r t y    C o n s t i t u t i o n a l  G o v e r n m e n t    S o u n d  M o n e y    F r e e  M a r k e t s   

N o n - I n t e r v e n t i o n i s t  F o r e i g n  P o l i c y        
 
If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 240-291-5280

To unsubscribe, send me an email at: allen.twigg@gmail.com

Posted by theodore on 07/28/09

Greetings All Maryland Campaign for Liberty Members,

The Harford Chapter of the Campaign for Liberty is, as I write this, the largest chapter in the state at 101 members-now becoming the first chapter in the state of Maryland to break 100 members!  They are three ahead of Baltimore County at 98, the 2^nd largest chapter.  They also beat Montgomery County which is 3rd at 80 members and Anne Arundel which is 4th at 79 members.  In January of 2009 the Harford County chapter barely had 10 people at that month's chapter meeting, now they regularly have 70-80 people attending chapter meetings.  The Harford chapter has also spearheaded several Tea Parties, protests, and rallies to fight against higher taxes, bloated government, and regulatory impediments on the private sector.  Some in political circles in Harford County refer to the Harford chapter as the "third rail" of county politics.   

In January the Harford Chapter was 10% of the total state membership, today they sit at 15%.  I will tell you that county percentage numbers seldom change so this accomplishment cannot be understated.  For their chapter to move from 10% to 15% percent of the state members, at a time when state membership is constantly rising, is a monumental task. 

Some Facts:

Harford County is only 4% of Maryland's population.

Harford County is in the 6th slot in terms of general population in the state of Maryland. 

Harford has 25% of the population of Montgomery County.

Harford has 31% of the population of Baltimore County.

Harford has 47% of the population of Anne Arundel County.

Basically this all means that Harford's membership numbers are a direct result of their hard work.  They have proven that membership growth is directly tied to reaching out and taking the issues to the local community.  The entire Maryland Campaign for Liberty membership should take a moment and celebrate this accomplishment.  It provides inspiration to not only other chapters in the state, but to chapters around the country proving that local activism based on the Campaign for Liberty principles and grassroots organizing works!

The Harford chapter stands as a clear example today that organization, hard work, and outreach play a key role in determining chapter size.

Thanks,

Ted

Theodore Patterson

State Coordinator

Maryland Campaign for Liberty

E-mail: Theodore@udel.edu

Phone: 443-350-5065

www.campaignforliberty.com

Posted 07/29/09 TheeVagabond North East, MD

This is awesome!

Posted by theodore on 06/21/09

To the Editor:

It is no longer just a theory.

This past Wednesday, the Treasury's auction of $19 billion in 10 year Notes was met with tepid investor interest.  To induce folks to buy these bonds, the Treasury had to raise the interest rate on them to nearly 4%.

When Treasury rates rise, so too do rates on all sorts of things, including business loans, mortgages, and car loans.

Higher rates choke off all sorts of economic activity.  For example, if a business has to pay more to borrow money, will it?  Or, if you have to make higher mortgage payments thanks to a rising rate, are you likely to buy a new house?  And so on.

Rising interest rates are a very serious consequence of our government's runaway spending, a great example being the so-called stimulus bill.  Because we are running a massive deficit of $1.8 trillion to pay for the stimulus bill and other spending, and expect to run trillion-dollar deficits for years to come, it is very realistic to expect further increases in interest rates as the Treasury seeks buyers for its bonds.

But it doesn't have to be this way!  Our government could have a balanced budget.  We could live within our means, so we don't need to borrow.  It's time that government returned to its limited, Constitutional role instead of the expensive leviathan it is today.  Because instead of being a benign, or even benevolent government, what we have is choking our economy.  Wednesday's Treasury auction is proof. 

Michael Andersen

County Coordinator

Eastern Shore Campaign for Liberty