what is your candidate's position on the loss of civil liberties?

[rdfi-defi]

i think this is an imporant issue that does not get addressed enough in the debates. what is your understanding of the usa patriot act? did the candidate you support vote for or against the legislation? if your canidate was not in a position to vote is he/she on record either way?

[La_Serpiente]

1. The only person who voted against it in the Senate

was Feingold. Everyone else voted for it.

Dean feels that those who voted for it shouldn't be blamed because it was a very difficult time.

There is also a sunset clause in the law. It ends in the end of 2005.

[rdfi-defi]

3. section 224 is the "sunset" clause in the patriot act

unlike the us sedition act of 1917 which was amended during the korean war to remain in effect "untill six months after the termination of the national emergency proclaimed by president truman dec. 16, 1950." unfortunately the emergency is not yet been terminated, and the korean war was never declared over. my point is that these laws have a strange way of sticking around longer than they were intended. i hope the sunset in the patriot act takes effect but ashcroft and the administration have already attempted to bypass that. i don't know if they have been sucessfull yet. with patriot 2/victory act in the works i hope this is one issue dems can unite on.

[genius]

5. Dean wanted to get rid of them too. See this site.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html

[genius]

2. Dennis was the only candiate who voted against it.

I'm really proud of him.

[w4rma]

4. Dean campaign: Sign the Petition to Stop Ashcroft

John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration want to erode the civil rights and freedoms that are vital to the American ideal. They are advocating laws that break down the trust between communities, and using fear and inflammatory rhetoric to divide us.

On August 19th, John Ashcroft begins a national tour promoting an extension of the USA PATRIOT Act. We need your help to make a strong statement to stop John Ashcroft from doing more damage to the bill of rights.

As Americans, we have a long standing tradition of defending not only our own liberties and civil rights, but also standing up for equal rights for all.

Show America the depth of our commitment to basic civil rights: add your name to the Stop Ashcroft petition, and pass it on to your friends, family, and co-workers. We will deliver your names and your comments to the Attorney General.

To John Ashcroft:

Stop compromising our freedoms. Stop eroding our basic civil rights. Stop trying to teach our neighbors to spy on each other, and American communities to mistrust each other.

I will not stand for your using fear to threaten what it means to be an American.

The rule of law and due process are at the heart of the American tradition. There is no contradiction between protecting the country from terrorism and ensuring the protection of our basic civil liberties every step of the way.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=stopashcroft&JServSessionIdr002=egzno4osu1.app193a

[genius]

6. Isn't that kind of hypocritical, given this

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html

[rdfi-defi]

7. thanks genius

but in all fairness dean was not quoted in that article as saying he was for or against. he said he was for a debate on the issue, i would like to think dean would have defended the bill of rights with more resolve in his quote but he did not do that either. is there a more definitive stance to be found for dean since he did not have to vote on the legislation.

[w4rma]

8. Nope. Not hypocritical even one tiny bit.

Everybody went crazy in 2001. 99 out of 100 U.S. Senators voted for the blasted bill. I am glad to see Democrats regaining the use of their minds since then.

[jamesinca]

11. He said the civil liberties need to be re-evaluated

Like having your luggage searched at the airport. The Bill of Rights he said he had not thought it out that far yet. That is not a yes or a no answer. Like showing some ID before boarding public trasportation. To get into a teacher credential program and to later get a RN license I had to be finger printed. Maybe all citizens of the country should be required to be finger printed. He seemed vague at best in his response. It also seems that he was calling for an evaluation of the security of the nation. What we have under Bush is not secure and maybe that is waht needed to be reevaluated or as he said discussed/ debated.

[rdfi-defi]

9. thanks w4rma

that petition is a good idea, i'm not sure i know were dean stands on the legislation. keep it, get rid of it, let the sunset take effect on dec. 31 2004? that petition just calls on ashcroft to stop what he is doing. it does not address what action to take regaurding the law that is already on the books.

[w4rma]

10. Gov. Dean: “Fighting terrorism does not mean compromising our freedoms”

As President, I will devote myself to protecting Americans from terrorism. I will improve the preparedness of our first responders; dedicate more resources to defending seaports, airports, and land borders; take significant steps to improve industry and infrastructure security, especially hazardous sites like chemical plants; and improve our intelligence gathering and sharing capabilities. I will work to shore up relationships damaged by this Administration’s arrogant foreign policy, because collaboration and intelligence sharing with other nations is critical to preventing terror attacks. I will also focus attention on the root causes of terror abroad.

