The Current Online

by Farhan Zahid

A proposed measure to narrow the far-reaching powers of government surveillance and law enforcement enacted by 2001′s PATRIOT Act, the Security and Freedom Enhanced (SAFE) Act, bill S. 1709, was introduced in the U.S. Senate and House last month. The SAFE Act would provide stronger standards for judicial review and oversight.

The PATRIOT Act was pushed through Congress by the Bush administration in a matter of days, with little debate and few dissenting votes in the wake of the Sep. 11 terrorist attacks. The PATRIOT Act permits the use of “sneak and peek” measures and delayed notification searches, in practically any criminal investigation. The deadline for notifying the subject of the search is indefinite. The bill was followed up with a plethora of similar executive orders, regulations and policies, such as establishing military commissions not adhering to due process norms and denying the right to a fair trial for citizens and non-citizens labeled “enemy combatants.” The Justice Department asserts that these extra measures are necessary to thwart terrorists before they strike.

The new bill has broad bi-partisan support. Sponsors in the senate include Democrats Russ Feingold (WI) and Ron Wyden (OR) and Republicans Larry Craig (ID) and John Sununu (NH). In the house, sponsors include Democrats Dennis Kucinich (OH) and Barney Frank (MA) and Republicans Butch Otter (ID) and Ron Paul (TX). Liberal and conservative organizations alike, sharing a mutual concern for civil liberties, are advocating the SAFE Act. This includes the American Conservative Union, American Civil Liberties Union, American Library Association and Gun Owners of America. Lara W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, says on the organization’s website that the strong bi-partisan support is indicative of the vast extent to which the Bush administration has strayed from our traditional system of checks and balances against overreaching government authority.

The SAFE Act would allow the “sneak and peek” authority to be used only in circumstances in which a federal judge rules that without the delayed notification, an individual’s physical safety will be endangered, someone will flee prosecution, or evidence faces destruction. The notification deadline would also be changed to seven days.

However, law enforcement would be able to seek indefinite extensions issued on a weekly basis by a federal judge. The proposed law also requires a semi-annual report to congress from the U.S. attorney general in regard to the status, permitted or denied, of delayed notification searches and extensions. Moreover, the SAFE Act has a provision that repeals its sneak and peek power in 2005, only to be reinstated if voted for in Congress.

Among the most controversial provisions in the PATRIOT Act is section 215, which grants the FBI permission to obtain Americans’ business, library, medical and genetic records without probable cause. Under the SAFE Act, the government must prove to a federal judge that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power to receive this privilege.

The house version of the bill goes further than its senate counterpart by replacing the PATRIOT Act’s broad and vague definition of “domestic terrorism,” which could cover some acts of civil disobedience by non-violent political protestors. The new definition associates domestic terrorism with serious violent crimes such as bombing, kidnapping and hijacking.

More than 200 cities, towns and counties in 34 states, including Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Oakland, Seattle, Detroit and Baltimore, with a combined population of around 26 million, have passed resolutions in opposition to the PATRIOT Act and declared themselves “civil liberties safe zones.” Local police are forbidden to engage in racial profiling, enforce immigration laws or participate in federal investigations that violate civil liberties. Dozens of state library associations have also passed-anti-PATRIOT-Act resolutions.

by Toni Leake

His head is shaven and dark hair has started growing back like a five o’clock shadow. He is wearing both a black leather jacket and a tough attitude. But his voice is so soft it is barely picked up by the tape recorder.

Paul Gorham is home on a brief leave from active duty in Baghdad. A security guard at Longview, Gorham’s reserve unit was called to active duty last spring. Before he left, Gorham told the Current that he was ready to go. Today, he is edgy and on guard. When asked if he feels his life is in danger in Baghdad, he responded, “If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be long for the world.”

Gorham’s life in Baghdad is both simple and complex. “[We] go out and drive around, do patrols-joint patrols with the local police, the Iraqi police. And hope we don’t get shot at or bombed,” he said.

“The possibility is always there. I’ve seen it happen to others. We’ve been shot at plenty of times. We’re just there to let the Iraqi police handle things; we’re just there for security support. Even [the Iraqi police] take a beating, too. It’s a bunch of chaos. We come home at the end of the day. That’s our one purpose in life-to go out and come home at the end of the day.

