[Airwolf]

Ladies and gentlemen I think, IMHO, we are royally screwed as a nation if this comes to pass...

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/04/09/4514373

Published on Wednesday, April 9, 2003 by the New York Times

Republicans Want Terror Law Made Permanent
by Eric Lichtblau

WASHINGTON, April 8 — Working with the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans are maneuvering to make permanent the sweeping antiterrorism powers granted to federal law enforcement agents after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, officials said today.

The move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress who believe that the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the attacks is known, has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans.

The landmark legislation expanded the government's power to use eavesdropping, surveillance, access to financial and computer records and other tools to track terrorist suspects.

When it passed in October 2001, moderates and civil libertarians in Congress agreed to support it only by making many critical provisions temporary. Those provisions will expire, or "sunset," at the end of 2005 unless Congress re-authorizes them.

But Republicans in the Senate in recent days have discussed a proposal, written by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, that would repeal the sunset provisions and make the law's new powers permanent, officials said. Republicans may seek to move on the proposal this week by trying to attaching it to another antiterrorism bill that would make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" terrorism suspects.

Many Democrats have grown increasingly frustrated by what they see as a lack of information from the Justice Department on how its agents are using their newfound powers, and they say they need more time to determine whether agents are abusing those powers.

The Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, said today that without extensive review, he "would be very strongly opposed to any repeal" of the 2005 time limit. He predicted that Republicans lacked the votes to repeal the limits.

Indeed, Congressional officials and political observers said the debate might force lawmakers to take stock of how far they were willing to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.

Beryl Howell, a former Democratic aide in the Senate who worked extensively on the 2001 legislation, said that by forcing the issue, Mr. Hatch "is throwing down the gauntlet to people who think the U.S.A. Patriot Act went too far and who want to cut back its powers."

Justice Department officials in interviews today credited the Patriot Act with allowing the F.B.I. to move with greater speed and flexibility to disrupt terrorist operations before they occur, and they say they wanted to see the 2005 time limit on the legislation lifted.

"The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us," a senior department official said on condition of anonymity.

Another senior official who also demanded anonymity said the department had held discussions with Congressional Republicans about how that might best be accomplished. "Our involvement has really been just keeping an open ear to the issue as it's proceeding, not to really guide the debate," the official said.

With the act's provisions not set to expire for more than two and a half years, officials expected that the debate over its future would be many months away. But political jockeying over separate bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senators Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, and Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, appears to have given Senator Hatch the chance to move on the issue much earlier than expected.

The Kyl-Schumer measure would eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, like a terrorist group.

Advocates say the measure would make it easier for agents to go after "lone wolf" terrorists who are not connected to a foreign group and might have allowed the F.B.I. to get a warrant against Zacarias Moussaoui, known as the 20th hijacker, before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The proposal was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But Republicans are upset because several Democrats say that when the measure reaches the Senate floor for a full vote, perhaps this week or later in the month, they plan to offer amendments that would impose tougher restrictions on the use of secret warrants.

Among other proposals, Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, wants to add amendments that would require the Justice Department to give detailed information about how the secret warrants are being used and that could give defense lawyers access to some information generated by the warrants in criminal cases.

Republicans are countering with amendments of their own, including the idea of making the Patriot Act permanent.

Aides to Senator Hatch would not discuss his views on repealing the time limits in the law.

But an aide who demanded anonymity said of the "lone wolf" bill: "We support this bill as it is and that's how we want to see it passed. If the Democrats want to amend the bill, then we will offer an equal number of amendments to improve the bill as well. We hope the Democrats will stop holding this bill up."

Members of the Judiciary Committee, which Mr. Hatch leads, have been working in recent days to reach an agreement over the amendments that will be considered, officials said. But so far neither side appears willing to back down.

[P95Carry]

The bulk of this is very scary sh*t ...... and also flies totally in the face of all that is (was:( ) constitutional.

An excuse to further expand a burgeoning police state.

[Preacherman]

I'm afraid we are going to have to work very hard to defeat this, but it's a battle we dare not lose. With such draconian powers permanently in place, what's to stop a future President (Hillary :barf: , for instance?) using these powers to oppress legitimate gun-owners by declaring them (us!) a "risk group" or "terrorist threat"??? We need to fight this with the same energy as we fight the RKBA battle - it's just as important, and just as devastating to us if we lose...

[JackC]

Very bad idea, we need LESS govt intrusion, not more.
Jack

[MPFreeman]

This patriot act is scary enough. TO make it permenant could lead to dangerous times.

Scary.

[Jeff White]

I hope none of you were trusting enough to believe that the governemnt would really give up powers like this? The ability this gives executitve branch agencies to spy on political opponents and suppress dissention by declaring political opponents terrorists is just too much to give up.

I hope all you guys who think that any trampling of the Constitution is ok as long as your side does it is ok, because they can be trusted are learning from this.

Jeff

[tyme]

I hate straying into dangerous territory, but this begs the question of whether a permanent patriot act crosses the line.

[Airwolf]

Having laws simply on the book isn't enough for me to say "the line has been crossed". That time comes when those laws are misused.

This has been my nighmare fear that all this power would be left in place for a future administration to take advantage of.

The cold sweat comes when I think of Bill Clinton running the UN and The Beast (or someone of her mindset) as President using the tools that were provided in a time of crisis being used for their own gain.

I keep reminding myself that Hitler used the system that was in place and was voted into office. We may have planted the same seeds here after 9/11. I hope that enough of us who value this nation more than we do our lives are around to keep history from repeating itself.

[tyme]

So it's okay if Congress passes a law saying gun owners are terrorists and authorizes the death penalty for the same, but it's not okay when neighbors' doors are routinely kicked in for missed speeding ticket court appearances? I'm really torn - both sides of the argument are really beyond the pale; nobody here, and virtually nobody in society really considers proactively shooting at government agents over this sort of thing reasonable or there would be more than the handful of serious incidents that have occurred in the last couple decades. But can anyone argue that a government that were to pass such a law would be legitimate under the framework the U.S. and its Constitution were built upon? And how is a permanent Patriot Act fundamentally any different? They're both fangless unless enforced, and certainly there are some gun-owners who should go to jail or die (though for different reasons), just like there are some terrorists who should go to jail or die.

It just seems so strange that it's apparently human nature for the political right to avoid confrontation until it's been started by the other side, yet rightists in government routinely do all sorts of nasty things to people in other countries.

[3 gun]

This is a horrible law and close to an act of treason when it was passed with a sunset clause. To strengthen it and make it permanent defies the imagination. Even more than the AW ban this needs to be defeated.

