Ashcroft warns of Bush veto on scaled-back Patriot bill

[w4rma]

Lawmakers raise privacy concerns

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration issued a veto threat Thursday against legislation introduced in Congress that would scale back key parts of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act.

In a letter to Senate leaders, Attorney General John Ashcroft said the changes contemplated by the Security and Freedom Ensured Act, or SAFE, would "undermine our ongoing campaign to detect and prevent catastrophic terrorist attacks."

If the bill reaches President Bush's desk in its current form, Ashcroft said, "the president's senior advisers will recommend that it be vetoed."

The threat comes a week after Bush, in his State of the Union address, called for Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act before it expires in 2005. The law, passed shortly after the 2001 terror attacks, expanded the government's wiretap and other surveillance authority, removed barriers between FBI and CIA information-sharing, and provided more tools for terror finance investigations.

Civil liberties groups and some lawmakers, including Republicans, believe the act goes too far and endangers the privacy of innocent citizens.

The SAFE Act, which has not yet had a hearing in either the House or Senate, was introduced last fall by Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho; Dick Durbin, D-Illinois; and other lawmakers of both parties.

In a statement at the time, Craig said the bill was a "measured" response to concerns that the Patriot Act threatens civil liberties and privacy rights.

"This legislation intends to ensure the liberties of law-abiding individuals are protected in our nation's fight against terrorism, without in any way impeding that fight," Craig said.

The bill would modify so-called "sneak and peek" search warrants that allow for delayed notification of the target of the search. In addition, warrants for roving wiretaps used to monitor a suspect's multiple cell phones would have to make sure the target was present at the site being wiretapped before information could be collected.

The legislation also would reinstate standards in place prior to passage of the Patriot Act regarding library records by forcing the FBI to show it has reason to believe the person involved is a suspected terrorist or spy. In addition, the bill would impose expiration dates on nationwide search warrants and other Patriot Act provisions, providing for congressional review.

Ashcroft, who last year embarked on a national speaking tour in support of the Patriot Act, said the legislation would "make it even more difficult to mount an effective anti-terror campaign than it was before the Patriot Act was passed."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/patriot.act.ap/index.html

Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights. Coordinate activism, debate with allies and opponents. Discuss laws concerning firearm ownership, concealed carry and self-defense.

A moderator probably just made a mistake when they locked this thread. So, I'm reposting it.

 

[Ktulu]

Bush scares the hell out of me sometimes, but John Kerry is the Devil so what you gonna do?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Like he was going to veto campaign finance reform?

 

[tyme]

Dup. That's why the first one was locked. Though this did get a little sidetracked, the main theme was the PATRIOT bill scale-back.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62152

 

[seeker_two]

If the bill reaches President Bush's desk in its current form, Ashcroft said, "the president's senior advisers will recommend that it be vetoed."

About time he vetoed SOMETHING...:banghead:

I'd like to see him explain to the American public why we have to have these abrogations of our rights in order to "protect" us? I could use a good laugh...

 

[OF]

Lets try this cut and paste thing out...

- Gabe


January 30, 2004, 8:49 a.m.
Cracked Safe
Gutting the Patriot Act.

By Ramesh Ponnuru

Right after September 11, Congress rushed through a bill, called the Patriot Act, to provide law enforcement with new powers to investigate terrorism. Since then, critics on the left and right have been making all sorts of complaints about the act. Often, these complaints have been based on misunderstandings about the law — sometimes pretty basic ones, as when it has been held responsible for such unrelated phenomena as the detention of enemy combatants.

Now the critics are moving forward with a bill to correct what they see as Patriot's specific mistakes. The critics have surrendered the moral high ground on the ridiculous-acronym question: Their bill is called the Safe Act. Now there is nothing wrong with the idea of modifying Patriot. Surely such a vast bill contains ill-considered provisions that should be amended or even eliminated. John Berlau recently made a persuasive argument (persuasive, at least, to this non-expert) that the banking-secrecy provisions of the act were unwise.