“We’ve run into things. I’ve been in a shoot-out. They’re not pretty; they’re not fun. I’ve had rocks thrown at me. You get flipped off a lot.

“You get waved at a lot, too. The majority of the people want us there. They’re glad to have us there. They know life is going to get better. It’s not the majority of the people-it’s that one guy. And that keeps you from being able to trust the majority of the people.

“People don’t understand what it’s like out there,” Gorham said. “It’s unbelievable. I’ve seen temperatures as high as 136 degrees, and that’s just the surface temperature. We’re sitting in a hot humvee, loaded down with body armor that’s an inch thick and Kevlar helmet. You have to drink water. If you don’t drink water, you’re not going to be living. And you can’t drink water at room temperature. It won’t bring your core body temperature down. The water has to be cold.”

The troops buy ice from local kids who sell it on street corner.

“You see the kids on the side of the road selling ice from big blocks about three feet by eight inches by eight inches in size. They’re out all day in the pounding hot sun. They work hard.

“They charge us twice what they charge the Iraqis. [The kids] charge us $2, the Iraqis pay $1.” Gorham stated, laughing. “But I appreciate the service.

“Ice is a commodity over there and its price goes up and down with demand. If the electricity goes out, you pay up to $4 for a little block,” he said.

Ice isn’t the only valuable commodity in Baghdad.

“Oil still makes the world go round. Fuel is a very large commodity,” stated Gorham, adding that a shortage of fuel exists in Baghdad.

“They’ll tie up one lane on a highway or road, dedicated to people waiting all day long in the hot summer sun waiting to get fuel [for their cars],” Gorham said.

There is not only a shortage of cold water and oil, but showers are at a premium as well.

“Baghdad is a filthy place, a lot of dust and pollution. The pollution is miserable in the heat. There is no hot water to take a shower with. I built a shower but it’s only cold water. I get hot water by putting cold water into a jug and letting it warm up in sun and pouring it on me.

“You can’t stay clean even after you take a shower. I keep bunches of baby wipes around. I can take one and wipe my face with it. Five minutes later, I’ll wipe my face again and the wipe will be completely brown.

“[For protection] I wear goggles a lot. I wear sunglasses a lot. Sometimes I wear both,” he said.

“When we get done for the day, we go to the compounds and stay there,” Paul continued, adding he and his friends have stopped eating at a favorite restaurant, for several reasons. It’s become dangerous since the troops are open targets for any snipers in the area. Local kids would approach their vehicles and become targets as well. Gorham said that children do not deter snipers from shooting at the troops.

“I’ve seen dead people, pretty gruesome. You never get used to it. Being shot at- you never get used to it. They say there are no cowards on the battlefield, but if you’re not scared, you’re lying. That’s a lie. Use fear as an ally to tell you things aren’t normal. You’re always on edge.

“When we get done for the day, we go to the compounds and stay there. We eat army chow, which is pretty tasteless. [The military] has hired Iraqi cooks that make kabobs, which are pretty good,” he said. When he and his comrades get tired of Iraqi kabobs and army food, they visit the hotel restaurant where the generals eat.

Entertainment had been non-existent except for a Drew Carey performance at a local hotel for the troops.

“He was hilarious,” Gorham said. “Someone fired a rocket into the hotel that night he stayed till about 3:30 a.m. in the morning. He’ll probably work it into his comedy routine. The rocket didn’t explode, but took a big chunk out of the wall.”

Direct contact with the Iraqi populace is limited. However, Gorham said that when the troops returned to the compound in the evening, they would see local kids motion with their hands to their mouths to show they were hungry.

“I always believe that if I’ve got more food than I need, then I share it,” Gorham said. “If I see families are struggling, I share.”

Gorham was stationed in Kosovo in 2002, but his experience in Baghdad is in sharp contrast to his experience in Kosovo.

“Kosovo was a cake-walk compared to Baghdad. Kosovo was a civil war, but Baghdad was a war where we actually invaded,” he said.

“We were [in Baghdad] for two weeks before we got attacked for the first time”- that’s when we realized it.” He stated that he feels the best plan for Iraq is “for all of us to come home.”