[Justin Moore]

I hope all you guys who think that any trampling of the Constitution is ok as long as your side does it is ok, because they can be trusted are learning from this.

Once again, Jeff makes an excellent point. I think a lot of 'conservatives' went back to sleep as soon as the President was elected.

And sadly, I think people are rather shortsighted, and only think in terms of what the present administration would do with any new found powers. That's one of the reason I'm so opposed to Project SAFE Neighborhoods. The idea of someone like ******* having a huge new army of Federal Prosecutors to go after 'gun crime' is not very reassuring ;)

[nsf003]

The Patriot act is scary as hell.

When do they cross the "line"?

nsf

Edited by moderator to remove one sentence.

[pax]

My country is dying, one inch at a time. Not that anyone except my fellow tinfoil hat paranoids has noticed yet ...

Airwolf, if they are using it at all, it is being misused.

pax

Today the nations of the world may be divided into two classes - the nations in which the government fears the people, and the nations in which the people fear the government. -- Amos R. E. Pinochet

[nsf003]

We REALLY need a tinfoil hat smilie.

nsf

[DeltaElite]

The Patriot Act seems to be in direct violation of the 4th Amendment.
Of course, since none of us have been declared terrorists yet, we have nothing to fear.
Right, tell me I'm right. Please. :uhoh:

[MPFreeman]

Delta....you're wrong....very wrong:(

[cool45auto]

:confused: :scrutiny: I don't know about that scary stuff.

[DeltaElite]

I was afraid I was wrong. :(

Good thing I don't own any guns or ammo. ;)

[publius]

The really scary thing is that some of you, who seem quite intelligent and well-informed, actually believed in that sunset crap to begin with. Didn't anyone notice that once they get a new power, they expand upon it? Didn't anyone notice that they never, ever go away?

If you believe the Patriot Act without a sunset crosses the line, I hate to tell you this, but the line has been crossed. There is absolutely no way they are going to allow it to sunset. It's here, it will be expanded upon. Do with that information what you will. I was shopping for a new rifle today.

[Ian]

I think the fate of the AW ban will really affect a lot of peoples' thinking about government powers in general. If it is re-passed and/or worsened, a bunch of gunowners will get serious. If it stays dead, people may well become complacent.

[JoeSF]

Another vague article by the democratic left wing rag the NY Times. Who was quoted as favoring this? The demcoratic party is in dissaray and they are reaching.
The only people quoted are democrats! Wake up!
Oh yeah and they don't want your guns....

[publius]

Ian,

If you believe the Assault Weapons Ban without a sunset crosses the line, I hate to tell you this, but the line has been crossed. There is absolutely no way they are going to allow it to sunset. It's here, it will be expanded upon. Do with that information what you will. I was shopping for a new rifle today. :D

[atek3]

GOOD THREAD... Glad some gun owners don't have there heads in the sand. Most of the ones I know mutter... thank god we've got republicans, thank god we've got republicans... All I can say to them is the two parties are the same! When the demos get in power, they'll ban guns, when the repubs get in power they'll ban 'terrorism' (what ever that is). Meanwhile back in yourtown, US, Are You getting any freer?

We are indeed reaching the time when a good pair of cajones (or the female equivalent, ovaries, I think) are required. Maybe I should go to front sight in june instead of later :)

atek3

[Ian]

publius - Don't worry about me. Keep an eye out for my post on the Coolest Mauser Ever (I'll post it as soon as the weapon emerges from my smith's shop). :evil:

I agree that the AW ban will certainly be renewed, but there's always that little tiny voice of fantasy that says that maybe next your I could get AR mags for $5 buck each. :) As for the line being crossed - it was crossed long, long ago. I'm taking a course in Constitutional law this semester, and I can make a good case that the line was crossed in 1819, by the Supreme Court decision in McCulloch vs Maryland. The question isn't "when do they cross the line," but "how far past the line can they go?"

[JoeSF]

Yeah they are alike, they all want to get elected. Lets see we got a nice democratic ten cent a bulltet tax in the pipeline right now here in CA. Thats a fact not a fairly tale like this alarmist article. I want to know who supports making the terror law permanent so we can write them?
Well no names were mentioned. Wonder why? Is the democratic party protecting them?

[dustind]

I think the line should be drawn at anything that very clearly defies the constitution. How can you possibly violate the fourth any further without allowing LEOs to search houses without even a reason. :banghead: :cuss:

I'm not sure what to do, spread the word about the patriot act and hope we can force politicians to listen?

i am writing my represenatives, i hope they will listen.

[Ian]

How can they do it? "Emergencies"..."national security"..."reasonable restrictions"..."broad interpretation" of Congressional powers...

I hate to say it, but I bet virtually all of the PATRIOT Act is Constitutionally legal, according to Supreme Court precedent and doctrine. Doesn't make it right or just, of course, but it makes it much harder to get rid of.

[publius]

Thats a fact not a fairly tale like this alarmist article. I want to know who supports making the terror law permanent so we can write them?
Well no names were mentioned. Wonder why? Is the democratic party protecting them?


Do you believe that the vast majority of congresscritters who voted for the PA are going to turn around in a couple of years and say they made a big mistake, and allow the thing to die?

To answer your questions...

Who to write:

Republicans in the Senate in recent days have discussed a proposal, written by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, that would repeal the sunset provisions and make the law's new powers permanent, officials said.

political jockeying over separate bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senators Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, and Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, appears to have given Senator Hatch the chance to move on the issue much earlier than expected.

The Kyl-Schumer measure would eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, like a terrorist group. :what:

Who is protecting them:

Aides to Senator Hatch would not discuss his views on repealing the time limits in the law.

Maybe his aides are Dems. Stranger things have happened. I kind of doubt it, though.

[CMichael]

Sorry, but I hope that the Patriot Act does become permanent.

In Netanyahu's book "Fighting Terrorism" he mentions that someone from the FBI told him that if there is a militant/terrorist group who publishes a newsletter, it is illegal for the FBI agent to buy one of the newsletters using government money.

And if he uses his own money to buy it then it's illegal for him to keep the newsletter in government property.

For too long the laws have been skewed to favor the terrorist. We are in a dangerous world now and we are vulnerable. These holes need to be plugged up for the safety of the public.

[dev_null]

Like I've been saying: Orwell was an optimist. :mad:

-0-

[Preacherman]

There's another thread here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=17819) on THR that illustrates just how dangerous a permanent Patriot Act could be... I quote from one of WaitOne's post on that thread:
The Second Amendment Wars are wars fought over definitions. What is happening to the term "WMD" is exactly the same as what happened to "Assault weapon."
--Its a known but generally unused term.
--Its use in popular media is dramatically increased.
--Over time alternative definitions are introduced and eventually achieve popular usage.
--Legislation is introduced, debated, and passed based on the alternative definitions.
--Original definition disappears from popular usage.
--Then when new definition becomes dominant after legislation is enacted, definitions are then changed and new provisions in law are created by administrative fiat and without the messy complication of enacting legislation.
--Presto chango---"stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool, huh?"



