DoJ: Why they backpedaled on the Patriot Act

DoJ and Patriot Act: Propaganda to intimidate the Media

DoJ attorneys prove they are unreliable, putting their own political interests before that of the constitution. They remain an ever present danger to the rights of individual citizens. Beware! Do not trust anyone from DoJ. They lie all the time.

Last time a court ruled portions of the Patriot Act unconstitutional, DoJ slept.Ref: Lawyers must be given access to clients.

Also, the court found parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. Secret searches are now unconstitutional. Ref

Small problem for the DoJ and the RPC lobbying for the Patriot Act. They had essentially said that "anything" that watered down the Patriot Act would put Americans at risk. Ref.

Federal laws contrary to the Constitution. How did they come up with this kind of bullshit? Look at this connections: HAN member Steven Duffield (LSC 98) is Senate Republican Policy Committee Judiciary Policy Analyst and Counsel.

Indeed, the court clearly found provisions of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. Yet, let's look at what Wry said,

I strongly oppose this and any other measure that will hamstring our front-line agents and prosecutors in the war on terrorism.

In other words, Wry says he opposes anything that will prevent the Patriot Act from going forard, even the constitution or the courts. It remains unclear what Wry is actually opposing: The courts or the constititution when both are shields to the individuals rights.

Yet, this is simply an admission that DoJ, in fact, puts the constitution, individual rights, and the courts after the power of DoJ.

What to do when the third branch of government steps in and says, "Can't do that." Does the RPC and DoJ stick with the original line that, "Anything that waters down the Un-Patriot Act" is dangerous?

No! They change the discussion from the Patriot Act and the courts ruling against that Act, to something else. Otherwise, they're effectively saying, "Because the court ruled against the patriot Act, the courts are promoting violence." Naughty, naughty RPC and DoJ.

Brilliant. For three years, the country has known this. Suddenly take courts decide to "get with it."

What's DoJ to do?

Not one to sit idly by while their empire falls apart, they called up the media and started the spin.

"Au contraire," DOJ whines. "We were just providing clarification."

No you weren't. Media outlets had already freely reported the facts: That the court dealt a blow to DoJ.

DoJ then simply got on the phone, and the media responded with retractions.

What was once a retraction is something else; what was once an unconstitutional act is now simply a misunderstanding.

The facts are clear. DoJ has been dealt a blow. The Patriot Act is not "all constitutional" and courts have found parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional.

Who cares? Well, it was the DoJ US Attorney in Philadelphia who drafted the "Myths" about the Patriot Act, available on Sierra Times. All 14 pages are here.

The Myth is: DoJ clings to myths, and the sierra-times comments are know known for what they are: Misleading, propagandistic.

The easiest way you can issue a rebuke to DoJ is vote for John Kerry. Fire Bush and Ashcroft and lets' have the country return to the constitution, not the rule of lawlessness.

What's the big stink? Well, the fascists in the government said "anything that undermines the Patriot Act" will cause deaths.

Wray effectively argues the only way to prevent acts of terrorism is to undermine the constitutional protections.

Assistant Attorney General Wray: “Anything that weakens the Patriot Act will seriously undermine our ability to prevent future acts of terrorism. One troubling proposal to do so is the Otter Amendment, recently passed by the House, which seeks to impair our use of delayed notice warrants. Under that amendment, terrorists may learn of our investigations before we can learn enough to identify and disrupt their plots. Premature notification of a search warrant can result in the intimidation of witnesses, physical injury — even death — destruction of evidence, and flight from prosecution. … I strongly oppose this and any other measure that will hamstring our front- line agents and prosecutors in the war on terrorism.” Ref

In short, because the court ruled against the Patriot Act, the RPC have a problem: They have said that anything that undermines the Act could result in death; or that the Court's adverse ruling is a threat to others.

Wow! No wonder they're trying to change the focus from whether the "Patriot Act" got struck down, to a prior statute.

In fact, the Patriot Act did get struck down, in part, suggesting that the overly broad statement about "anything that undermines the Patriot Act" creates conditions that could cause death. Is this essentially an incitement to violence in response to the court ruling; or that "by putting the Bill of Rights first" the country is not safe? That's very impressive, RPC and DoJ.

So, now that the courts have dealt a second fatal blow to the Patriot Act and DoJ, what will DoJ do now to explain away this press release essentially saying "anything DoJ wants to do is legal" regardless the findings that people must have access to lawyers; and that no secret searches are allowable. Again, on both counts, DoJ shows itself to be overbearing, arrogant, and dmissmisive of valid questions from the reporters.

It is time for a follow-up on the Questions now that we've had two major blows to the DoJ propaganda-machine.

Infinite detentions were found unlawful, and DoJ violated these polices in re Hamdi.

