Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process
Share:
by Roy C | May 6, 2009 at 03:31 pm
585 views | 68 Recommendations | 21 comments
Videos
This story circulated on YouTube and elsewhere before finally appearing somewhere where it could be considered verified.
The Patriot Act has been controversial since its beginning as a central piece of legislation extending the power of the government to search terrorist suspects without warrants or with less need to justify them.
Critics, such as libertarian Judge Napolitano of FoxNews, consider it one of the worst and most unconstitutional pieces of legislation ever to be passed by our congress and signed into law by our presidents.
The Patriot Act violates our notion of Habeus Corpus, which allows someone to demand that the court produce the arrestee in a case and allow him to get bail and not be held indefinitely, for example.
The fist passage of the Patriot Act called for the sunsetting of its powers after four years, but the Bush Administration succeeded in renewing the Patriot Act. The Senate's version of the Act was gutted in the reconciliation process and all of the Senate's language pertaining to civil liberties concerns was dropped.
Of English origin, its also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person; if not, the person shall be released from custody forthwith. The prisoner, or another person on her behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.
The Patriot Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. It has been criticized for weakening protections of civil liberties, as well as being overboard in regard to its circumstances of application. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.
The story below would not appear to be possible without the Patriot Act.
Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process
Oxford, N.C. — Sixteen-year-old Ashton Lundeby's bedroom in his mother's Granville County home is nothing, if not patriotic. Images of American flags are everywhere – on the bed, on the floor, on the wall.
But according to the United States government, the tenth-grade home-schooler is being held on a criminal complaint that he made a bomb threat from his home on the night of Feb. 15.
The family was at a church function that night, his mother, Annette Lundeby, said.
"Undoubtedly, they were given false information, or they would not have had 12 agents in my house with a widow and two children and three cats," Lundeby said.
Around 10 p.m. on March 5, Lundeby said, armed FBI agents along with three local law enforcement officers stormed her home looking for her son. They handcuffed him and presented her with a search warrant.
"I was terrified," Lundeby's mother said. "There were guns, and I don't allow guns around my children. I don't believe in guns."
Lundeby told the officers that someone had hacked into her son's IP address and was using it to make crank calls connected through the Internet, making it look like the calls had originated from her home when they did not.
Her argument was ignored, she said. Agents seized a computer, a cell phone, gaming console, routers, bank statements and school records, according to federal search warrants.
"There were no bomb-making materials, not even a blasting cap, not even a wire," Lundeby said.
Ashton now sits in a juvenile facility in South Bend, Ind. His mother has had little access to him since his arrest. She has gone to her state representatives as well as attorneys, seeking assistance, but, she said, there is nothing she can do.
Lundeby said the USA Patriot Act stripped her son of his due process rights.
"We have no rights under the Patriot Act to even defend them, because the Patriot Act basically supersedes the Constitution," she said. "It wasn't intended to drag your barely 16-year-old, 120-pound son out in the middle of the night on a charge that we can't even defend."
Passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S., the Patriot Act allows federal agents to investigate suspected cases of terrorism swiftly to better protect the country. In part, it gives the federal government more latitude to search telephone records, e-mails and other records.
"They're saying that 'We feel this individual is a terrorist or an enemy combatant against the United States, and we're going to suspend all of those due process rights because this person is an enemy of the United States," said Dan Boyce, a defense attorney and former U.S. attorney not connected to the Lundeby case.
Critics of the statute say it threatens the most basic of liberties.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States
Recommendations (68)
-1.jpg)
tikun
Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel
CynicalPatriot
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Zachary Gauld
Corona, California, United States
Barbara McPherson
Nanaimo, Canada
albertacowpoke
Canada
CJaye
Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States
158
St. Louis, Missouri, United States
Tina Kells
Vancouver, Canada
jazzyzazzy
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
SamirJ
Vadodara, Gujarat, India
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (21)
at 17:30 on May 6th, 2009
This all encompassing act endangers the liberty of every single American citizen. First it's the guys with black beards, then it's the computer geek, after that who knows. Maybe tree huggers.
at 18:07 on May 6th, 2009
This is really why there has to be a good left and a good right capable of working things like this out.