A permanent Patriot Act would be immediately available to support such a "stroke of the pen" criminalization of anything at all. Not a good thing...

[JoeSF]

Publius,
I stand by my statement. Alarmist democratic propaganda. The most dangerous thing mentioned is...
"The Kyl-Schumer measure would eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, like a terrorist group."
That's a bi- partisan fact.
The quote about Hatch ends in "officals said." What officials? The janitor? That's hysteria. This clever writer gets to grind his political axe and obfiscate the real issue.
Should we worry about it? You betcha. We should worry about what Kyl and Schumer are doing. Dont let the NY times twist the facts. Look at the title of the story and tell me this guy isn't twisting reality.

[buzz_knox]

The Patriot Act as is crosses the line.

A permanent Patriot Act obliterates the line.

[Don Gwinn]

It is impossible to find the words to express how very little this surprises me. We all knew this would happen. We're just going to have to fight the permanence harder than we fought the original bill.

[CMichael]

It is impossible to find the words to express how very little this surprises me. We all knew this would happen. We're just going to have to fight the permanence harder than we fought the original bill

Don't include me in the we please.

[buzz_knox]

In Netanyahu's book "Fighting Terrorism" he mentions that someone from the FBI told him that if there is a militant/terrorist group who publishes a newsletter, it is illegal for the FBI agent to buy one of the newsletters using government money.

I seriously doubt that. It's not surveillance to purchase an open source document.

[Jeff White]

Michael,

I'm just curious, where do you personally draw the line? Not a flame, your opinion is as valid as anyones. Would you approve of the Clinton Justice Department having the powers that the Patriot Act Grants. How about the Jerry Brown, Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Shumer Justice Department?

Jeff

[CMichael]

Hi Jeff,

Nice talking to you again :)

You ask a good question. There is a line to be drawn.

First, I think it's important to understand the daunting task in protecting America from terrorism. How hard would it be for a terrorist to start a fire in the Washington DC Metro which was actually planned?

We are an open society as we should be.

However, I think that it's necessary to realize that the government needs new tools to deal with this threat that endangers the American public.

Terrorists just have to get lucky once to create panic and hurt the country at least economically severly.

I do realize that in court defendants can demand that almost all the evidence is released. The problem is that in this case it can lead to informants being killed and sources used to get intelligence being plugged up.

Our law enforcement has been geared to investigating a crime after the fact. Once there is a murder the police go in and find the culprit. However, in this case law enforcement needs to prevent the crime before it occurs.

This is why I support a court giving a warrant without making the details of the court and the reason for the warrant public.

I agree that in the case of terrorists there should be military tribunals. The consequences of losing a case can be very grave. And how do you get enough evidence to convict an international terrorist when you need the entire jury to do so. Most of the witnesses wouldn't even be in the US.

So I believe there should be court oversight. We are living in new dangerous times and I think the government should get some slack in defending the public.

The government isn't in some massive conspiracy to get power, I believe it is genuinly trying to protect the public from terrorist attacks.

Where do you draw the line Jeff?

[mercedesrules]

Why wasn't there terrorism until fairly recently?

[Jeff White]

Hi Michael,

I drew the line with all of the useless laws they passed to make people feel safer after 9-11. Everytime we change our way of life to make ourselves feel safer, the terrorists win. that is their goal; to change our way of life.

We have had procedures in place for years to deal with sensitive or classified information in court. We used them all the time in spy cases. What we've done with the USA Patriot Act is to give our security forces legal authority to go on fishing expeditions through peoples private lives. It's not necessary for the government to do this to protect us. It is another step down the road to a regulated society much different then the one we lived in in the past or even live in now. We are going to be much more successful fighting terrorists overseas with our intelligence agencies then we ever will trying to force a police state on the American people in the name of protecting them from themselves. Several previous administrations of both parties have used the FBI, IRS and other agencies of the Executive Branch to keep tabs on polical opponents and worse. This was before anyone every thought of the USA Patriot Act. Now a President (through his staff so he personally has plausible deniability) can use the formidible powers of the Executive Branch to spy on political opponents, suppress dissent or even jail and hold incognito opponents, just like what used to happen in Iraq. Now I'm not saying that the Bush administration would do that, I don't believe they will. But by establishing the precedent it gives a future administration the right to do it legally with no recourse. Think of how the Johnson administration may have used the USA Patriot Act during the turmoil that was the civil rights movement, or the Nixon administration might have used those powers against the anti-war movement. More recently, look back at how the Clinton administration used every Executive Branch agency from the IRS to the FBI against it's political opponents. At least in the Johnson and Nixon administrations there were violent protests and they could have said that there was a clear and present danger to the country (even though that would have been exagerated). The Clinton administration used the FBI and IRS strictly for political reasons.

Along comes 9-11 and we get the USA Patriot Act. Now we can declare by fiat a group to be a terrorist organization, we can keep tabs on what Americans are reading, we can declare a citizen an enemy combatant and spirit them away......

It's not that I think Padilla is some kind of a hero or that he doesn't deserve anything he gets. I am against the government having that kind of power over anyone. Today Padilla and al-Queda, tomorrow Jeff and Michael and the NRA? It's not so far fetched.

The place to fight terrorism is overseas and at the borders. Once we get into proactive law enforcement we are in trouble. I know, I've worked in law enforcement for 18 years. We don't need any more power. More resources perhaps, but more power...no.

Jeff

[TallPine]

The most terrifying thing of all is that I would actually agree with Tom Dashole about anything.

What is this world coming too ...?

:D

[Justin Moore]

Everytime we change our way of life to make ourselves feel safer, the terrorists win. that is their goal; to change our way of life.

I betcha 100 smakcers that when the Patriot Act was passed, bin Laden was laughing his *** off. Jeff is totally right here.

Now I'm not saying that the Bush administration would do that, I don't believe they will.

Nor do I. But, as Jeff pointed out, someone else easily could.

Think of how the Johnson administration may have used the USA Patriot Act during the turmoil that was the civil rights movement, or the Nixon administration might have used those powers against the anti-war movement.

One word: COINTELPRO

Protect the borders, and kill the bad guys, it seems pretty simple to me. As opposed to leaving our borders wide open, the Patriot Act, Total Information Awareness, the Verichip, and a National ID card ;)

[publius]

The quote about Hatch ends in "officals said." What officials? The janitor? That's hysteria.