Gorham warns, though, “The war on terror-come on, let’s face it. There really is a war on terror. We got to do something to keep these guys on the run. As much as I hate to say it, we’re probably going to be in this a long time.”

Gorham feels differently now about the United Nations than he did last spring.

“I think that I would like to see the United Nations take a bigger role. I was against that when the war first started. It’s funny what experience will do. I’d like to see things settle down. The United Nations has a potential to be good [for Iraqi peace].”

United Nations involvement could be non-military, he suggested, such as donations of cars and food.

Gorham was not part of the detail that responded to the bombing of the United Nations Headquarters in August 2003.

“I was about a mile away, across the river, when we heard the explosions go off. We knew immediately something was wrong,” he said.

Gorham’s unit was initially assigned to handle riots, but the schedule was turned over to another unit who took over their equipment.

“If you ever been to a riot, you’re not anxious to go again,” he said. He said the replacement unit responded to recent riots and some of their men got hurt.

Gorham returned to Baghdad on Nov. 2, 2003. He is slated to return home on Dec. 25, 2003, but the dates are not definite. On his short leave here in Kansas City, he saw his family, which has expanded to include a new granddaughter, who he saw for the first time.

“She’s five months old and a complete angel,” Gorham said, smiling. “I’m going to spoil her when I get back. I told my wife I wish I knew grandchildren were so much fun. I’d have them first.”

Gorham confesses that he shaved his head for the first time before leaving Baghdad to return home. “My daughter saw me and said, “my mama was kissing another man in the hotel.” The nine-year-old recognizes him now, though.

Gorham has returned to Baghdad with visions of his wife, daughters and granddaughter-and Ogden’s Barbecue in Belton dancing in his mind. He’ll have to tuck those memories away when he begins patrolling the dangerous streets once again.

by Clayton Sedler

The Pipa/Knowledge Networks conducted a poll through the months of June and September. Choosing people randomly from a nationwide panel, they discovered that 48 percent of the people involved in the study were misinformed about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was linked to the September 11, attacks. These un-facts were Bush’s reasoning for invasion of a foreign country.

The Pipa poll found that the more information obtained from television news sources, the more likely it was for people to be misinformed about the war. The poll asked three main questions and found that: 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored our capital’s decision for invading Iraq; 22 percent thought that our troops found WMD in Iraq; 40 percent believed that our intelligence found close links between Iraq and al-Queda.

Bush has openly admitted that no links have been found between Baghdad and al-Queda, and thus far the so-called smoking gun has not revealed itself.

On Nov. 2, the U.S. military suffered its worst loss to date. On the outskirts of Fallujah, a Chinook helicopter was shot down by a rocket powered grenade, killing 15 of our sons and injuring many more of our soldiers. As of Nov. 6, 240 soldiers had sacrificed their lives to a war that was declared victorious some six months ago. This doesn’t include non-military casualties, such as reporters, journalists and Red Cross personnel. The absolute control over Iraq we were led to expect is a farce after the guerilla missile attack on the Chinook.

The clock upon the wall is chiming 13 and America’s darkest hour is at hand. While death, dismemberment and blood shed water the soil on the other side of the world, we are able to sit back comfortably and enjoy a safe and secure existence. As we go about our daily routines, it is easy to push away the thought of death and war because they are far away and unseen.

While we passively watched and trusted in our president, he declared war on a country that threatened us with weapons of mass destruction and ties with al-Queda, linking Iraq to the September 11 attacks. And now, with an average of one American soldier dying a day, we have made a choice.

We have made a choice to accept an act of murder and mayhem and the imprisonment of people of a certain creed. Why? Because we were probably misinformed about the facts.

The Pipa poll went on to say that two thirds of the people believing at least one of these un-facts supported Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq.

The in-depth study found that some 80 percent of Fox News viewers believed at least one of these un-facts questioned in the poll and 71 percent of CBS viewers were mistaken as to at least one of the three questions asked. NBC viewers answered incorrectly 55 percent and ABC fans were wrong 61 percent of the time.