The number of detentions were high relative to the intelligence gleaned; this misconduct at both Guantanamo and Iraq shows how out of control Doj is.

The court found that secret searches were illegal, clearly showing that these illegal-searches were going on.

DoJ consistently put the interests of DoJ before the Constitution.

Time and again DoJ's actions have been OVERRULED as unconstitutional.

The intelligence value of tortured people is low, thereby raising serious questions about the merits of continuing to hold people in Guantanamo.

Hamdi's final disposition [no charges] shows that all DoJ-statements in re Hamdi, or statements using Hamdi as a "test case to show the prudence of DoJ-actions" are without merit.

DoJ has shown itself to be out of control, incapable of indepdenent self-oversight, and unwilling to submit to the Constitution but for court orders.

The oversight by the worthless Senate Judiciary Committee that does nothing about threats made against Sibel Edmonds raises serious doubts about whether DoJ has any credible oversight or consequences for failing to ensures its conduct is consistent with the constitution.

There is no merit to DoJ's contention that "the fruits of secret searches" were never used. The Army used the data obtained from such a search. Ref.

Links

Blog

ACLU public statement on the courts rebuke against DoJ.

Sample news article which DoJ called the Editors about.

Sample correction: How many corrections has DoJ ordered?

"Correction to This Article
A Sept. 30 article said that a federal judge in New York found a key component of the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional. At issue in the case was the Justice Department's use of "national security letters," a type of administrative subpoena that allows federal agents to demand records from businesses and prohibits the companies from revealing that the demands were made. While the Patriot Act loosened restrictions on the use of the letters, most of U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero's ruling focused on earlier statutes governing the letters. Ref

One method DoJ used was to "shift attention" from the Patriot Act to other issues. Notice the following correct in the NYT also alludes to a non-Patriot Act as the "basis" for the court's focus--the "correction" attempts to imply that the Patriot Act, itself, "has no problems."

An article yesterday about a judge's ruling to invalidate some federal surveillance powers referred incorrectly to a subpoena statute that was struck down. While the statute - authorizing the use of subpoenas known as national security letters - was amended by the antiterrorism legislation called the USA Patriot Act, it was not created under that act. It was enacted in 1986 and amended several times, including once in October 2001 under the Patriot Act, to expand its application. The judge's ruling analyzed and struck down the statute as a whole, including provisions that predated the Patriot Act.Ref

Actually, the Court struck down the Unconstitutional DoJ conduct and portions of the Patriot Act.

Some would not characterize the ruling so frivolously:

But the ACLU argues that Marrero's ruling is a warning to the government about some of its tactics in the war on terrorism. "This is a wholesale refutation of the administration's use of excessive secrecy and unbridled power under the Patriot Act," said Ann Beeson, an ACLU lawyer. "It's a very major ruling, in our opinion." Ref

[From: Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional, Internet Providers' Data at Issue. By Dan Eggen. Washington Post Staff Writer. Thursday, September 30, 2004; Page A16]

E-mail: Spinning not just by DoJ but also the RNC-Senators

In an e-mail message sent yesterday to Senate leaders and their staffers, a Senate Republican Policy Committee analyst claimed that news reports that the ruling had invalidated a Patriot Action provision were "false." The analyst, Steven J. Duffield, said that because the court's ruling also struck down the underlying 1986 law that the Patriot Act amended, the decision should not be viewed as a blow to the Patriot Act, as reported by many national newspapers. Ref

Mr. Steven Duffield
Judiciary Policy Analyst/Counsel
Senate Republican Policy Committee
347 Russell Senate Office Building
Ph: 202-224-3463
Fax: 202-224-1235
Email: Steven_Duffield@rpc.senate.gov


Version 2: The Independent

Gerogetown, class of 92. duffsjd@aol.com

Steven J. Duffield
Independent
1209 East 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
United States
773-643-3435

Amazon Reviews.

Law Review: In Chicago

Steven Duffield, LSC '98 alum, reminded applicants not to forget state clerkshipsas “state court remains the repository for our beloved common law.” Clerking on the Alaska Supreme Court for Justice Robert L. Eastaugh gives him the “opportunity to helpthe justices refine and protect that common law.” He finds that “state constitutions areoften more protective of individual liberty than the federal Constitution, which means the law develops in keeping with the state’s unique culture: federalism at its simplest.”

Version 3: Texas

Ref: Mayer, Brown & Platt

Charles Kelley, William Knull, James Tancula, Terry Kernell, Terri Griffiths, Steven J. Duffield, Wendy Bera, Deborah Levy, Jake Palumbo, Timothy Tyler, Jennifer Mott, Hutson Smelley, Diana Davis, and Noah Rubins, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Houston (appointed counsel for Deryl Madison, federal habeas, Texas); March 2001.

Ref: HOuston reference. Names.