But as we fight the war on terror, we must be vigilant in protecting civil rights and liberties. The rule of law and due process must continue to be the hallmarks of our judicial system. There is no contradiction between protecting the country from terrorism and ensuring the protection of our basic civil liberties every step of the way.

This Administration has unnecessarily compromised our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have adopted a series of anti-terror tactics that erode the rights of average Americans and cannot be justified on national security grounds. Reports of the Department of Justice Inspector General and numerous watchdog groups document a troubling pattern of hostility to civil rights and liberties since September 11.

Sometimes public outcry has thwarted these tactics, such as when the Justice Department proposed a program to reward Americans for spying on their neighbors. But dissent has been stifled by an Attorney General who told Congress that opposition to his policies give “ammunition to America’s enemies” and by an Administration that goes to great lengths to avoid the scrutiny of Congress and the public.

While the Administration’s overzealousness diminishes the rights of all Americans, it has taken its greatest toll on communities whose cooperation we need in the fight against terror. Policies that single out immigrants for special registration procedures and coercive interviews amount to ethnic and religious profiling. These tactics antagonize minority communities without enhancing security. The detention of thousands in secretive federal custody for weeks and months, sometimes without formal charges, is also unacceptable. And recently the Justice Department’s Inspector General identified credible allegations that detainees have suffered physical abuse in custody.

Other anti-terror tactics are similarly offensive. There is no justification for the Bureau of Prisons to monitor communications between prisoners and their lawyers without a court order, a policy that undermines the attorney-client privilege. The FBI should not be authorized to spy on religious and political organizations and individuals without evidence of wrongdoing. Military tribunals that fail to protect the basic rights of the accused lessen our moral credibility in the eyes of the world. And labeling American citizens as “enemy combatants” to hold them indefinitely in military custody without access to counsel and the courts offends everything our nation stands for.

I am also deeply troubled by some provisions in the USA Patriot Act, which was enacted in the wake of 9/11 without meaningful debate. The Act gives overly broad investigative and surveillance powers to the government and strips federal courts of their traditional authority to curb abuses of power by the executive branch. Many of the Act’s provisions have little or nothing to do with combating terrorism; in fact some had been previously rejected by Congress. But the Ashcroft Justice Department took advantage of the climate of fear following the attacks to make fundamental changes in law enforcement procedures. I am concerned that this Act:

• allows law enforcement agents to obtain information about an individual from a library, bookstore, bank, telephone company, credit card company, hotel, hospital or university without individualized suspicion and without meaningful judicial review;
• expands the use of “sneak and peak” searches, even in non-terror cases;
• allows the police to collect information about an individual’s internet use without a showing of probable cause;
• allows the government to conduct wiretaps in criminal cases using the looser rules intended for intelligence investigations;
• authorizes the Attorney General to detain immigrants based on a mere certification that there are "reasonable grounds to believe" the immigrant endangers national security.

Now the Attorney General is seeking to supplement the Patriot Act with Patriot Act II, included in the Administration’s so-called “Victory Act” proposal. Rather than expanding the Patriot Act, we should reconsider the wisdom of the original bill.

The September 11 terrorists sought to disrupt the American way of life, including our constitutional freedoms. They must not succeed. As President, I will lead the war on terror in a way that protects civil rights and civil liberties while protecting our safety. I will ensure that the United States is not merely a military or economic leader in world affairs, but a moral leader as well.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_patriotact

[hippywife]

12. Dennis not only voted against it

but is actively working in Congress to remove it's teeth. Upon election as President, he will have it repealed:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0925-09.htm

[sandnsea]

13. Well let's add a little wrinkle

Please explain your candidates position on the Patriot Act AND their plans to fight terrorism within this country, whether homegrown or international. What portions of the Patriot Act do they think must be maintained in order to fight terrorism?

(BFEE, MIHOP and other conspiracy answers are not acceptable for the purposes of this post.)

[w4rma]

14. Dean: Misplaced Priorities Have Our Nation Vulnerable

Governor Howard Dean, MD
The Arizona Republic
September 6, 2003
After the horrific attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 awoke America to the danger of terrorism, making Americans more secure should have been our nation's top priority.