The dysfunctional left and right make it where it becomes impossible to trust the motivation of each other.
Much of this is legitimate when we correctly perceive an imbalance in the values of our rivals, and the rest is what Jung called projection, the interpretation of another as worse than they are because you have failed to acknowledge your own bad side.
at 15:52 on May 6th, 2009
Interesting - I don't believe it should be used in the case of the 16 year old, when there was no evidence that what he was being accused of, was actually happening, and this boy has had his whole life ruined by this now as he won't be able to escape these charges.
at 16:45 on May 6th, 2009
In Canada we have a security certificate amended as a result of 911. Most of the individuals that have been detained under it have been ordered released by a federal court.
In Canada, a legal mechanism by which the Government of Canada can detain and deport foreign nationals and all other non-citizens living in Canada. The federal government may issue a certificate naming a permanent resident or any other non-citizen suspected of violating human rights, of having membership within organized crime, or is perceived to be a threat to national security.[1] Subjects of a certificate are inadmissible to Canada and are subject to a removal order.[2] Where the government has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual named in the certificate is a danger to national security, to the safety of any person or is unlikely to participate in any court proceedings, the individual can be detained.[3] The entire process is subject to a limited form of review by the Federal Court.
According to the Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the overarching agency dealing with the law, the security certificate provision has existed in "one form or another for over 20 years."[4] Its use has been documented at least as far back as 1979,[5][6] It is housed within the parameters of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (formerly the Immigration and Refugee Act, which replaced the Immigration Act in 1976). It was amended and took on its present structure in 1991, with an additional amendment in 2002 the year after they were implemented.
at 19:32 on May 6th, 2009
Funny, when liberals and progressives opposed the Patriot Act when it was first signed by Bush years ago, they were denounced as "unpatriotic" and "unamerican."
It's as if Fox News and the Republicans are 7 years behind reality. Looks like the GOP is proving the left was 100% correct.
at 15:02 on May 10th, 2009
Habeus Corpus was suspended by the Bush administration. We "unamerican" liberals sounded that alarm years ago.
at 15:59 on May 6th, 2009
I admire Abraham Lincoln and FDR, though less so, but both suspended habeus corpus and I do have to wonder what kind of a bargain with the devil they have set up for us by setting the precedent for our Patriot Act.
at 16:05 on May 6th, 2009
The Patriot act has nor any similar legislation can be deemed acceptable in a democracy nor can such act be tolerated or defended, no matter the level of Terrorist threats they may be.
at 18:02 on May 6th, 2009
The cowboy lol
at 19:53 on May 6th, 2009
Children do not realize the power of words. Perhaps he had been bragging to the wrong people?
Today Oprah's show was about two boys who were bullied so much they committed sucicide. Another father's son did about four years ago from this and then some girl flirted with him on the internet made him believe she wanted to be his girlfriend. When he approached her at school she laughed at him and called him a geek etc. Schools are not protecting children from verbal abuse. It is disgusting . Now they can do it on phones , blackberries and computers. They have no idea what the consequences can be of repetitive put downs.
I don't know what can be done. The one expert said she had been fighting for awareness ofthis for fifteen years!
The only correlation here I make is the teen years are difficult and many parents are clueless about what their children really think and do. I am very sad for this Mother and the boy.
It is a scary legislation to me but on the other hand when someone deserves this it is a good thing.
Recently there was a story here about a preacher who was attacked by officials for not "cooperating" with them suspecting he was illegal or transporting drugs. He was physically attacked. These cases are torture! We need to be more worried about this people!
at 20:31 on May 6th, 2009
Well, it looks as if the left was more correct about this than the right, whereas the right has proven itself more correct than the left over GITMO by denying Obama the funds to close it, realizing that we cannot just move those prisoners out where they can do more damage..
