“... a piece of legislation I introduced into Congress..."

 “... a piece of legislation I introduced into Congress in late 2007 concisely reflects my views on civil liberties and executive power in light of the war on terror.  I am referring to the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007.  Among other things, the legislation 

• repeals the Military Commissions Act of 2006 

• forbids the use of statements extracted by torture as evidence in any civilian of military tribunal; 

• subordinates the executive’s surveillance activities to the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); 

• gives the House of Representatives and the Senate legal standing to contest in court any presidential signing statement that indicates the executive’s intention to disregard any provision of a bill; and

• provides that nothing in the Espionage Act of 1917 prevents any journalist from publishing information received from the executive branch or Congress “unless the publication would cause direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to the national security of the United States.”

[......]

Any individual detained as an enemy combat by the United States “shall be entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28, United States Code.”

The Act also says, “No officer or agent of the United States shall kidnap, imprison, or torture any person abroad based solely on the President’s believe that the subject of the kidnapping, imprisonment, or torture is a criminal or enemy combatant; provided that kidnapping shall be permitted if undertaken with the intent of bringing the kidnapped person for prosecution or interrogation to gather intelligence before a tribunal that meets international standards of fairness and due process.”  Knowing violations of this section are to be punished as felonies.” -Pages 123 & 124 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“The Patriot Act violates the Constitution by allowing..."

“The Patriot Act violates the Constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probably cause.  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts [...] may issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records.  It can do so secretly, and the person who turns over the records is muzzled and cannot ever speak of the search.  The attorney general is given the power, with no judicial oversight, to write “national security letters” ordering holders of any of your personal records to hand them over for the government to examine - a power that has already been abused.  You would have no way of knowing that this had been done.

....

In fact, a requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause may help law enforcement officials focus their efforts on true threats, thereby avoiding the problem of information overload that is handicapping the government’s efforts to identify sources of terrorist financing. 

History demonstrates that the powers we give the federal government today will remain in place indefinitely.  How sure are we that future presidents won’t abuse those powers? Politically motivated IRS audits and FBI investigations have been used by past administrations to destroy political enemies.  Past abuses of executive surveillance are the reason FISA was passed in the first place.” -Page 115 & 116 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

 

“We now know that plenty of red flags..."

“We now know that plenty of red flags that should have alerted officials to the hijackers’ plot were ignored.  That was a matter of government ineptness, not a lack of surveillance power.  Our officials had the evidence.  They simply failed to act on it.  And they then turned around and exploited their own failure as an excuse to crack down on the American people, demanding new powers that would have done nothing to prevent 9/11.  Only government could get away with such a transparent sham.” -Page 115 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“The misnamed Patriot Act, presented to the public..."

“The misnamed Patriot Act, presented to the public as an antiterrorism measure, actually focuses on American citizens rather than foreign terrorists.  The definition of “terrorism” for federal criminal purposes is greatly expanded, such that legitimate protest against the government could someday place an American under federal surveillance.  Similarly, your Internet use can be monitored without your knowledge, and your Internet provider can be forced to hand over user information to law enforcement without a warrant or subpoena.

The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism.  Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, and checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. “Sneak and peek” and blanket searches are becoming more frequent every day.  Most of the provisions have been sought by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism but rather to increase their police power over the American people.  The federal government has not shown us that it failed to detect or prevent the September 11 attacks because it lacked the powers over our lives that it was granted under the Patriot Act.” -Pages 114 & 115 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“What was frequently overlooked amid the..."

“What was frequently overlooked amid the ensuing controversy was that the executive branch apparently carried out even more invasive activities, but we never got any answers about those.  When asked whether they had engaged in domestic wiretapping or carried out warrantless searches of people’s homes or correspondence, officials have responded with carefully worded assurances that these things were not done under the program then under discussion - i.e., the Terrorist Surveillance Program.  But were these things being done pursuant to some other program?  No answer.  

When the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, for example, he dealt with questions about whether the administration had engaged in warrantless wiretapping of purely domestic calls.  “Not under the program in which I’m testifying,” came the reply.  Such activity, the attorney general said, was “beyond the bound of the program which I’m testifying about today.”

We do know that for some period of time between September 11, 2001, and March 2004, the executive branch was engaged in a kind of surveillance that was so at odds with American law that then Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and Deputy Attorney General James Comey threatened to resign if it continued.  What exactly was the executive branch up to that caused so much dissent even among its own loyalists? Who was victimized during this time?  Why are we not hearing the answers - or even the questions?” -Pages 113 & 114 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“If this interpretation of AUMF were correct..."

“If this interpretation of AUMF were correct, moreover, parts of the Patriot Act would have been unnecessary.  Finally, given that FISA, the existing law, deals explicitly and specifically with intelligence gathering, while AUMF [Authorization to Use Military Force] says nothing at all about foreign intelligence, FISA would automatically trump AUMP as a matter of legal principle, even if the administration’s interpretation were correct.

The administration itself didn’t seem to take this argument seriously.  When asked why, if the administration considered FISA inadequate to its purposes, it had not sought to amend it, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales frankly testified that they didn’t think they would be able to win congressional approval for amendments to FISA.  So they proceeded with the program anyway.  [....] Why did they consider amending FISA in order to give themselves a power they supposedly already had?

....

What was the real reason for the program, then?  Who was targeted and why?  No answers to these questions have been forthcoming.  Bland assurances that our leaders are trustworthy and good, and would never abuse powers they have secretly exercised in defiance of the law, can hardly be taken seriously by those who believe in a free society.  Remember Jefferson’s cautionary words about confidence in men: we should be on our guard against our government officials, binding them down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.  Government surveillance of individuals has been abused in the past, and it has targeted political opponents and the politically unpopular.  That’s why the safeguards that were flaunted here were established in the first place.” - Pages 112 & 113 of The Revolution, A Manifesto