When the USA PATRIOT ACT was first enacted, I had to educate appromately 99.9% of people I knew as to why it was a bad idea. Aside from the civil liberties violations, I didn't like the new criminal laws it created. Besides, I generally worry when every member of Congress but one (God Bless You, Russ Feingold) signs on to sweeping new legislation without actually having READ it.
But we need it to fight the terrorists they whined. If you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?
(This is the point at which Julie's ACLU-loving, ex-Public Defender head would usually explode)
I explained to them that while the government had managed to convince people that it was intended to fight terrorism, it was only a matter of time before it was used on American citizens. Just like RICO was originally created to fight the mob, and is now being used by the U.S. Attorney's Office to put college protestors and young black men in jail.
Oh no, they said, the government would never use it against Americans.
Wrong. And so it begins:
Federal authorities on Tuesday used their strongest anti-terror law to charge a Parsippany man with pointing a laser at an airplane, temporarily blinding the pilot and co-pilot. His lawyer said the man simply was using the device to look at stars with his daughter. The defendant, David Banach, 38, first claimed his daughter aimed a laser at a helicopter, but later admitted to federal agents that he pointed the light beam at two aircraft near Teterboro Airport last week, authorities said.
He was charged Tuesday with interfering with the operator of a mass transportation vehicle and making false statements to the FBI. He faces up to 25 years in prison and fines of up to $500,000 if convicted.
Sorry, this just seems way over the top to me. I'm sure that there are a myriad of state and federal laws this guy could have been charged under (though I'm not sure he should have been charged at all), without resorting to using the PATRIOT ACT. Does this man really deserve to be branded with having been prosecuted under an ACT intended to fight terrorism?
Banach's lawyer, Gina Mendola-Longarzo, said authorities' use of a provision of the USA Patriot Act to charge her client was bogus. She said Banach is "your average guy, a family man" who was simply playing around with the hand-held device on his back deck with his young daughter.
"One would think they would want to devote their time and resources to prosecuting real terrorists, not people like my client," she said after Banach made his initial appearance before a federal magistrate, who released him on $100,000 bail.
Mendola-Longarzo said Banach was using the beam to look up at the stars, and was shining it at trees and neighbors' houses. He uses the $100 device, which he bought over the Internet, for his job with a local labor union, testing fiber optic cables for holes, she said.
"He wasn't trying to harm any person, any aircraft or anything like that," she said.
MSNBC STORY
LYING TO THE FBI.
Besides the fact that the mention of the PATRIOT ACT makes me break out in hives, am I the only person in America who has a problem with the crime of LYING TO THE FBI? What the hell is that? I can lie to the FBI if I want to, it's called the 5th Amendment (right against self-incrimination). Basically, what this law does is REQUIRE people to confess their sins to law enforcement officials, in complete abrogation of the 5th Amemdment.
The folly of this law first came to my attention following the Martha Stewart trial. For those who don't know, Martha was never convicted of insider trading--that charge got thrown out by the judge. What she was convicted of was lying about insider trading. So basically, the government couldn't mount enough evidence to prove the insider trading charge, so they got her on lying about not engaging in insider trading.
Imagine this (and pretend that the FBI has jurisdiction over local theft cases, just for fun): The FBI shows up at your house and question you about some thefts in your neighborhood. You vigorously deny that you had anything to do with the thefts, as you were home watching "Countdown" and reading Mother Jones at the time the thefts were committed. Weeks pass, and the FBI is unable to come up with any evidence tying you to the crime. Since they can't charge you with theft, they charge you with lying to them--the lie being your insistance that you didn't do anything wrong. The jury doesn't believe you. You are convicted of lying to the FBI. Doesn't sound all that American, does it? Due process, indeed.
I'm planning on writing a much more inclusive article on this law--first for publication on my blog and hopefully for publication in my law school's law review.
In the meantime, I would urge every single one of you to speak out against these fascist laws every chance you get. Educated your fellow citizens about the state of federal criminal law in this country. Knowledge is power.
Update [2005-1-5 16:35:26 by julie37]:
[editor's note, by julie37] Someone below made a good point, and one that I should have thought of. I mean this diary in the spirit of a friendly debate about legal theory, and not as advice to anyone in how they should deal with law enforcement, should (God forbid), the situtaion ever arise. Please understand that I do not mean this diary as a form of legal advice to anyone. Please don't sue me for legal malpractice when you get hauled into court for lying to the feds.