CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
5,233
edits
Patriot Act: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "Seattle" to "Seattle"
m (Text replacement - "R" to "R") |
m (Text replacement - "Seattle" to "Seattle") |
||
| Line 392: | Line 392: | ||
In 2005, Library Connection, a nonprofit consortium of 27 libraries in Connecticut, known as the [[Connecticut Four]] worked with the ACLU to lift a gag order for library records, challenging the government's power under Section 505 to silence four citizens who wished to contribute to public debate on the PATRIOT Act. This case became known as [[Doe v. Gonzales]]. In May 2006, the government finally gave up its legal battle to maintain the gag order. In a summary of the actions of the Connecticut Four and their challenge to the USA PATRIOT Act, Jones (2009: 223) notes: "Librarians need to understand their country's legal balance between the protection of freedom of expression and the protection of national security. Many librarians believe that the interests of national security, important as they are, have become an excuse for chilling the freedom to read."<ref>Jones, Barbara M. 2009. "Librarians Shushed No More: The USA Patriot Act, the 'Connecticut Four,' and Professional Ethics." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom 58, no. 6: 195, 221–223.</ref> | In 2005, Library Connection, a nonprofit consortium of 27 libraries in Connecticut, known as the [[Connecticut Four]] worked with the ACLU to lift a gag order for library records, challenging the government's power under Section 505 to silence four citizens who wished to contribute to public debate on the PATRIOT Act. This case became known as [[Doe v. Gonzales]]. In May 2006, the government finally gave up its legal battle to maintain the gag order. In a summary of the actions of the Connecticut Four and their challenge to the USA PATRIOT Act, Jones (2009: 223) notes: "Librarians need to understand their country's legal balance between the protection of freedom of expression and the protection of national security. Many librarians believe that the interests of national security, important as they are, have become an excuse for chilling the freedom to read."<ref>Jones, Barbara M. 2009. "Librarians Shushed No More: The USA Patriot Act, the 'Connecticut Four,' and Professional Ethics." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom 58, no. 6: 195, 221–223.</ref> | ||
Another controversial aspect of the USA PATRIOT Act is the immigration provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of any alien who the Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act.<ref name="Section412" /> Before the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, [[Anita Ramasastry]], an associate professor of law and a director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce, & Technology at the [[University of Washington School of Law]] in | Another controversial aspect of the USA PATRIOT Act is the immigration provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of any alien who the Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act.<ref name="Section412" /> Before the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, [[Anita Ramasastry]], an associate professor of law and a director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce, & Technology at the [[University of Washington School of Law]] in Seattle, Washington, accused the Act of depriving basic rights for immigrants to America, including legal permanent residents. She warned that "Indefinite detention upon secret evidence—which the USA PATRIOT Act allows—sounds more like [[Taliban]] justice than ours. Our claim that we are attempting to build an international coalition against terrorism will be severely undermined if we pass legislation allowing even citizens of our allies to be incarcerated without basic U.S. guarantees of fairness and justice."<ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011005_ramasastry.html|title=Indefinite detention based on suspicion: How The Patriot Act Will Disrupt Many Lawful Immigrants' Lives|date=October 5, 2001|first=Anita|last=Ramasastry|access-date=July 11, 2008|journal=[[FindLaw]]}}</ref> | ||
Many other parties have also been strongly critical of the provision. Russell Feingold, in a Senate floor statement, claimed that the provision "falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness [as it] continues to allow the Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://feingold.senate.gov/speeches/01/10/102501at.html|title=Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism Bill From The Senate Floor|date=October 25, 2001|first=Russell|last=Feingold|author-link=Russell Feingold|access-date=July 11, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080708112202/http://feingold.senate.gov/speeches/01/10/102501at.html|archive-date=July 8, 2008}}</ref> | Many other parties have also been strongly critical of the provision. Russell Feingold, in a Senate floor statement, claimed that the provision "falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness [as it] continues to allow the Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://feingold.senate.gov/speeches/01/10/102501at.html|title=Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism Bill From The Senate Floor|date=October 25, 2001|first=Russell|last=Feingold|author-link=Russell Feingold|access-date=July 11, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080708112202/http://feingold.senate.gov/speeches/01/10/102501at.html|archive-date=July 8, 2008}}</ref> | ||
The [[University of California]] passed a resolution condemning (among other things) the indefinite detention provisions of the Act,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/patriotact0704.pdf|title=Resolution Passed at the May 6, 2004 Special Meeting of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate|publisher=[[University of California]]|access-date=July 11, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625012841/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/patriotact0704.pdf|archive-date=June 25, 2008}}</ref> while the ACLU has accused the Act of giving the Attorney General "unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants ... Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17326res20030403.html|publisher=[[American Civil Liberties Union]]|title=Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act > Non surveillance provisions|date=April 3, 2003|access-date= July 11, 2008}}</ref> | The [[University of California]] passed a resolution condemning (among other things) the indefinite detention provisions of the Act,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/patriotact0704.pdf|title=Resolution Passed at the May 6, 2004 Special Meeting of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate|publisher=[[University of California]]|access-date=July 11, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625012841/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/patriotact0704.pdf|archive-date=June 25, 2008}}</ref> while the ACLU has accused the Act of giving the Attorney General "unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants ... Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17326res20030403.html|publisher=[[American Civil Liberties Union]]|title=Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act > Non surveillance provisions|date=April 3, 2003|access-date= July 11, 2008}}</ref> | ||