The Victory Act
 

Why are we so desperate to put minorites in jail? Because thats what most of the drug laws do they put minorities in jail.

Aug. 20 — As Attorney General John Ashcroft barnstorms the country to bolster support for the controversial USA Patriot Act, a new bill is quietly circulating on Capitol Hill to give even greater powers to law enforcement — in the name of fighting drug trafficking.



ABCNEWS.com has obtained a draft of the Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003, or VICTORY Act, which could be introduced to Congress this fall, and which appears to have been prepared by the office of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The measure would give law enforcement increased subpoena powers and more leeway over wire-tap evidence and on classifying some drug offenses as terrorism.

The draft is a complex 89-page document that, like the Patriot Act, the massive anti-terror law that passed overwhelmingly six weeks after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, would amend various existing statutes, ostensibly to allow law enforcement to work more efficiently.

Provisions in the draft would:

Raise the threshold for rejecting illegal wiretaps. The draft reads: "A court may not grant a motion to suppress the contents of a wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, unless the court finds that the violation of this chapter involved bad faith by law enforcement."

Extend subpoena powers by giving giving law enforcement the authority to issue non-judicial subpoenas which require a person suspected of involvement in money laundering to turn over financial records and appear in a prosecutor's office to answer questions.

Extend the power of the attorney general to issue so-called administrative "sneak-and-peek" subpoenas to drug cases. These subpoenas allow law enforcement to gather evidence from wire communication, financial records or other sources before the subject of the search is notified.

Allow law enforcement to seek a court order to require the "provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service" or a financial institution to delay notifying a customer that their records had been subpoenaed.


Patriot Challenges

Hatch spokeswoman Margarita Tapia declined to comment directly on the draft, which begins "Mr. Hatch … introduced the following bill," and is dated for the first session of the 108th Congress beginning next month. Tapia noted, "We are examining legislative options but we have not submitted anything for consideration."

Other members of the Senate judicial committee also declined to comment on the draft.

And a spokesman for the Justice Department, which came under fire from several members of Congress when drafts of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act — "Patriot II" — appeared earlier this year, said the agency was not involved in the Victory Act.

"It's not ours," a Justice Department official said.


But critics wasted no time taking aim at the measure. A Democratic aide for the House Judiciary Committee said the linking of drug-related crime and terrorism raises questions about the draft.

"This bill would treat drug possession as a 'terrorist offense' and drug dealers as 'narco-terrorist kingpins,' " the aide argued. "To say that terrorist groups use a small percentage of the drug trafficking in the United States to finance terrorism may be a fair point, but this bill would allow the government to prosecute most drug cases as terrorism cases."

Concluded the aide: "It really seems to be more about a political agenda to jail drug users than a serious attempt to stop terrorists."

American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Jameel Jaffer added: "Absolutely nothing would prevent the attorney general from using these subpoenas to obtain the records of people who have no connection to terrorism, drug trafficking or crime of any sort."

Patriot Challenges

Recent indications of growing discomfort around the country with some of the elements of the Patriot Act have come from the Republican side of the aisle as well.

The House last month passed by a vote of 309-118 a bill to eliminate funding for the "sneak-and-peek" powers as authorized in the Patriot Act. The House bill was authored by a Republican, Rep. Butch Otter of Idaho.

Meanwhile, three states and more than 140 cities, counties and towns around the country have passed resolutions critical of the Patriot Act. The language of those resolutions ranges from statements affirming a commitment to the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, to directives to local law enforcement not to cooperate with federal agents involved in investigations deemed to be unconstitutional.

A bill has also been introduced in the House to exclude bookstore and library records from those that could be subpoenaed by law enforcement without prior notification of the person whose records were being seized.

Two lawsuits have also been filed challenging provisions of the Patriot Act.

The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights filed suit in Los Angeles arguing the provision that makes it illegal to provide "expert advice and assistance" to groups alleged to have ties to terrorism is unconstitutionally vague.

The ACLU also filed suit in Detroit last month, challenging the provision that allows law enforcement to secretly subpoena people's bookstore and library records.

Within the Constitution

Even before Ashcroft took to the road Tuesday, the Justice Department had begun defending the Patriot Act.

The department recently posted a new Web site (www.lifeandliberty.gov), with questions and answers addressing many of the complaints critics have about the Patriot Act.

Justice has also suggested the 93 U.S. attorneys around the country hold town hall meetings to reach out to people in their jurisdictions, to try to reassure them there is no threat to law abiding people in the Patriot Act.

Ashcroft began his tour in Washington, D.C., to put out the message personally that the Patriot Act has greatly aided the fight against terrorism and has not infringed on constitutional rights or civil liberties.

Speaking at the conservative-leaning think tank American Enterprise Institute, he lauded the achievements of law enforcement in preventing another terrorist attack in the nearly two years since Sept. 11, 2001, and in tracking down suspected terrorist cells in suburban Buffalo and Portland, Ore.

"We have built a new ethos of justice, one rooted in cooperation, nurtured by coordination and focused on a single overarching goal: the prevention of terrorist attacks," Ashcroft said. "All of this has been done within the safeguards or our Constitution, and the guarantees that our Constitution provides, protecting American freedom."

