|
|
       
  Ten Commandments Texas Rally |
|
|
|
Utah Republicans urged to trash the Patriot Act
August 20, 2003 The Associated Press reported yesterday that Al Gore has said that the Patriot Act “allows President Bush to ‘send his assistants into every public library in America and secretly monitor what the rest of us are reading.’ The (Patriot Act, or the 107th Congress’ HR 3162, ) which passed the House of Representatives on October 24, 2001 by a bi-partisan vote of 357 to 66, was designed to protect Americans from another terrorist attack like the one of September 11, 2001. The Patriot Act passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 with a vote 98-1. Senator Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin, cast the lone opposing vote in the Senate. Of the 66 opposing votes cast in the House, three were Republicans, one was Sanders of Vermont, an independent socialist, and the rest were mostly members of the House Progressive Caucus, which began as a wing of the Democratic Socialists of America, an affiliate of the Socialist International. How did this bill become so controversial after being adopted with such overwhelming support from both Democrats and Republicans six weeks after 9-11? The purpose of the bill is “To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools” become such a controversial issue a year later? It wasn’t hard. Its major opponents in their quest to weaken the new investigatory tools find the best way to do it is to make totally inaccurate statements, like the one sent to me as a delegate to the State Republican Convention next Saturday It urges me to vote for the repeal of “unconstitutional provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act and related Executive orders.” So, who exactly is it saying the Act is “unconstitutional?” Is it the U.S. Supreme Court that is the only body that actually has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional? Well, no. Actually, the author of the resolution isn’t named. But, the Resolution does tell me that the Patriot Act violated the “civil rights” of Mike Hawash, an Intel software engineer and a United States citizen, who “was arrested by the FBI without a warrant, was held for five weeks without charges filed against him, and was unable to communicate with others because of a court seal or ‘gag order.’” Obviously, the appeal here is for me to become enraged that poor Mike was so mistreated. But, actually, was he? The resolution cites several provisions, 206, 207, 213 and 215, of the Patriot Act, as violations of one’s constitutional rights. Since I am in the midst of writing a book on the Constitution, I checked out what those sections said. The bill actually merely tightened up existing law. For example, Section 206 amends the “Roving Surveillance Authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978” as follows: Section 105(c)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2)(B) is amended by inserting `, or in circumstances where the Court finds that the actions of the target of the application may have the effect of thwarting the identification of a specified person, such other persons,' after `specified person'. Note it says, “Where the COURT FINDS.” Hysterical claims that the Patriot Act allows the FBI to run amuck is hogwash. The other provisions, which I am sure not one in a million readers has looked up, are also inaccurately quoted or paraphrased. The resolution Utah Republicans will vote on Saturday states, in part: Whereas, for a recent example of a violation of civil rights, on March 20, 2003, Mike Hawash, an Intel software engineer and a United States citizen, was arrested by the FBI without a warrant, was held for five weeks without charges filed against him and was unable to communicate with others because of a court seal or “gag order.” So, who IS Mike Hawash and what was FBI concerned about? Some book he read, perhaps? Mike Hawash is really Maher Mofeid Hawash, who was born in Nablus on the West Bank. One supporter who urged support for Hawash’s release wrote: “Mike Hawash is one of us. He is an American who just happens to be Muslim and of Middle Eastern descent. The authorities have in no way proved that Mr. Hawash has committed any crime or that he is a flight risk. They have, by all appearances, simply snatched him up and put him in jail.” I hate to be picky, but the police don’t have to “prove” that Hawash committed a crime to detain him. They only have to show he appears to have committed a crime. Whether there is sufficient evidence to charge him with a crime and later convict him is decided, believe it or not, in a court in front of a judge and jury, not by the police, by his neighbors, co-workers or the media. So, what did the FBI come up with as evidence suggesting that Hawash committed a crime? Actually, the FBI submitted a 41 page affidavit to a court of law which, after hearing the evidence, issued a criminal complaint and an arrest warrant charging Maher Mofeid Hawash with: Conspiracy to Levy War Against the United States, Conspiracy to Provide Material Support and Resources to Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Conspiracy to Contribute Services to Al-Qaid and the Taliban. Hawash has pleaded guilty to one of the three charges. The charge he pleaded guilty to was flying to China in October 2001 with several other Muslim men to try to get into Afghanistan through Pakistan in order “to assist the Taliban in fighting against the armed forces of the United States of America.” On August 6, 2003 Hawash pleaded guilty to the charge of joining “a group of individuals who planned to travel from Portland, Oregon, to Afghanistan to assist the Taliban in fighting against the armed forces of the United States of America.” Did Hawash break the law? He did. Were Hawash’s “civil rights” violated? They were not. Should Utah Republicans now demand repeal of the Patriot law that enabled the FBI to arrest Hawash before he had the chance to kill Americans? They should not. He’s lucky he didn’t try that back in 1780 when George Washington was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Army and Benedict Arnold went over to the enemy. He might have found himself facing a firing squad. Mary Mostert is a nationally-respected political writer. She was one of the first female political commentators to be published in a major metropolitan newspaper in the 1960s. After working in President Lyndon Johnson's failed War on Poverty programs in New York state, she became a Republican. She ran, unsuccessfully, for the New York State Senate and became campaign manager for a number of candidates. She once served as the secretary of "Positive Action NOW!"--a South African women's group that sought to reduce the hostility among South Africa's various racial, religious, and political groups. In recent years, Mary has researched, written, and edited articles for national talk show host Michael Reagan's Information Interchange on the Internet, and for The REAGAN MONITOR, a monthly newsletter that provides in-depth information on key issues. Her book, COMING HOME - Families Can Stop the Unraveling of America," was published in 1996 by Gold Leaf Press. Mary maintains a political media site, Banner of Liberty. She can be contacted at mary@bannerofliberty.com. Click here for more information. © Copyright 2003 by Mary Mostert http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/030820 Recent columns by Mary Mostert:
 Print this document
|
|
|
 
     
  From NewsMax:   |
|
|
|