Everybody need to learn from their mistakes. FoxNews commentator Andrew Napolitano was against it from the beginning and used to appear on O'Reilly to debate him over it.
at 22:34 on May 6th, 2009
Roy all politicians dance with the devil. this is outragious a 16yr old boy can be violated by the very state who have a duty to protect him.All I can say is God Bless America.
at 09:20 on May 7th, 2009
More damage? What damage have these prisoners done?
at 09:24 on May 7th, 2009
One part left out of this story is that the teen was accused of making bomb threats and the police DID have a warrant.
at 16:30 on May 7th, 2009
Hmmmm , I was a wondering if there was something we might not know and neither the parent.
The parent whose son committed suicide for being bullied did not have a clue he was depressed. THIS could throw the ball back into lousy parenting...teaching...schools...no boundaries taught to children...morals etc.
Remember the " Rave" dances? This changes every so many years..maybe even at 2 . I don't know myself. What Parents offer children in means of role modeling now IF failing they were most likely failed to have the great archetypal parent role model . Our "denominations"....dogma's..whatever most families are choosing has not reached the emotional depths for the children to desire this. So they have a longing to be gripped by ecstasy and to have moments where they can be lifted out of a miserable existence...bullying, divorcing parents, failure academically etc.
"They don't get that symbolic wine of the Holy Spirit so they drink the dirty water of the street" Marie Louise Von Franz.
They turn to wild games , sex, horror films and become vulnerable to serious addictions...that transfer to gambling, spending too much, living too big,, the big "narcississtic supply" they need to FEEL! We also just witnessed herds of people of all ages that turned to a political mass movement for someone who looked pretty , fit the prescription for "fixing" history possibly, with no mature adult working experience. It was our countries "rave", morbid, pseudoreliguious ecstasy for Obama. It could have been anyone young that would have fit the bill. The more the degeneration of a religious function then the more we have these compensatory substitutes. It is also why one cannot debate for they have tapped a pseudo feeling level in their political choice.
It is why we have become so vulnerable to mass changes by a leader who is also happy to be the pied piper leading us into a ditch.
at 12:57 on May 7th, 2009
They belong to the Al Qada training camp operations, with few exceptions. The Chinese Muslims that Bush had been trying to place for several years, can't go back to China because they are mortal enemies of China and no one else will take them.
If there is no problem with these people, put them up at your house, your neighborhood, with your family and your friends.
Apparently the democratic party doesn't agree with you. That is why the Democrats voted no on the 81 million to close Gitmo. No money because there is no viable plan. There is no plan because there is no acceptable solution to placing Al Qada trainees and Taliban combatants.
You may have noticed the news in Pakistan. 500,000 people are on the move to escape the likes of the Taliban.
at 17:23 on May 7th, 2009
And habeus corpus? What happened to that?
at 13:25 on May 10th, 2009
The government can always be trusted to mess up everything.
at 14:58 on May 10th, 2009
They belong to the Al Qada training camp operations, with few exceptions.
If that's the case, then why haven't they been placed on trial? Where's the Evidence? Proof? Or are we using the old time Soviet style justice which is accusation = guilt?
Innocent people are welcome in my neighborhood anytime, including you Roy.
What's happening in Pakistan has nothing to do with the US illegally detaining people without a trial.
For the record, we would not have a Taliban if good old Ronald Reagan hadn't armed them in the early 1980's (and Saddam Hussein).
at 15:08 on May 10th, 2009
Funny how the trusted old men in suits in the Bush administration assured the sheeple of this nation that the Patriot Act would not be used against US citizens but it was, dating as far back as Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft.
The first instance was against a strip club in Nevada of all things. Then it was used against "dissenters." And now here we are, it's being used against a teen.
We "unamerican" liberals sounded the alarm over and over , but we were written off as kooks by Fox news, the GOP and the Bush administration, all trusted dear old men in suits. It's not our fault, liberals were not the ones who were asleep for 8 years.
Frightened red State America trusted Bush 100%, we sure as hell didn't.
at 18:37 on July 13th, 2009
I really don't think it's fair to paint this as a liberal vs. conservative issue.
Our Reichstag Fire claimed easy marks on both sides of the aisle. Dissenters were from both sides and the middle (Ron Paul, etc), but there just weren't enough of them.