According to its proponents, the Safe Act is the moderate bill that would correct Patriot's excesses. Steve Lilienthal, director of the Center for Privacy and Technology Policy at the conservative Free Congress Foundation (Paul Weyrich's organization), says that the Safe Act would make "sensible and prudent revisions" to the law, called the Patriot Act. It is a "common sense bill" that would merely "ensure the PATRIOT powers are being used in the very way that Congress intended."

Senators in both parties are sponsors of the Safe Act: Republicans Larry Craig, Mike Crapo, Lisa Murkowski, and John Sununu, have joined forces with Democrats Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, and Ron Wyden.

Thursday, the Department of Justice issued a letter saying that the Safe Act is not the innocuous proposal it's made out to be. Attorney General John Ashcroft said that the bill would leave federal law-enforcement officials with fewer powers to investigate terrorism than they had before 9/11 — and said that the department would recommend a veto if the bill went to the president.

Take the bill's treatment of "sneak and peek" searches. Critics of Patriot have howled that it allows federal courts to issue search warrants without providing immediate notification for their targets. A majority of the House actually voted for an amendment last year that restricted this authority — although it's clear that most of those voting for the amendment had no idea what they were voting on and that the amendment would not win a majority today.

The complaints are not exactly true, since the power to issue sneak-and-peek warrants pre-dates Patriot. Delayed notice can be authorized in one of five conditions: 1) when notification would endanger someone's life; 2) when it would cause the target to flee; 3) when it would result in the destruction of (or tampering with) evidence; 4) when it would cause the intimidation of potential witnesses; and 5) when it would "otherwise seriously jeopardize[e]" an investigation or "unduly delay[] a trial." The Safe Act would make it impossible to issue such warrants in the last two cases. In other words, targets in terrorism investigations would have to be notified even if notification would allow them to intimidate witnesses or otherwise jeopardize the investigation. Not for nothing do law-and-order types call this Safe Act provision a "terrorist tip-off" policy. This is not just a retrenchment of Patriot; it's tougher on law enforcement than pre-Patriot law.

Current law lets the judge who issued the warrant extend the delay in notification "for good cause shown." The Safe Act restricts the conditions for an extension to the first three listed above. Again, this is more restrictive on law enforcement than pre-Patriot law.

The Safe Act also restricts the ability of terrorism investigators to demand (with court approval) the production of business records relevant to the investigation. The court would have to find "specific and articulable facts to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." This is a higher standard for terrorism investigations than for regular criminal investigations, where "relevance" is the applicable standard, and it would apparently immunize lone-wolf terrorists who are merely sympathizers with a foreign power (or just plain wackos).

The Justice Department's letter goes into other objections to the Safe Act. (For what it's worth, I'm not convinced by one Justice complaint: the complaint that the Safe Act sunsets necessary provisions of Patriot. But I can certainly see why, based on the congressional record so far, Justice worries that a momentary lapse of judgment by ignorant congressmen would result in the non-renewal of needed powers.) The ACLU has issued a statement in response. The statement boasts that Ashcroft must be scared that the bill will pass and ridicules the contention that the law would leave law enforcement with fewer powers to fight terrorism than it had on 9/10. It provides no rebuttal to the claim.

 

[w4rma]

Thanks, tyme. I wish that the moderator had posted a comment, explaining that, though. I sure don't want to clutter up this board with duplicate posts.

As for the essay by Ramesh Ponnuru, above, that looks like propaganda to lull liberty-oriented voters of Bush back to sleep, to me.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush, December 18, 2000

 

[Omega_7]

Tyrants can always find an excuse or three

To strip the peasants of their basic rights. Bush and A$$croft indeed do scare the willies outa me. I can say proudly that although Bush senior fooled us the fist time, no one in my home voted for the last two Bush electoral attempts. Nor will we vote for the little Napoleon this time. Kerry is scary but Bush has to go. Maybe the congressional republicans will become more radical and Libertarian as a result. last time (1994) the result was the legalization of food suppliments, a slap at the FDA (Not sidetracking the discussion, just making one example of how it could be a good thing) they also at least attempted to overturn the AWB

 

[Bruce H]

The rest of the United States is getting a look at John Ashcroft. Mel Carnahans plane crash did wonders for Missouri. Jean Carnahan was appointed to two whole years. Gave us time to elect a different person. Ashcroft needs to be a private citizen at least or in jail at best.