Lots of information comes out without attribution, for good reasons. Call me hysterical, but I believe some of it. I don't find it difficult to believe that people within the government are working on making the PA permanent. I don't find it difficult to believe that Hatch is one of those people.

This is why I support a court giving a warrant without making the details of the court and the reason for the warrant public.

I agree that in the case of terrorists there should be military tribunals. The consequences of losing a case can be very grave.

So can the consequences of losing habeus corpus.

As you can see from the topic article, they're already working on dissolving the necessity to prove a link to a foreign power or terrorist group when applying the PA. How long before they do that with tribunals?

Here's a long, multi-part question for you:

In a world in which fishing expeditions by government agents are permitted, in a world where evidence need never be made public, in a world where the FISA court, which has never refused a warrant request, handles all the warrant requests of consequence, in a world where the accused is tried in secret, using evidence he cannot obtain, by a panel of people whose ultimate boss is the one bringing the charges, what does this stuff all mean:

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated (unless we suspect something's up), and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation or secret evidence, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, which information will never be revealed.

5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury or accusation by the executive branch, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law or at least a secret court composed of people working for the executive branch; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation or at least government suspicion. (http://www.fear.org/hadaway.html)

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, or by a secret tribunal composed of people working for the executive branch and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation or just held for however long the executive branch feels like it; to be confronted with the witnesses against him or not; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor or not, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

[Waitone]

No legislation should pass congress UNLESS it has a sunset provision. Congress should be required to reevaluate and assess the product of its labor.

No legislation should pass congress where congress exempts itself from provision of law that mere mortals endure.

I am higly suspicious of anything coming out of congress particularly during the aftermath of 9-11. Rational thought was in short supply. No doubt the statists and constitution haters entered provisions we would all hate.

However, I also know over the years a lot of dumb or stupid provisions of law grew up in the code which need to be removed. So like most things in life we endure both good and bad.

My question: is anyone out there aware of any analysis done on the Patriot's Act? What are the facts? What did the act fix? What did the act mess up?

As much as I admire the commentary I read on THR // TFL I'd rather see a systematic piece laying out what the act did or didn't do.

Right now I'm drawing conclusions based on the public debate and who supports what side in the debate. At the same time I see little clear analysis and statement of fact as to what the Act does.

[buzz_knox]

The government isn't in some massive conspiracy to get power, I believe it is genuinly trying to protect the public from terrorist attacks

Ultimately, gov't is about keeping the power it has and expanding said powers. It becomes an entity unto itself, and given that it's only limitation is that which it imposes on itself, it will become obsessed with expanding its control.

How do I know this? Because I'm in one of the myriad branches of the executive office. It's very clear to me what my own agency would do if there weren't limitations placed on it by other portions of the gov't (i.e. Congress and the courts). The public has influence over us only by their power to petition Congress and sue us. That's why I believe in limited gov't, which should only be involved in matters which the private sector and/or states won't or can't effectively carry out on their own.

[python1340]

I can understand searches at airports and government buildings. This law is a violation of American civil rights. It is ironic how the Republicans (who are traditionally laizze faire) and Democrats have flip flopped on this issue.

When I vote next year, any candidate that supports this will not get my vote.

[publius]

buzz_knox is right on the money. I don't work within the beast, but it's plain to see that protecting the Bureau becomes a primary goal, and one for which bureaucrats are rewarded. We've all seen it. There's only one way to get fired in government: become a liability to the Bureau you work for by becoming a whistleblower, or by behaving so badly in your private life that you just can't be defended, even by the most powerful unions in the country.

Waitone,

The PA has been torn down for inspection by various folks. I think the most thorough job I've seen was that done by the ACLU. I couldn't even read the whole thing, nor do I have time to go find it for you this morning, but it's out there.

Congresscritter Ron Paul has also written about it on several occasions. Check out Texas Straight Talk (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/welcome.htm).

Python,

Excellent. Here's (http://lp.org) your option.

[Glock Glockler]

In Netanyahu's book "Fighting Terrorism" he mentions that someone from the FBI told him that if there is a militant/terrorist group who publishes a newsletter, it is illegal for the FBI agent to buy one of the newsletters using government money.

Nothing like 3rd hand information to base an opinion off of. If this rule does exist, it should be done away with, not responded to by an even more ridiculous law.

How hard would it be for a terrorist to start a fire in the Washington DC Metro which was actually planned?

Do you really think turming the country into a police state will make it impossible for him to do so? Nazi Germany had arguebly one os the most efficient police states ever, and they could not prevent terrorism within their borders. Trains were derailed, govt officials were assassinated, buildings blown up, etc. and they could not prevent it. Create whatever law you want, I'll show you a way around it and a way to do naughty stuff, it one is so inclined. Hmmm, am I going to be arrested for those comments, now that the Patriot Act is in place?

However, I think that it's necessary to realize that the government needs new tools to deal with this threat that endangers the American public.

What threat? You mean the US government?:)

Well, since the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, and a bunch of other govt agencies were ineffective in preventing Sept.11th, the answer lies in creating yet another govt. agency. A brilliant idea, especially considering the stellar performance of those other agencies.

The problem is that in this case it can lead to informants being killed and sources used to get intelligence being plugged up.

I agree, why should they need evidence in order to convict someone, it's inefficient? What I'd really like to see is a bunch of Nazi-esque Homeland Security thugs dressed in really snappy uniforms just picking people out of the crowd and executing them because they look guilty. I think that if this system were in place we'd severely reduce the clogging up of the court system, and increase the liklihood that terrorists be stopped before commiting a crime.

I agree that in the case of terrorists there should be military tribunals.

Ya know, I've heard that Oleg guy make some pretty strong statements in the past, so how do we know he's not a terrorist? We don't, he should have to prove it in a secret trial.

The government isn't in some massive conspiracy to get power, I believe it is genuinly trying to protect the public from terrorist attacks

Absolutely. The govts of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, and a bunch of others were different than our govt, they were foreigners and we're Americans. It couldn't happen here.