Instead, after some initially positive steps, the Bush administration abandoned the war on terror for other misplaced priorities. It chose a domestic agenda of tax cuts for a few wealthy Americans and a foreign policy focused solely on Iraq. Almost two years later, the president has turned the largest budget surplus in history into the largest budget deficit, and much of the work necessary to protect us from the threat posed by terrorists remains undone. As a result, all Americans, at home and abroad, are less secure today - economically, politically and strategically.

The president's focus on passing reckless tax cuts and the resulting budget shortfall have left the United States without the resources to adequately protect against possible terrorist strikes and unprepared to deal with the aftermath of an attack. The critical requirements of our first line of defense - police, firefighters and hospital emergency workers - have become unfunded budget mandates imposed upon local and state governments.

There are no mandatory security standards at the 123 chemical facilities in the United States, any one of which could, if attacked, put up to a million people at risk. Just last week, a Wall Street Journal report confirmed that our airports remain dangerously - and unacceptably - vulnerable. Two years after the CIA failed to tell the FBI about terrorists on their watch list, nine agencies maintain 12 lists of suspected terrorists containing overlapping but not identical data. We still are inspecting only a tiny fraction of the containers that enter the United States by sea, rail or road - any one of which could contain materials to kill millions. And hundreds of tons of Russian nuclear material, chemical agents and biological pathogens remain unsecured. Addressing most of these priorities is a simple matter of resources - yet resources are not available due to today's budget crisis.

Worse, what little the Bush administration has done domestically to try to make us safer, it has done poorly. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security has triggered a bureaucratic turf war, drawing resources and attention away from the real war on terror. The color-coded national threat advisory system has needlessly scared the public and failed to provide any useful information. No one knows what to do when the administration changes the color from yellow to orange. The administration's mistreatment and religious and ethnic profiling of Arabs and Muslims has unnecessarily alienated groups whose assistance we vitally need to win this war.

They don't just go away

On the international front, Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mohammed Omar remain at large. Far from being destroyed, terrorist network al-Qaida has dispersed and been reconstituted - with Osama bin Laden reported to have convened a terrorist summit in the Afghan mountains just last April. The Taliban is again on the move, threatening the safety and security of whole swaths of Afghanistan.

North Korea, a known weapons proliferator, is threatening to test a nuclear bomb - the Hermit Kingdom is in such dire financial straits that selling nuclear materials is a chillingly real possibility. Progress in completing the Israel-Palestinian "road map to peace" has come to a full stop, fueling the skepticism toward the United States that much of the Middle East now exhibits. The lack of planning for the stabilization and rebuilding of Iraq has led to a significantly more dangerous situation than existed before the war by creating a magnet for terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, seeking to kill Americans. Furthermore, the way the administration has arrogantly carried out the war in Iraq has alienated the friends and allies whose cooperation is integral to our success in combating terrorism, not only in Iraq, but everywhere around the world.

It is unfortunate that the issue of America's security has ever made its way into the political realm. Bipartisan statesmen and panels of experts who have examined the issue - from Warren Rudman to George Schultz to William Perry - overwhelmingly agree on what needs to be done to respond to the security threats facing our country. This clear consensus should have led to bipartisan agreement, resulting in swift passage of initiatives to make all Americans safer. Instead, lacking the will to abandon their reckless tax cuts to fund these necessary measures, the president and Republicans in Congress have questioned the patriotism of those who have challenged their policies - whether on Iraq, North Korea or other critical issues.

Before it is too late, we must take the steps that most agree will make us truly safer. This will require forcefully challenging terrorism in a united effort with other nations, improving domestic security and enlisting Arab and Muslim countries' support for the war on terror.

We're not in this alone

To win the war on terror, we must be prepared to use the iron fist of our superb military. These efforts must be aggressive and make better use of special-operations forces and CIA operatives. All aspects of U.S. power need to be more effectively employed and coordinated in a joint effort with other nations. To accomplish this, we must stop conducting a foreign policy based on petulance and stop browbeating and berating our friends and allies. Such playground politics only alienates other nations and weakens our national security - with no apparent upside.

In the past, other countries have followed our lead because they respected us. It is vital that we repair these damaged relations and regain the respect of the world. We cannot win the war on terror on our own. We will be more effective and carry less of the burden if others join us in this effort.

