Victim of the Patriot Act

[Betsy Ross]

Please see http://verican.info/asun/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1139&Itemid=10 for the story of a local artist who is now a "Person of Interest" whose Constitutional protections have been stripped by the DHS under the Patriot Act for displaying his work in his front yard.



Below is an email I received with his current status:

***********************************************

He is now a “person of interest” to the government.

They will either continue to investigate him, bump it up to a higher level (possibly arresting him), or drop it. However, if that happens, they won’t let him know! This will be decided by the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco. He does have a lawyer who is assisting him, who was present for part of the interview. He is not a constitutional lawyer, and a lawyer in SF who specializes in freedom of artistic expression has offered to help. So far, his lawyer can get no further information from the government.

He asks that anyone who wants to support him or make a statement contribute to the slowly building installation of signs and flowers and candles in his front yard. 836 Central. He has now taken down the installation, replaced by signs.

Write letters to the editors of local papers. Put a sign in his yard. Don’t be anonymous, sign your name!

When they first went to his house, he was not at home, so they interviewed his immediate neighbors! When his lawyer told them he had the right not to speak to them, they invoked the Patriot Act. When they produced the document for him to sign giving them the right to investigate his past, they told him it didn’t matter if he signed or not, that under the Patriot Act, they could get all the information they needed and access all his records. That as a “person of interest” he was no longer covered by the First Amendment but by the Patriot Act! It was suggested he “not go anywhere” without informing them. They photographed his house, property, cars and, of course, him. He was also told no search warrant would be needed under the Patriot Act, although they did not search his house or computer.

I find it most appalling that 3 citizens of Alameda (not his immediate neighbors) reported him to the Secret Service, and that organization would waste time and money on some (relatively) obscure artist on a small obscure island in the Bay Area with a cardboard cutout of the President in his front yard! As Michael says, this is how far it has gotten already!

[Cabcere]

1. Nineteen eighty-four. n/t

[CrazyOrangeCat]

2. kick

[The Doctor.]

3. Weren't we told that The patriot Act was only meant

to stop terrorists?

Who could have possibly imagined that this administration might use it against low-key artists? :eyes:

[aikoaiko]

4. hardly a victim.

The SS came to talk to him to ascertain whether he was a legitimate threat. They "suggested" he take it down. That's it.

This is not being victimized.

What am I missing? :shrug:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

5. Well, that's awfully provocative art. BUT, he should NOT lose his rights,...

,...as a citizen. The 'unPatriot Act' seems to be far more aggressively applied to those who are painfully expressive about their rebuke of Bush's policies than to those who are even more persistent and disgustingly hateful against fellow Americans (eg Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage, Phelps, fox bsnews, etc.).

Geez,...the right-wing promotes hate against someone like me and you all the time and the 'unPatriot Act' isn't applied to their anti-Americanism.

This individual expressed his hatred towards one person. I dunno'. That artwork is awfully provocative, though. I think it's inappropriate expression but so is the persistent right-wing machine. There have to be limits on this 'freedom' just like we place limits on any particularly negative human behavior.

Okay. So, I focused on the particular behavior of that individual. That individual is still entitled, as a citizen, to the full protections of our laws. The 'unPatriot Act' is a piece of tyranny having no place in our country.