[IP] H.R. 3179 is the latest attempt to expand the scope of the Patriot Act
It should be noted that the Wash Times is very conservative
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paul Julien <p.julien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 3, 2004 4:54:22 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: H.R. 3179 is the latest attempt to expand the scope of the
Patriot Act
Reply-To: Paul Julien <p.julien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dave:
This article discusses how "H.R. 3179 is the latest attempt to expand
the
scope of the Patriot Act".
From
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040726-090230-9970r.htm
and reproduced below.
For Barr's testimony, see
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/barr051804.pdf
Paul Julien
*
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----
Guarding liberties
By Paul M. Weyrich/David Keene
Published July 27, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----
After September 11, 2001, the Justice Department began asking for more
and
more "tools" to help law enforcement agencies identify potential
terrorist
threats and, as administration spokesmen like to say, "protect the
American
homeland."
No conservative can disagree with the goal, and virtually all
understand
the need to provide effective tools to those responsible for rooting out
terrorists and blocking their plots within our borders. But many are
beginning to ask if there has been enough thought about the impact on
privacy and constitutional rights of all the "tools" acquired since
September 11 and the new ones sought today.
Increasingly, conservatives outside Washington express real concern
about giving federal law enforcement more power in the name of national
security. They fear the "tools" the government seeks to protect us from
our
enemies eventually could circumscribe our own liberties. Given the
maneuvering over H.R. 3179, they have good reason for concern.
H.R. 3179 is the latest attempt to expand the scope of the Patriot
Act
even before it is clear all the current Patriot Act powers are
necessary and
used appropriately. Despite the unanswered concern, key congressional
leaders resorted to stealth late last year in attaching a measure to the
2004 Intelligence Authorization bill that drastically increased the
FBI's
power by allowing the agency to demand records from car dealers,
pawnbrokers, travel agents and other businesses without judge or grand
jury
approval. Neither House nor Senate debated it; the real action took
place
behind closed doors.
This also seems to be happening with H.R. 3179 -- the Anti-Terrorism
Intelligence Tools Improvement Act of 2003. House leaders planned to
rush
the bill to the floor for approval without any real debate until a
ruckus
was raised by a coalition ranging from the American Civil Liberties
Union to
the Free Congress Foundation and the American Conservative Union. In an
attempt to skirt such opposition, there was talk of adding H.R. 3179 to
the
House intelligence bill, but to no avail. The intelligence bill passed
the
House without H.R. 3179.
One part of H.R. 3179 -- the so-called "lone wolf" expansion of
intelligence wiretaps -- is attached to the Senate bill, but is opposed
by
conservatives like former Georgia representative and National Rifle
Association board member Bob Barr and Jane Harmon, ranking Democratic
on the
House Intelligence Committee. Passage of the Senate version would
necessitate a conference debate on the "lone wolf" issue -- opening up
the
package of Patriot Act expansions in H.R. 3179. Again, this closed-door
deliberation would shut the public out of voicing any concerns. In
short,
this dangerous bill isn't dead yet.
Even the most cursory examination reveals H.R. 3179 would expand
Patriot
Act powers without any built-in accountability and oversight. One of its
most troubling provisions involves new powers for searches ordered by
National Security Letters. These can be used to demand access to
individual
or business records even absent a showing of individual suspicion.
There is
no way either the target of the investigation or those on whom the
letters
are served can challenge them as too broad. The statute, in fact, makes
it a
crime for a recipient to raise alarms in the press, or even to the
Justice
Department's inspector general or the relevant congressional committees
that
should exercise oversight.
Another H.R. 3179 provision restricts a judge's power to decide if
admission of classified information in criminal cases is warranted. The
government would ask such evidence be allowed without opposing counsel
present. The request would need not be in writing. Mr. Barr, a member
of the
Judiciary Committee when in Congress and a former U.S. Attorney and CIA
official, told the House hearing this provision "represents an
incremental
shift of power away from the court and towards the prosecutor. Congress
should hear much more from both prosecutors and defense lawyers with
experience in this area before making such a change, in order to
determine
whether the effect may be much larger than intended."
These are only two of the changes sought by H.R. 3179. Few Americans
will lose much sleep over either change by itself, but they should when
these changes are added to the other "tools" being acquired by law
enforcement.
Hearings on this legislation were never completed. They were
suspended
early to allow members to take part in roll call votes on the House
floor
and have yet to be reconvened.
If history repeats itself, the hearings may never be resumed: H.R.
3179
could be added to the final version of the intelligence bill at the
behest
of House leaders, without any opportunity for rank-and-file members to
add
amendments on the House floor.
Conservatives should be concerned about all this. It is disturbing
enough that key congressional leaders are maneuvering to enhance
Executive
Branch power without adequate debate on appropriate oversight and
accountability. It was James Madison in Federalist 58 who said we did
not
fight for an "elective despotism" but one in which powers were divided
between the different branches of government so "no one could transcend
their legal limits without being effectively checked and restrained by
the
others."
However, by Congress granting great power -- without checks and
balances -- to the Executive Branch, it abdicates its own
responsibility and
encourages future abuses by federal law enforcement agencies.
Conservatives well know a government bureaucracy's appetite for
power is
never sated. Left unchecked, it will push the limits, mindless of the
cost
to our own freedom.
Already, there is an effort in Congress to remove the existing
sunset
provisions to the Patriot Act, though a 2003 Government Accounting
Office
report questioned whether the Act's powers were being misused to fight
not
terrorism but run-of-the-mill crime.
Most Americans are unlikely to find themselves part of an
investigation
involving terrorism. But they should know these new "tools" already are
creatively used by U.S. attorneys from one end of the country to the
other
to investigate very ordinary criminal acts. Citizens don't realize the
privacy and constitutional safeguards they once took for granted
already are
being eroded.
There are those who perhaps overstate the threat, but that doesn't
mean
it isn't real. That's why Congress should draw the line between the
"tools"
law enforcement really needs and those in the law enforcement
bureaucracy
would simply like to possess. At the very least, Congress should resist
the
temptation to automatically approve the enforcement sector's newest
requests
without at least ascertaining it really needs the powers it already has
and
is using them as Congress believed they would be used when they were
approved.
Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and chief executive officer of the Free
Congress Foundation. David Keene is chairman of the American
Conservative
Union.
Copyright © 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/