To defeat terrorism, we need to work vigorously to defend America at home. We must improve U.S. intelligence and step up counterterrorism collaboration. We need to systematically assess threats and vulnerabilities and fix the greatest gaps in our defenses first - safeguarding chemical facilities against attack, protecting our ports by inspecting more ships, and improving how information is shared across all federal agencies and all levels of government so that everyone can work in tandem to prevent attacks and respond effectively if they occur.

Security begins at home

We must give the nation's first defenders and responders the resources and training they need; improve communication systems; and clarify the appropriate roles for federal, state and local government. We should also make homeland security a core mission of the National Guard. And we must fund homeland security research and development, including safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals, innovative approaches to container security and better controls over nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological materials here and abroad.

We must also enlist support in the Arab and Muslim world. The United States must mount an aggressive campaign to win the hearts and minds of those less fortunate and more susceptible to being won over by terrorists' fraudulent promises.

Too many politicians think in terms of two- or four-year cycles, and we need to fundamentally change the way we approach the task. To do so, we must go beyond superficial statements declaring, "We are not against Islam." We must think and act more broadly to address the real economic and social contradictions that plague Arab and Muslim countries with a long-term plan that encourages economic reform and promotes democracy, tolerance, human rights and equal opportunity for women. We must work with our friends and allies around the world to give the people a reason to hope rather than despair.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_homelandsecurity_oped

[sandnsea]

15. Says nothing about Patriot Act

And the speech by Dean above says nothing about what parts of the Patriot Act need to be maintained. I was looking for something a little more specific. I understand Dean's position to be wrapped up in the last sentence or so of that other speech, meaning he'll keep much of the Patriot Act in place:

"As President, I will lead the war on terror in a way that protects civil rights and civil liberties while protecting our safety.:

[w4rma]

17. That's because I posted his policy on the Patriot Act in posts #4 and #10.

Is it too much trouble for you to scroll up the page?

[redqueen]

18. Except,

Post 4 just says "stop Ashcroft" and links to sign a petition to tell Ashcroft what you think is wrong with the Patriot Act.

That's not really anywhere close to saying what he'd do about it.

And post 10 just says he thinks parts are troubling. So what? He sends it to a committee in a Republican congress and it sits there being debated?

Are real plans too much to ask for?

[w4rma]

19. "And post 10 just says he thinks parts are troubling" which addresses

sandnsea's complaints about "looking for something a little more specific".

[redqueen]

20. Maybe so...

To me, something specific means more than saying something is troubling.

[sandnsea]

22. So basically

He takes a basic position similar to the other candidates, except Kucinich and Sharpton. Would that be accurate? Basically, he believes the Patriot Act is necessary to fight terrorism, is that right?

[redqueen]

16. I think most of them have said:

"We'll have to re-evaluate that nasty Patriot Act" or "I think parts of it need reviewing"

I hate talk like that. I don't want vague promises of thinking about doing something. We had the tools to fight terror on 9/11. They weren't used properly, so we got hurt. We may need to add a few things here or there, but overall the system works.

The powers granted in this Act were issues years before, always rejected. Now all we can do is 're-evaluate' it? Please.

[sandnsea]

21. See Post #13

Those questions were actually directed more towards Kucinich supporters.

[rdfi-defi]

23. i understand your ? sandnsea but

i can not give you a kucinich platform anwser on this one.

my own personal feeling on the matter is that we need to know what happened on 911 first. were the safe gaurds in place used effectively to protect the people? with the white house blocking investigations right and left we can't anwser this question or any of the other questions that have arisen. such as why there was no timely respone by norad to the hijackings.

the second thing is the haste in which the pat. act was passed. it was a very difficult time as serpintine said. some legislators were under the gun and voted yes without reading the final draft of the darn thing.

in my opinion we need to get a public record that can awnser the important questions. then repeal the whole pat. act. pass sensible legislation that will plug honest holes in the defense strategy.

if an error is made on the side of liberty we can adjust. if an error is made on the side of "use the iron fist of our superb military" it may be tuff to go back.

i am glad kucinich stood against the pat. act and i like his stance on repeal.

**any kerry, clark, edwards, gep, sharpton, braun, leiberman supporters want to weigh in?