Apologies to James for a semi-hijack!

I would like to pose a question for the people who are against things like the Patriot Act and an expanded war on drugs. Please no flaming anyone! This isn't an instance where I want to collect the opinions of others so I can criticize them or shoot them down. I am honestly curious and would like to know what you think.

Anyhoo...

People who are for the Patriot Act, an expanded war on drugs and other activities that others think will impinge on our liberties could well read the article James posted and think something like this:

"I have nothing to hide. There is nothing in my financial records that I want to hide, nor do I make plans for illegal activities on the phone. I am a law-abiding citizen and no amount of digging will reveal evidence to the contrary."

In your opinion, does this person have anything to fear from things like the Patriot Act?

Thank you!

Lemme ramble for a second . . .

I had this conversation with a cop once and he was like if you have nothing to hide why shouldn't I be able to search your car or your house or whatever. Why would you care?

It kind of stumped me how to answer. A friend had a good argument though. What if Mr. Kr has nude pics of KR in the back of his car, or in his home. nothing ilegal there . . . but maybe he doesn't want anyone to see them and talk about them.

Maybe he has porn magazines. Nothing ilegal but embarrassing. Maybe he just doesn't like people going through his stuff and invading his privacy. ITs not even about ilegalities per se . . its about not wanting people in his business and private life ESPECIALLY if he isn't doing anything wrong.

Plus when people go through your stuff there is a record of what they find, and they talk to people about it.

Also, with that attitude its kind of like: Well people have a burden to prove they are innocent by allowing others to invade their privacy and search . . because no honest American would mind.

Keep in mind that law enforcement can search and do lots of stuff, but they are supposed to have a burden of proof they can show to an impartial witness(judge) that there is an obvious suspicioin you are wrong doing.

Now with the patriot act et al. They are removing that burden of proof. Or changing it so that if your records are being searched, you won't know. Thats what has people upset.

I know I have nothing to hide. My worst offense ever was a speeding ticket. However, I know I would be totally against a search in my home because they "suspect" something. Who's to say that they won't start doing random searches w/o a warrant without just cause? What, then, separates us from a Communist country? Last week I read a story that claimed the DoJ or Dept of H.S. wants broadband service providers to reconfigure their systems to allow easier and more constant government surveillance. They propose that the cost of doing this (astronomically high, if I remember correctly) should be defrayed by passing it on to the consumers. So, basically, you will pay more to be monitored by the feds without your knowledge or consent. Scared yet?

since when did personal privacy become un-American or an admission of guilt?

let's stop the hypocrasy of what we say vs. what we do

Me, too. I understand that police have a huge responsibility, but if they want to search my car or my house or whatever, they had better have a pretty darn good reason. I don't have anything to hide. I've never even gotten a speeding ticket. But anyone who knows me knows that I don't like people rooting around through my stuff, not to mention the indignity of having your stuff searched just to "prove" that you really aren't breaking any laws. This is the first I've heard about this Victory Act, but I don't really like the idea of the Patriot Act...I just think it has the potential to get way, way out of hand.

The fear of their privacy being invaded no matter if they have something to hide or not.

These types of bills chip away at certain civil liberties and it's sad coming from a party that favors less government interference or control in the lives of the citizens.


At what lengths will the government go in order to keep our country safe? Will it get to the point that people fear their own government? Will people continue to spend millions on banning pron? Will the FCC continue to censor people like Howard Stern? I feel like our country is moving backwards while the rest of the world is moving forward....


Good question though KR...

And read up on the McCarthy era... how many people were accused of being Communists, had their lives and careers ruined with false accusations? Lists and FBI files of those who protested Vietnam? Even celebs and entertainers blacklisted from radio because they spoke out against the Iraq war? We are entitled to our opinions and to expressing our opinions... we have freedom of speech. Call me paranoid, but I think they could find something on anybody and twist it into something bad if they chose to. Library records? Come on! Researching a topic doesn't mean you believe in it!

These are the basic freedoms that our military has fought for over and over!

Dee

Unfortunately, you don't even have to go back that far. Read about some of the groups and people who were investigated during the Vietnam era.

True, DeltAlum. But I do agree w/ AGD in that this reeks of a McCarthy-esque witch-hunt. During the Red Scare, if you questioned their tactics/motives, then certainly you were "one of THEM (meaning commies)". It seems like that now. If you dare question the administration, the Patriot Act, et al., then you must be a terrorist. Or at the very least, a subversive. Or supporting terrorism. Just because I don't want the feds to know every book I've checked out of my university library doesn't mean I have plans to destroy the country. Sometimes it's all about privacy. As far as I know, we still have that right. For how much longer, I don't know.

Why should I care? Because last time I checked, our justice system wasn't based on a "guilty until proven innocent" policy.

Have you ever seen an actual police search documented on film or tv? They tear your home apart while the neighbors watch. Having nothing to hide will not protect you from humiliation and the distrust of those around you. Besides the fact that many of these investigations would probably be focused on suspects such as the "suspicious looking brown person Betty Smith saw wearing a turban once"