[stevelyn]

I was watching the news this evening (CBS) and saw a story on the discovery of an underground facility in newly liberated Baghdad. The facility belonged to the Iraqi Secret Police and covered an area the size of a couple of football fields. Inside it contained millions of photo dossiers on Iraqi citizens used to track their movement and daily lives. File folders in hundreds of file cabinet drawers stacked 3 high for rows and rows.
I find it ironic that we have gone to war to liberate the Iraqi people from such practices, but our own govt is in the process of implementing those very same methods against American citizens at home using PATRIOT I, pushing PATRIOT II, and TIA. The Iraqis didn't have a Constitution for SH to violate. We do, and members of our govt are dismissing it as irrelevant in their quest for more power and bigger govt.
The only difference I see, is the level of sophistication used to gather and manage the information.
The Iraqis gathered information and placed it in manila folders needing to be searched by hand. The U.S. Govt. on OTOH can retrieve a lot more information on it's citizens with a few key strokes on a computer.
:fire: :fire:

Exactly who really needs liberating???:scrutiny: :fire:

[python1340]

Excellent. Here's your option.

You don't need to convince me of the Libertarian Party (http://www.python1340.com/redir.php?http://www.lp.org/). I am completely behind 99% of their ideals.

However, if the LP doesn't put up an attractive candidate that I feel has no shot, I will vote for a candidate that does.

Early research on Democrats I've been doing shows John Kerry (http://www.python1340.com/redir.php?http://www.johnkerry.com/) to be against this violation of civil liberties, and the only anti-gun legislation he's ever been behind had to do with requiring locks on guns to prevent kids from getting to them.

The only danger I see with electing a non-anti-gun Democrat is that even if he's not anti-gun, he could succumb to party pressure if he ever took office.

[TheOtherOne]

But Republicans in the Senate in recent days have discussed a proposal, written by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, that would repeal the sunset provisions and make the law's new powers permanent, officials said. Republicans may seek to move on the proposal this week by trying to attaching it to another antiterrorism bill that would make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" terrorism suspects.


Hmmmm... So I wonder what Senator Hatch meant when he said this in a reply to one of my letters:

I continue to believe that our freedom depends on the limits to legistlative action that are set out in the Bill of Rights. I will fight those in Congress who try to use the terrorist attacks of September 11 to scare people into accepting more limits on our Second Amendment rights.

Just politician speak? "Say what they want you to hear" type thing?

[python1340]

I continue to believe that our freedom depends on the limits to legistlative action that are set out in the Bill of Rights. I will fight those in Congress who try to use the terrorist attacks of September 11 to scare people into accepting more limits on our Second Amendment rights.

I'm more concerned with the 1st and 4th Amendments now. They seem a lot easier to infringe upon than the 2nd Amendment does.

[CMichael]

Hi Jeff,

One of the rediculous laws has been that the authorities could only get a warrant to tap a phone number not a person.

So what terrorists have been doing is buying disposable cell phones. That way the authorities can't keep up with getting the appropriate positions.

It seems that your position is that if that law is changed to tap the person rather thant he phone number then the terrorists win because we have changed the laws. I submit that the terrorists rather the present law be kept rather than a law that makes it more difficult for them to operate.

I would imagine that most terrorists would relish having regular trials where they can get all the information, and their comrades can use that to eliminate informants.

I believe that terrorists are not happy about the Patriot Act. Why? Because it makes it more difficult for them to operate.

And I think some things are common sense. I think if the government is investigating someone there is nothing wrong about seeing what books they checked out from the public library. If they checked out the blue prints to the Statue of Liberty that may be a reason to be concerned.

So far using military tribunals and the new tools that the government has been used very sparingly and with caution.

I understand your point that you don't think the Bush Administration would abuse it but what about the sleezy types. You are right that is a risk. However, you can't make that fear keep you from doing what needs to be done now.

There is a fundamental difference in batteling terrorism now than in anything else. The difference is that terrorists acts need to be prevented not just investigated after thousands are murdered.

I have a lot of confidence in the Bush Administration. I think President Bush is very honorable.

I think that we live in very dangerous times. This country is very vulnerable and I am willing to give slack to those who have the responsiblity to protect the public from horrific terrorist acts.

[CMichael]

Me How hard would it be for a terrorist to start a fire in the Washington DC Metro which was actually planned?

Glock Do you really think turming the country into a police state will make it impossible for him to do so? Nazi Germany had arguebly one os the most efficient police states ever, and they could not prevent terrorism within their borders. Trains were derailed, govt officials were assassinated, buildings blown up, etc. and they could not prevent it. Create whatever law you want, I'll show you a way around it and a way to do naughty stuff, it one is so inclined. Hmmm, am I going to be arrested for those comments, now that the Patriot Act is in place

Nice hyperbole. It has nothing to do with reality. How about stating how exactly it's being turned into nazi germany :rolleyes:

me However, I think that it's necessary to realize that the government needs new tools to deal with this threat that endangers the American public.

Glock What threat? You mean the US government?

No. I mean terrorists out to kill Americans. Maybe this will bring back a memory 9 1 1

Well, since the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, and a bunch of other govt agencies were ineffective in preventing Sept.11th, the answer lies in creating yet another govt. agency. A brilliant idea, especially considering the stellar performance of those other agencies

Well since they were ineffective in preventing 9 11 the answer is to investigate why they were ineffective and correct it. One reason is that law enforcement has been geared to investigating a crime after it has been committed and not preventing it.

me The problem is that in this case it can lead to informants being killed and sources used to get intelligence being plugged up.

glock

I agree, why should they need evidence in order to convict someone, it's inefficient? What I'd really like to see is a bunch of Nazi-esque Homeland Security thugs dressed in really snappy uniforms just picking people out of the crowd and executing them because they look guilty. I think that if this system were in place we'd severely reduce the clogging up of the court system, and increase the liklihood that terrorists be stopped before commiting a crime.

Perhaps that is the problem. You seem to trust the terrorists more than you do your own government. Perhaps they actually want to prevent terrorists attacks? Could that be true? :rolleyes:


Glock
Absolutely. The govts of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, and a bunch of others were different than our govt, they were foreigners and we're Americans. It couldn't happen here.

Amazing that you can't see the difference!

[Jeff White]

Michael,

One of the rediculous laws has been that the authorities could only get a warrant to tap a phone number not a person.

So what terrorists have been doing is buying disposable cell phones. That way the authorities can't keep up with getting the appropriate positions.

You've hit the nail on the head. For everything that we do to tighten things up, they will find away around it. Tell me this, if our targeted terrorist buys a new cell phone, how do we know it? Are we listening in on every conversation where we think he's located until we hear his voice? Are we listening in on every pay phone in a geographic area until we hear him? There are plenty of secure ways for terrorists to communicate.

I would imagine that most terrorists would relish having regular trials where they can get all the information, and their comrades can use that to eliminate informants.

I never suggested regular trials. There are procedures in place to deal with classified information. As I said, it's used in spy tirals all the time.

And I think some things are common sense. I think if the government is investigating someone there is nothing wrong about seeing what books they checked out from the public library. If they checked out the blue prints to the Statue of Liberty that may be a reason to be concerned.

