Recent local and national debates regarding the USA Patriot Act (USAPA) has generated a bit of mental exercise in taking a fresh look at the notorious act. The USAPA is a 342 page bill that few congressional members read but supported on the basis of 9/11. Last month John Ashcroft came to congress asking for its permanent extension. And just for fun he also wants to "expand the Patriot Act" which arguably is the most intrusive act ever exacted on the American public.

Just in case you've missed the changes USAPA made to your legal rights, here's a quick rundown documented by the Associated Press.

Freedom of Association now allows Government employees to "monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation."

Freedom of Information is now diminished. "Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests."

Freedom of Speech now means that the "Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation."

Right to Legal Representation allows that "Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes." Some might be tempted to say "so what?" Remember, that the power of government can break a person financially. Just ask those who have successfully defended themselves against false charges prosecuted by ambitious DA's. Carol Howe comes to mind just off the top of my head. Remember, "Innocent until proven guilty."

Freedom from Unreasonable Searches now means that the "Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation."

Right to a Speedy and Public Trial now means that "Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial."

Right to Liberty now means that "Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them."

The same person who was quoted at the top of this story also said, "We do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the web?"

The Electric Frontier Foundation. ( www.eff.org ) points to four areas enhanced by the USAPA that seem to have very little to do with stopping terror. First is a provision (Sec. 217) that permits "government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court orders."
Second, a provision (Sec. 503) that adds the collection of DNA for terrorists also adds collection for "the broad, non-terrorist category of 'any crime of violence.'" Third, wiretaps are now allowed for anyone suspected of "exceeding the authority" of a computer used in interstate commerce that causes over $5,000 worth of damages.

Fourth, the act raises the maximum penalty for violations to "10 years (from 5) for a first offense and 20 years (from 10) for a second offense. Also the act insures that "violators only need to intend to cause damage generally, not intend to cause damage or other specified harm over $5,000." It goes on and on….. It sounds like the government is targeting 12 year old hackers rather than terrorists.

The USAPA also greatly enhances the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Which is another whole can of worms that allows for no court supervision, no public information allowed, where the Attorney General is not required to report to the court what it does. (Does anyone really want someone like Bill and Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno to have this kind of power?)

Bottom line? The USAPA is a bad piece of legislation that needs to die. Brent Rinehart is still defending himself for having the "audacity" to challenge the Patriot Act. Mayor Kirk Humphries accused him of "grandstanding." Several on the council were afraid of supporting Rinehart's resolution rejection the Patriot Act because President Bush might read that as a lack of support from Oklahoma City. Only Councilman Sam Bowman had the guts to join Rinehart in standing against the erosion of our constitutional rights.

Politicians with pretty faces and fat pocket books who are targeting higher office, i.e. the governor's office or Don Nickles' Senate seat might find that some of us may not be too excited to jump on the bus headed down a highway to hell. Sometimes it takes a little guts to lead.

Just in case you haven't already figured it out already, it was Sen. John Ashcroft who crafted both of the quotes listed above in an article written for USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4, October 1997.

In the same article, Ashcroft wrote;
"The Clinton Administration would like the Federal government to have the capability to read any international or domestic computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal email, and proprietary information sent abroad - all in the name of national security."

At this point I'm unclear whether Ashcroft was complaining or just jealous.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
I'm a Native American

The recent Supreme Court decision regarding Affirmative Action has prompted a decision on my part regarding inquiries that require me to choose from a preconceived list of racial categories. I've decided that the only proper designation for me is "Native American." That's truly the only thing I am. While I might look Caucasian, I have a vast heritage from German, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and American Indian which makes me 100% Native American.

These applications, surveys and other race counting devices are meant to calculate all sorts of racial data meant for people who place a high priority on racial ethnic qualities. I just usually refer to them generally as racists.

So if you are so inclined, you might tell your kids to do the same. The fact is that I'm a Native American. And that's what I'll be until I leave this earthly party we call life.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Are you Conservative or Liberal? Go to www.Politopia.com and find out today!

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Is This Still America?

Dear Editor,

I am outraged that the State legislature passed a ban on smoking in public places. Thanks to Democrat Cal Hobson and pressure from Republican Lt. Gov. Mary Fallin, the legislature reversed itself on this ban and now it has been signed into law. This is the Nanny State - now that's Bipartisanship! Public places will have to implement this ban in 90 days, restaurants in 3 years. Nannies tried this kind of coercion once before and it was a failure, it was called - Prohibition.