If you are a supporter of the Iraq occupation and enjoy being force-fed garbage, and feel our men and women involved are giving their life for a just cause, and feel that the genocide of a certain group of people is a matter of population control – then disregard the facts and continue about your mindless routine.

You should feel as though your lover has scorned you and your father lied to you and feelings of hurt should turn to anger. You should want to raise your fist and shake it and protest in the streets. But it seems to me that your choice to swallow crap has been made evident. Maybe, once you have received a letter from the Draft Board, the realization of an unjust war will finally hit home.

by CLAYTON SEDLER

A swirling black cloud of controversy has formed around Pres. Bush and his war in Iraq, the reconstruction of Iraq, the faltering economy and rising prices at the gas pump. Many people are sickened by the current state of affairs and Bush’s abuse of his power. Anytime a topic related to Iraq or gas prices pops up on the news, most of us would rather change the channel or turn off the TV than be forced to swallow the garbage that Bush helped to create.

However, amidst the turmoil of chaotic events taking place, our vice president, Dick Cheney, has managed to remain in the cover of darkness amongst the shadows, sight unseen, as if he were an ancient ninja warrior of old Japan, working for the highest bidder.

Before his tenure as vice president, Cheney was C.E.O. of a company called Halliburton. Created some 84 years ago, Halliburton served as an oil well service. In 1962 it merged with Brown & Root, a Texas oil contracting company, and soon became a corporate conglomerate, with the help of Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson, whose political career they funded.

Prior to his five-year seat with Halliburton, Cheney was defense secretary for the previous Bush administration. In 1998, he pulled off one of the biggest business mergers of the century: Halliburton and its biggest competitor, Dresser Industries, forged the world’s largest oil company and the nation’s fifth largest military contractor.

With Cheney at the helm of Halliburton and his connection with the federal government, Halliburton dominated the gasoline market, raking in billions of dollars of revenue, according to the New York Times.

During his five year stint as C.E.O. of Halliburton, government-backed loans and contracts for the corporate mega-hound doubled, to $3.8 billion. Republican party contributions from Halliburton reached $1.2 million, as compared to the previous $534,750, before Cheney’s seat in the captain’s chair.

Because of Cheney, Guardian Unlimited online, Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellog, Brown & Root will profit in gargantuan amounts from the wars on terrorism and with Iraq and Afghanistan. They were first contracted to build the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for al-Qaida suspects, a job worth nearly $33 million. Next they were awarded the contract for the reconstruction of Iraq, estimated to be valued at $900 million, for preliminary work such as hospitals, ports, airports and schools, plus a $1.59 billion to date from the Army Corps of Engineers said the Kansas City Star. That amount does not include future work or the wealth of black gold that runs rich beneath Iraq’s sands yet to be tapped.

Upon his retirement from Halliburton, Cheney stepped into the shoes of vice president and received a hefty retirement package up to $1 million dollars a year in the form of “deferred compensation,” not including his stock options. When asked whether there was a conflict of interest, Halliburton’s spokeswoman, Wendy Hall told reporters, “We have been working as a government contractor since the 1940′s. Since this time, KBR has become the premier provider of logistics and support services to all branches of the military.”

According to the Financial Times of London, Cheney oversaw $23.8 billion worth of business contracts and oil-industry equipment with Iraq, during his stay at Halliburton, through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump.

Cheney denies any further contact with his previous employer and claims that he had no influence on the no-bid contract been given to Halliburton’s KBR; however, Democrats disagree. President of company in question Dave Lesar urged employees of Halliburton to write letters of retort to local newspapers, defending Halliburton. and KBR, accusing the press of misleading the public. The truth of the matter is Cheney denied working with Iraq and other oil rich countries that are on the US’s terrorist lists, when in fact he and Halliburton’s subsidiaries did.

When U.N. sanctions over Iraq were calmed, Cheney worked with Saddam Hussein via subsidiaries in Austria, Germany, France and Italy in order to avoid public controversy from business arrangements with Iraq and not embarrass Washington. Because of lucrative business dealings with Iraq, Cheney’s Halliburton was able to help Saddam’s government profit by illegally exporting some $1 billion worth of crude oil.