You don't really think that they are looking at specific individuals with this part of the law, do you? What they are looking for is patterns. Someone in the government is working on a profile of a terrorist. There already are several, but they are constantly refined. Check out too many of the wrong books, visit too many wrong websites and suddenly you are suspect. This isn't the thriller on the screen where the hero agent gets the bad guys library record and stops him from blowing up the Statute of Liberty while the elementary school field trip is visiting. This is all about developing lists of possible suspects.

I think that we live in very dangerous times. This country is very vulnerable and I am willing to give slack to those who have the responsiblity to protect the public from horrific terrorist acts.

You are right, we live in very dangerous times. Our country is very vulnerable. We are very lucky that our enemies don't think the same way we do. Their focus on symbolic targets instead of those infrastructure targets that could really disrupt our economy or way of life works in our favor.

I am one of those responsible for protecting the nation. I don't want any slack. I would like to see enough Border Patrol officers hired to really protect our borders. I'd like to see enough customs agents hired to actually secure our ports and do it in a timely enough manner not to affect the economy. Enough first responders in every community to deal with any emergency that would arise. Plans to reinforce our medical capability within 12 hours of a mass casualty incident anywhere.

The USA Patriot Act is an attempt at security on the cheap. I am going to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their motives. I think they actually believe that they can stop a terrorist act before is happens through use of these measures and not spend the money on real security. They will be proven wrong. As was pointed out in an earlier post, terrorism has happened in the most restricted countries. The USA Patriot Act is very simply giving up essential liberty for the illusion of security. And what comes after the next attack?

Jeff

[Waitone]

I am no expert in understanding the Patriots Act. What I do know tends to be good and be bad. Wiretap laws were written around state of the art communications technology of the 1920's. Bad guys easily used aged law to dance around LE's attempt to investigate. that's good.

What's bad is IIRC the ability to layon a wiretap in some circumstances does not require a court order. Or the provision that allows investigators to do a blackbag job on a suspect again without a court order. Then there is law provisions that kept the CIA from sharing information with the FBI. That is an artifact of Watergate. It may have been appropriate at one time but not now.

Our constitutional protections are implemented by the shear genius of structural checks and balances. Power invested in one branch of government is check by a second and different branch. We already have espionage courts where the judiciary in secret sessions will evaluate the executive branch's request for whatever. To the extent that the Patriots Act weakens constitutional checks and balances we are all worse off.

To the extent the PA weeded out stupid and out dated provisions of law I'm in support of it. To the extent the PA weakens constitutiional checks and balances or outright infringes the constitution I oppose it. Problem is I don't think our elected congressional representative think that deep.

[Justin Moore]

Patriot II is even better ;)

http://www.gunowners.org/patriotii.htm

On February 7, 2003, the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity released a draft of new "anti-terrorism" legislation being crafted by the Justice Department. The broad new powers conferred on government by the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (DSEA), labeled "CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION," are alarming.

Our analysis suggests that, rather than toughening our ability to capture and kill Osama bin Laden and his ilk, this bill would instead rely on cosmetic "solutions" which threaten the constitutional rights of Americans, without increasing our national security. In fact, this placebo will probably make our country considerably less secure.

Some of the most significant provisions follow:

PRIVACY AND UNLAWFUL SEARCHES
The government could bug, wiretap, or search anyone in America for up to 15 days without going to any court if Congress had authorized the use of military force (i.e., under circumstances which currently exist). [Section 103]

The government could seize personal information about Americans (including credit information, educational transcripts, etc.) in a wide range of circumstances without the approval of any court by issuing "administrative subpoenas" (i.e., subpoenas or letters issued by bureaucrats and not authorized by any court). [Sections 126, 128, & 129]

All of this information could be used to prosecute Americans. [Section 105]

If the government, incredibly, was so inept that it failed to comply with the virtually non-existent limitations on bugs and searches, there would be a defense in a proceeding against an agent who violated the law and/or the Constitution, thereby effectively legalizing all searches. [Section 106]

Individuals and groups which engage in or advocate civil disobedience or Second Amendment rights, including GOA, could be classified as "foreign powers" and subject to electronic surveillance for up to a year without the approval of any court. [Section 104]

BIG BROTHER

DSEA would authorize the creation of a DNA bank of all persons "suspected" of being terrorists. [Section 302-6]

Businesses that unlawfully turn over private consumer information to the federal government out of terrorism-related paranoia would be insulated from lawsuits. [Section 313]

ARRESTS AND SUSPENSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
DSEA would allow the government to revoke or suspend a pilot's license for two months without any intervening judicial review during that time period [Section 409]. This provision may well be intended to deter pilots wishing to carry firearms in the cockpit. The guidelines issued by the Transportation Security Administration require all kinds of new testing (emotional, psychological, etc.) for every pilot who seeks to carry a firearm. (Of course, pilots already go through similar testing before qualifying for a pilot's license.) These additional tests could become fishing expeditions for a future Clinton-Gore Justice Department -- giving officials a pretext to suspend or revoke the licenses of those pilots who wish to carry firearms in the cockpit under DSEA's new suspension provisions.

DSEA could allow members and supporters of GOA and other organizations to be stripped of their citizenship [Section 501], arrested and held indefinitely without charges, here or abroad [Section 503-6], in secret at a secret location [Section 201], without access to an attorney or benefit of constitutional protections.

BACKGROUND

A year ago, Gun Owners of America [GOA] -- together with a wide range of organizations on all sides of the ideological spectrum -- warned that the so-called "P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act's" overly broad definition of terrorism could allow the federal government to spy on -- and potentially shut down -- groups like GOA.

GOA and other groups negotiated with the Senate and the administration in removing some of the more noxious provisions, but was only partly successful in correcting the bill's inadequacies.
In particular, the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- which hardly shrouded itself in glory in connection the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents -- was given broad new powers to wiretap, monitor, search, and detain "suspects" without probable cause or due process and without giving them access to attorneys.

On February 7, the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity released a draft of follow-up legislation being crafted by the Justice Department. The broad new powers conferred on government by this follow-up bill, labeled "CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION," are alarming.

Given the inability of the administration to capture and kill Osama bin Laden and many other top al Qaeda leaders, the Justice Department appears to be poised to use a future terrorist tragedy to create the impetus for passage of this bill, dubbed the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 [DSEA]."

The importance of provisions waiving constitutional rights for non-citizens increases dramatically if the government can revoke the citizenship of native-born Americans for any reason -- much less, for potentially minor transgressions.