In the House debate one Nanny made the unfounded claim that over 700 Oklahomans a year die from second hand smoke. My state representative Tad Jones, who opposed this nonsense, asked: "Name me five people. Let me contact their families." The nannies would not give him a single name.

The reason Second Hand Smoking is a Myth! And now businesses in Oklahoma will be hurt. We make public policy decisions now on myths! The ban on smoking is nothing more the behavior modification by the state. Well, guess what, it won't work! Mark my words, I'm a smoker and I vote! The nannies will come to fear people like me in future elections. This will not stand!

Is this still America?

Ted King
Claremore, Oklahoma

Regarding the Supreme Court

I would like to take issue with you on two statements in the article "Supreme Court "Right to Privacy" Ruling". First, when speaking of the Supreme Court, you stated, "It would most certainly make them more responsive to the will of the people." The purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide the legality of issues based on the Constitution. The Court should never be responsive to the will of the people. The problem with the Court is they let their personal politics get in the way when they interpret the Constitution. Appointing Justices every four to eight years would have a devastating affect on the balance of powers. What we need is less politics in the appointment and confirmation of Justices to insure that those are appointed will be strict constitutionalists.

Secondly, I agree that the Texas anti-sodomy law was not an issue an issue for the Supreme Court. It should have been a "States Rights" issue. However, the States Rights issue was resolved between 1861 and 1865. Revisionist historians might not admit it, but one of the causes of the Civil War was States Rights vs. the Federal government. When the Union won the war, the issue of the supremacy of the Federal government over State government was settled once and for all. It is a shame, because I don't think that is at all what our founding fathers intended.

KC
Owasso, OK

Ballot Access for Libertarians

One sure way to fight the inequities that you are concerned about is to help the Libertarian Party to get ballot-access for the 2004 election year. Then help out with a political campaign, maybe we can get Libertarians in office in Oklahoma.

If you want a party that fights for Libertarian/"conservative values", why not just go the source of libertarian values?

JC
Oklahoma

The Oklahoma City Council

I was at the City Council meeting. Your reporting is, well Craig, frankly it is wrong. The reality is much worse than the sanitized version that appeared in the Daily Oklahoman and on TV.

The news bureaus all have their own reasons for reporting it the way they do. Whatever, here's what really happened in actual real life. I'm sure you and the readers will be shocked.

The unlikely supporter of the Constitutional was in fact Ward Two City Councilman Sam Bowman. Rinehart caved immediately to the Council's only Black woman, Ward Seven City Council Woman Willa Johnson.

Recall them all except Bowman, I say. Anyway read this account from one unbelieving bystander - me - and weep.

Thank you for your time.

Bob Nichols

Limiting Judges a Bad Idea

If you read the Federalist Papers, and read them closely, you will see that even the founders didn't want judges "close to the people" and instead opted for life appointments. The rationale: judicial independence is of greater value to American Society and the rule of law than is judges who respond like lapdog politicians jockeying for the popular position/opinion. Without that independence, the Court would never have been able to correct the many wrongs of America's past, such as slavery, Miranda, and a legion of other "popular-with-the-people" issues. The Court bucked the popularity contests and instead applied the rule of law as interpreted from the plain language of the US Constitution. When a judge has to choose between keeping his job in the next election cycle and applying the law, which may be unpopular, but 'tis the law nevertheless, the Judge needs to be free to apply the law without regard to his own interests, i.e., getting re-elected. This means that we sometimes get decision we don't like or think are wrong and need to be changed, but that is better than having the Courts inundated with self-serving politicos disguised as judges dishing out not the law, but whatever will keep them in office. Don't we have enough politicians? Why allow them to infect the rule of law with personal vice, folly and whimsy? We, as a society, are all more free, independent and happy when the decision in a case turns on the law and not on some personal or popular agenda that has no bearing whatsoever upon the facts of a particular case.

And, finally, errant or wayward judges appointed for life can, and have been and will be removed by Congress for bad behavior, i.e., for just reasons which go far beyond whether one merely dislikes or disagrees with a judges decision. God help us and our country if the day ever comes when a judge loses their job because they applied the law as it should be applied, but in so doing, became very unpopular. If we can get rid of good judges because their legally sound decisions are unpopular, why don't we just do away with the legal system altogether and return to the old days of private vendettas, vigilante mobs and frontier justice which turned not on guilt or innocence, but instead turned on a mob mentality? Such rational proceedings can hardly be ridiculed, now, can they?

R.K.
OKC