Along with Iraq, the oil and military defense contractor conglomerate worked with several other brutal dictatorships such as Algeria, Angola, Bosnia and Croatia that have committed horrid human rights violations. A Washington D.C. based human rights watchdog called EarthRights condemns Halliburton for a project in Burma, now Myanmar, where a two-energy pipeline was constructed that led to indentured labor, forced relocation of villagers, murder, rape and many other crimes against humanity. In violation of U.S. sanctions, Halliburton was fined $3.8 billion for dealing with Iran and Lybia, countries that remain on the State Department’s list of terrorist states.

This is not the first time an American-based corporation has done business with its adversaries. During WWII, while the blood of American troops enriched the soil of Germany, companies such as Ford, G.M. and General Electric traded in secret with Nazi Germany, and, most recently, as bombs began plummeting onto Iraq, G.E. conducted business with Saddam. As our men and women in uniform fell under sprays of gunfire and U.N. sanctions blocked food and medicine from the Iraqi people, the likes of Halliburton and G.E. lined their pockets with paper.

Is American security paid in full with our constitutional rights?

by TONI LEAKE

The Patriot Act is the short title for Uniting and Strengthening America Act by Providing Appropriate Tools required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. Pres Bush signed the act into law in November of 2001. The Patriot Act comprises 10 different categories, covering topics from securing borders and international money laundering to surveillance procedures including roving wire-tapping, search and seizure warrants and electronic surveillance.

Although opponents and proponents of the controversial Patriot Act tend to see it as either black or white, it’s the gray area of its interpretation that has sparked vigorous controversy. The two groups can’t even agree on the meaning of its length: opponents point out that the 60-page act is too long and complex to be understood, while proponents ask how complicated can a document only 60 pages in length be?

According to MSNBC, House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), states that he and Sen: Orrin Hatch (R-UT) killed an effort by Attorney Gen John Ashcroft last winter to circulate a sequel to the law, known as Patriot II, because they felt it would be counterproductive. An alleged copy of this document, leaked by unnamed source, can be found on the NPR website.

The Patriot debate

At the heart of the debate is the issue of privacy versus national security. The American Civil Liberties Union and other privacy advocates, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Electronic Privacy Information Center, contend that the Patriot Act violates an individual’s civil rights.

Opponents have particularly targeted Section 213 of the Patriot Act, dubbed “sneak and peak,” as being in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which outlines an individual’s rights to privacy. Entitled “Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant,” it allows the government to enter and search your home without notifying you. Warrants are authorized based on “reasonable grounds” rather than “probable cause. “Supporters point to the built-in checks and balance features of the act that include judicial review requirements and a sunset clause under which parts of the act will expire Dec. 31, 2005, as protection against civil rights violations.

The House apparently agrees with the ACLU and other opponents regarding section 213. In late July of this year, the House approved 309 to 118 the Otter amendment, which would cut off funding for the section.

Ashcroft has commented that the Otter amendment, termed the “the terrorist tip-off amendment” by the Justice Department, is a mistake and contends that many members of the House were unsure about what they voted for.

How do Americans feel?

According to Foxnews.com, a Gallup poll released Sep. 9 showed that 48 percent of those surveyed said the bill is “about right” and 21 percent said it doesn’t go far enough. Only 22 percent indicated that the bill goes too far.

On the other hand, Bob Barr, a former Republican U.S. representative from Georgia and chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation’s 21st Century Center for Privacy and Freedom, is a leading critic of the USA Patriot Act. Foxnews.com reported that Barr says that the notion that only a small number oppose the Patriot Act is because the vast majority of Americans don’t have any idea what it is.

A spokesperson for Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) said that the Missouri Senator currently has no open opinion regarding the Patriot Act, including the Otter amendment, which is now before the Senate. The debate goes on, with fingers pointing in all directions.

Can Patriot Act affect your life?

Consider the following scenario and attempt to determine what the Patriot Act may actually allow or disallow.

You are walking around the Plaza on a Thursday afternoon, waiting to meet some friends for dinner later on. You spot Starbucks and decide to have a latte while you wait.

As you bask in the sunlight, sipping your drink, someone taps you on the shoulder. You look up at a man with dark hair, dressed in khaki pants, white polo shirt and designer sunglasses. He asks you for the time. You tell him it’s 4:30 p.m. He thanks you and leaves.