Although they may disagree with some overly broad interpretations crafted by the courts, Americans have no problem with constitutional rights for confessed serial killers, even though their admitted crimes are very serious. So the notion that bad people don't deserve the protections afforded by the rule of law is a relatively novel one -- and not a constitutional idea at all.
Rather than suspending the Constitution, concerned Americans believe the administration should honor it by:
creating a non-politically correct military;
allowing the military to seek, capture, and/or kill terrorists like Osama bin Laden, irrespective of whether resolute action has the approval of the UN or other participants in the "new world order";
treat REAL terrorists, like the bomber in WTC1, with severity, rather than moving to shorten their sentences (as was done prior to 9/11/2001); securing our borders.

On the other hand, with the new DSEA draft posing the possibility that GOA and its officers, employees, and members could be stripped of their citizenship, the notion of suspending the Constitution for objectionable behavior is not something we support.

Just an excerpt. Ponder it.....

[Justin Moore]

OOooo boy :) It seems Cato had a policy forum that was broadcast today on CSPAN. Go to www.cspan.org and you'll
see a link to it on the main page under 'video'

CATO Institute Forum on the PATRIOT Act (04/14/2003)_

Watch it, watch it again, and then make someone else watch it. Watch it, even if your name is cmichael ;)

Requires Realplayer. Did I mention that you should WATCH? I was highly interested in the part about how the government can now seek FISA authority for cases that are somehow vaugely 'related' to national security issues. In other words, it can potentially used for ordinary criminal cases. The same think with the 'sneak and peek' search provisions. Didn't pay off your student loan eh? ;)

Anyway, did I mention you should watch it? Good, I thought so...

[Justin Moore]

Here's a thing from one of the participants from the Cato thing referenced above. Jim Dempsey, director of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter02/dempsey.html

By James X. Dempsey
The terrorist attacks of September 11 represented a quantum leap in the deadliness and audacity of terror. They revealed a vulnerability that many in the United States had never before appreciated. And they spurred adoption of many sound initiatives to better prevent terrorism. Unfortunately, they also triggered a startling surrender of fundamental democratic principles in an attempt to purchase enhanced security—an effort that is not only constitutionally unsound but also likely to be counterproductive.
Within weeks of the attacks, thousands of individuals were arrested and held without criminal charges, under a shroud of secrecy. Attorney General John Ashcroft compromised the Sixth Amendment right to effective legal counsel by ordering officials to wiretap attorney-client telephone calls without judicial approval. President Bush authorized the creation of military courts to secretly try terrorism suspects. And Congress fundamentally rewrote the surveillance laws and increased the powers of both the FBI and the CIA to collect information within the U.S. on citizens and noncitizens alike.

Criticizing these measures does not deny the frightening risks our nation faces. There likely will be additional terrorist attacks on our soil and against U.S. interests abroad. It is even possible that some attacks will involve biological, chemical, or nuclear materials. Yet, it is precisely because the risk is so high that we need to preserve the fullest range of due process and accountability in the exercise of government powers.

The False Trade-Off Between Freedom and Security

The debate over terrorism is often framed as a trade-off between liberty and security. This is a flawed calculus, in several respects. First, many civil liberties, far from being at odds with security, actually enhance the ability of the government to defend the common good. We guarantee the right to confront one’s accusers, for example, not only as an element of human dignity but also because cross-examination exposes lies and forces the government to continue looking until the truly guilty party is found. Similarly, we subject government decisions to public scrutiny and judicial review not only to give voice to individuals but also because openness and accountability can produce a fuller factual record, expose faulty assumptions, and slow the rash decision making of elected officials acting under pressure. We protect freedom of speech not only because it allows room for personal self-expression, but also because it promotes the stability that comes from the availability of channels for dissent and peaceful change. For these and other reasons, surrender of freedom in the name of fighting terror is not only a constitutional tragedy, it is also likely to be ineffective and worse, counterproductive.
The attorney general has said that foreign terrorists "do not deserve the protection of the American Constitution." What the attorney general does not seem to appreciate, however, is that it is precisely the procedures of the Constitution by which we reliably determine who is a terrorist and who is not.

Second, policymakers too frequently curtail civil liberties without ever actually analyzing whether civil liberties in fact pose an impediment to security. September 11 proved in the worst way that the U.S. anti-terrorism effort was flawed. The governmental reaction to the events of that day is doubly distressing not merely because it curtails civil liberties but also because it has done so with no consideration of what went wrong in the days and months before and little regard to whether the liberty-curtailing changes will be effective. The fact that U.S. authorities failed to detect the September 11 attack in advance should have prompted a comprehensive review of our intelligence capabilities. But Congress enacted many of the provisions of the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism law, the USA Patriot Act (Patriot Act), without ever identifying what problems they were intended to cure or how the additional authorities would make a difference.
Third, trading off civil liberties for real or perceived improvements in national security is the wrong place to start when there are so many things to be done to improve security that do not implicate civil liberties at all. Take airport security, where luggage screeners deserve job stability and a decent wage, and the technology to detect bombs in luggage should be used consistently. Yet, weeks and even months after September 11, breaches of airport security continue to occur. We need to do a better job of improving the safety and security of nuclear plants and chemical plants, instead of sweeping those problems under the rug as some in industry and Congress have proposed. Internationally, we should step up efforts to gain control over and destroy chemical, biological, and nuclear toxins left behind by the Soviet Union. Tighter domestic regulation of toxins is needed as well. As of September 11, we did not have an adequate system in place to control the manufacture, transport, and possession of dangerous chemicals and biological materials. There are many ways to improve the use of information in the visa and immigration process that have nothing to do with the political or associational criteria that in the past have been used to deny visas to those critical of U.S. foreign policy.

Finally, even in the area of surveillance and privacy, the choice is not between surveillance powers and no surveillance powers. Civil libertarians engaged in the debate over the new terrorism laws do not argue that the government should be denied the tools it needs to monitor terrorists’ communications. Instead, privacy advocates urge that those powers be focused and subject to clear standards and judicial review. The tragedy of the response to September 11 is not that the government has been given new powers—it is that those new powers have been granted without standards or checks and balances.

To better understand the disconnect between the danger facing America and some of the measures that have been adopted that curtail civil liberties, it is worth examining, in depth, several of the provisions in the USA Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law adopted in October 2001.

"Sneak and Peek" Searches

The popular notion of search and seizure can be described as follows: the police go before a judge and get a search warrant. They rush to the apartment of the suspect, rap loudly on the door and shout, "Police, open up, we have a warrant to search your apartment." If the person inside doesn’t open up right away, the police can kick in the door, but in any event, most people would assume, when the FBI or police want to come into your home or apartment, they have to announce themselves, show their warrant, and, if they seize anything, leave an inventory of what they have taken. After all, the police do occasionally make mistakes and go to the wrong address. The homeowner can point this out, and observe the search to ensure the police stay within the terms of the warrant. In Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), and Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997), the Supreme Court reaffirmed this vision, holding that contemporaneous notice was normally constitutionally required, and could be dispensed with only under exceptional circumstances.

The Patriot Act threw out this concept of a normal police search of a home, apartment, or office. Section 213 amended section 3103a of Title 18, United States Code, allowing the FBI to secretly enter your apartment or house while you are asleep or away, take, alter or copy things, and not tell you they were there for days, weeks, or even months later. Instead of crafting specific standards for such searches, Congress incorporated by reference a delayed notice provision governing the reading of stored e-mail.
Instead of limiting the so-called "sneak and peek" authority to aliens suspected of terrorism, Congress applied it to the homes of citizens also. Moreover, what is most remarkable about this provision is that it is not limited to terrorism cases: it applies to drug cases, tax fraud, providing false information on student loan applications, or any other federal crime. And it is not subject to the sunset provision under which some of the new law’s provisions expire after four years unless renewed by Congress. Thus, the emergency atmosphere generated by the September 11 attacks was used to make a permanent, fundamental change in law enforcement procedures having nothing to do with terrorism. (its for your 'safety' boys and girls - JM)

Expanding the Domestic Power of the CIA

When the Central Intelligence Agency was created in 1947, Congress explicitly said that the agency was to have no subpoena or domestic police powers. Instead, the CIA’s operations were intended to be directed overseas, focused on foreign nationals. Since the CIA was not supposed to engage in law enforcement, and since its agents were never supposed to appear in court, the CIA was not given the type of power that law enforcement agencies wield. And those law enforcement powers are awesome.
One of the most powerful is the grand jury. The grand jury can compel anyone to testify before it under oath. If you refuse, you can be sent to jail. If you testify and the government believes you are lying, you can be prosecuted for perjury. The grand jury can compel any business to turn over any records or databases, again with the threat of jail time for those who refuse. These powers are subject, however, to two important controls: anything from the grand jury the government uses in a criminal case is subject to the full panoply of due process protections, while, on the other hand, anything not used in open court must be kept secret and used for no other purpose.

Section 203 of the 2001 Patriot Act abolished these limitations, giving the CIA the benefit of the grand jury’s powers with none of the protections of the criminal justice system. In a provision that is not subject to the four-year sunset, the new law amended Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow information collected by grand juries to be shared with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, as well as any national defense or national security official, without the prior approval of a judge. In effect, CIA agents working with law enforcement officers can now jointly draw up subpoenas, obtain the fruits of the grand jury’s power, and never have to appear in open court or explain how they used the information.

Evading the Stricter Standards of the Criminal Wiretap Laws

One of the other fundamental changes of the Patriot Act was to allow the FBI to carry out wiretaps and secret physical searches ("black bag jobs") to collect evidence of crimes using the lower standards designed for foreign intelligence gathering. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorizes the FBI to conduct electronic surveillance and clandestine searches without full probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed. Instead, the FISA standard merely requires the government to have probable cause to believe that the target of the intrusion is an agent of a foreign power. If the suspected agent of a foreign power is a U.S. citizen, the government needs additional probable cause, but still less than is required for a wiretap under Title III or a normal search and seizure in a criminal case.

The wiretaps and searches authorized by FISA are extraordinary in nature: Most notably, the target of the surveillance is never notified of the intrusion (under Title III and even under the "sneak and peek" authority in the Patriot Act, the subject is eventually notified after the investigation closes). This lack of notice is most significant in cases where the surveillance turns up nothing. Under FISA, a person is notified of surveillance only if he or she is later prosecuted using the evidence seized. Even then, defendants have little opportunity to challenge the validity of the search, for they are never provided the affidavit that served as the basis for the surveillance. In the case of individuals who are not prosecuted—those where the likelihood of government overreaching is the greatest—notice is never given.
This extraordinary authority was justified on the basis that it would not be used for the purpose of investigating crime. Congress recognized that evidence of crimes might be collected—espionage, for example, is a crime—so Congress allowed the use of FISA evidence in criminal cases. But the "primary purpose" of the investigation had to be the collection of foreign intelligence. Otherwise, the statute would serve as an end run around the probable cause requirements of the criminal wiretap statute.

In the Patriot Act, Congress eliminated the primary purpose test, amending FISA to allow wiretaps and physical searches without probable cause so long as "a significant purpose" of the intrusion is to collect foreign intelligence. The express justification for this was to allow the government to initiate wiretaps under FISA’s lower standard where the primary purpose from the outset was the collection of criminal evidence. This means that, in cases involving a foreign government—an investigation, for example, of foreign contributions to a U.S. political campaign—the Department of Justice can conduct a criminal investigation involving FBI wiretapping and secret searches without probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed. If no crime turns up, the government need never tell the person whose phones were tapped; yet the information obtained can be shared with the CIA, the National Security Council, and the Pentagon.

The Dragnet Approach

Generally, when the government goes to a bank, credit bureau, telephone company, hospital, or library, it can obtain a person’s records only if there is reason to believe that the particular person was engaged in some wrongdoing. In international terrorism cases, for example, the government formerly needed some reason to believe that the person whose records it was seeking was a member of a foreign terrorist group. The Patriot Act wiped out this limitation. The implications of this change are enormous. Previously, the FBI could get the credit records of anyone suspected of being an international terrorist. Under the new 2001 legislation, the FBI can get the entire database of the credit card company. It can go into a public library and ask for the records on everybody who ever used the library, or who used it on a certain day, or who checked out certain kinds of books. It can do the same at any bank, any telephone company, any hotel or motel, any hospital, and any university—merely on the claim that the information is "sought for" an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

Conclusion

In the name of fighting terrorism, changes have been adopted that fundamentally alter the power of the government. They weaken the role of the judiciary. They relieve the government of the responsibility to focus its investigations on specific suspects. They permit government agencies to cast their nets far wider than ever before.

These changes do not mean merely that the government is collecting a lot more information on a lot more people in the hope that something will turn up. The investigative and intelligence agencies were already choking on more information than they could digest. Sweeping in even more information will not make the picture any clearer. In this way, the expanded surveillance powers are likely to make counterterrorism efforts more inefficient.
The fight against terrorism is an epic struggle, one that is likely to go on for many years. It is precisely because the stakes are so high that we need to adhere to principles of due process, judicial checks and balances, and openness and accountability in government.