What you don’t know is that the man you just spoke to is being watched by the FBI for a possible connection to a terrorism cell. In fact, the FBI thinks he is a cell leader and has connections to several other terrorist cells working inside the USA.

A man sitting across from you is actually a FBI agent trailing him. The FBI agent observes the two of you talking and calls in for a reinforcement to follow you.

Later that night, an agent tails you. He tracks down your name and address and decides to investigate you for potential ties to terrorism.

After all, asking the time may be a code for a clandestine activity. Your phone is wiretapped. All your internet activities are monitored. The FBI contacts a federal judge, and, based on the seriousness of the investigation, the judge grants the investigators a warrant to search your house. While you’re at school, the FBI secretly enters your apartment and searches through your papers and computer files.

When the FBI finds out you visited a web site that describes how to make homemade bombs, and that you recently checked out several scientific magazines from a local library, they take you in for questioning. You are not allowed any phone calls; no one knows where you disappeared. After seven days, the FBI releases you.

You return home to find that you have been fired from your job for missing work without an excuse and that you have been dropped from all your classes without refunds.

Could this possible happen to you?

Yes it could

According to Michael J. Baker, an experienced trial lawyer, retired Assistant Dean of UMKC Law School, and adjunct instructor at Longview community college, the Patriot Act may well allow the above to happen with several caveats regarding questioning by the FBI. As far as the investigation, wire tapes, invasion of the home and possible taking of property, Baker says, “Under the law as it stands now, I believe that they could do all of this [stuff] and the Foreign intelligence Surveillance Act Court of Review would find it Constitutional.”

Prior to the Patriot Act, you would have been investigated under criminal investigation procedures. A federal agent or law enforcement agent would have had to prove to a federal judge that “probable cause” existed in order to be granted a search warrant.

Now, a federal agents investigating terrorist activity have to show “reasonable grounds” to a judge in a FISA court to obtain a delay search warrant under section 213.

The FISA courts powers were expanded to include not only electronic but physical searches under the Clinton administration.

Supporters of the Patriot Act point out that you usually will be notified by warrent within a couple of days of the search, but the actual law only states it must be “within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.”

Your rights: Citizen vs. non-citizen

So now that you’ve become a part of a terrorist investigation, let’s discuss your detainment. As an American citizen, you are entitled to due process of the law. That includes being openly charged with a specific crime, and having the right to consel and the right to a fair and speedy trial in an open court.

According to Baker, as an American citizen, you also have rights when the FBI confronts you. First, you do not need to consent to talk to the FBI. However, if you do not consent, the FBI can arrest you and detain you, but this action should be public record.

The Patriot Act circumvents due process for only non-citizens. Immigrants or aliens can be picked up and detained for up to seven days without being charged and without the right to legal consul. After seven days, the Act states you must be charged with a crime, deported or released. However, after you are charged with a crime, as a non-citizen of this country, you can still be detained for an indefinite period of time. Your case, however, must be reviewed every six months.

Baker points out that an exception to the Patriot Act’s detainment rule happened in the case of Jose Padilla, an American citizen picked up at Chicago O’Hare airport and detained as an al-Qaida operative last year. Padilla was not allowed access to an attorney and is currently detained. The government classified Padilla an “combatant” enemy in Afghanistan. Lindt obtained access to an attorney and federal trial. In the case of Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber” and Zacarias Moussaoui, both non-citizens, the men were formally charged, given access to an attorney, and tried in federal court.

Analyzing the past

Much of the success of the Patriot Act lies with the integrity and ethics of the government officials operating under its sanctions. Agents supposedly must demonstrate that there are grounds for investigating persons as terrorists. Judges must ask the correct questions to make their own determination.

The circumvention by the executive branch of the government during times of war is not new to the United States. Abraham Lincoln revoked the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the internment of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II.

In the past, after the threat to national security subsided, these laws were revoked as unconstitutional. If history repeats itself, the expectation would be that this will happen with the Patriot Act also.

A complete text of the Patriot Act can be found on the website http://www.lifeandliberty.gov.