Feinstein, Biden Defend Patriot Act

[Monte Smith]

Patriot Act Misunderstood, Senators Say
Complaints About Civil Liberties Go Beyond Legislation's Reach, Some Insist

By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 22, 2003; Page A04

Democratic and Republican lawmakers said yesterday that the USA Patriot Act has drawn unmerited criticism from civil libertarians at both ends of the political spectrum who have targeted it with complaints over unrelated issues.

Even as some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they want to see elements of the Patriot Act modified, others contended that some of the attacks on the anti-terrorism legislation have been unfair. The act, they said, has been inaccurately cited for harsh treatment of detainees in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and President Bush's designation of some terrorism suspects as enemy combatants.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), speaking at the first of several oversight hearings on terrorism legislation, called criticism of the Patriot Act "ill-informed and overblown" and commended prosecutors' work in some terrorism cases.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) mounted a strong defense of the Patriot Act, saying she believes there is "substantial uncertainty and perhaps some ignorance about what this bill actually does do and how it has been employed." Panel Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said terrorism legislation has been misrepresented "by extremists on both ends who seem to be dominating the debate in the media today."

In recent months, nearly 200 cities and three states have passed resolutions contending that the Patriot Act, which expires next year, tramples on civil liberties. Bush and Attorney General John D. Ashcroft have campaigned to preserve the powers granted by the act, which faces reauthorization.

Feinstein said that her office has received 21,434 letters opposing the act, but more than half cite provisions that have not been enacted or sent to Congress by the Bush administration. The rest, she said, largely concern security measures governing items mailed to the United States from abroad -- not provisions of the Patriot Act.

"I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me," she said.

The American Civil Liberties Union has sued the Justice Department for alleged violations of civil liberties under the act, but Feinstein said that when her office asked the ACLU for examples, "they had none."

The act, passed six weeks after the Sept.11 attacks, enhanced the FBI's powers in terrorism probes, most significantly by giving the agency access to intelligence information that was previously off-limits to criminal investigators. The act also provided broader power to conduct searches and tap cell phones.

In July, the House voted to suspend funding for "sneak-and-peek" searches, in which investigators do not immediately notify the subject that a search has been conducted. But Feinstein argued yesterday in favor of the provision, saying it merely codifies, and even narrows, investigative authority already established in drug and organized crime case law.

Controversy has swirled over another section of the law that allows investigators to obtain medical, business and library records in terrorism investigations without notifying subjects. Last month, Ashcroft disclosed that the provision has never been used and said the law's critics had constructed "castles in the air built on misrepresentation; supported by unfounded fear; held aloft by hysteria."

Democrats on the panel criticized Ashcroft for attacking those who worry about preservation of civil liberties, and chided him and others at the Justice Department for failing to provide timely information to Congress. Biden predicted that if such a "shroud of secrecy" continues, it will doom the Patriot Act's chances of reauthorization.

Not all Democrats supported the legislation yesterday. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) said Congress overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act in "a moment of fear," and that while Feinstein is "probably right" that it has not been used to erode civil liberties, it is the government's "burden to prove" that it has not gone too far.

Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), the only member of the Senate to vote against the Patriot Act, said he supports "90 percent" of its provisions and believes the rest are "fixable." He, Durbin and other Senate liberals have joined forces with conservatives, including Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), in promoting modest changes to several provisions of the law, making it more difficult, for example, for investigators to obtain records from libraries and booksellers.

Christopher A. Wray, head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, along with Virginia U.S. Attorney Paul J. McNulty and Illinois U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, told the panel that the Patriot Act was invaluable in investigating important terrorism cases, including the probe of a terrorist cell in Portland, Ore., and an investigation of the murder in Pakistan of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

In a separate matter, Wray told the panel that Ashcroft is regularly briefed on progress in the investigation of who leaked the name of a CIA operative to columnist Robert D. Novak. Wray said Ashcroft is told of important developments, including the names of witnesses. Some Democrats have called for Ashcroft to recuse himself because members of the Bush administration may be questioned.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Gary Sisco]

Like I keep saying, it's all one club, with two different funding machines for the two factions.

As if the constitutionality of a law is decided by the number of times it's "abused." Duh. She's always impressed me as one of the dumbest people in public life, and also as someone who wouldn't know a free society if it bit her on the ass. In fact, a lot of people have a very simple rule of political behavior: If she supports something, oppose it. You'll hardly ever end up on the wrong side.

I have no comment on Biden that I want aired publicly except to say that I absolutely loathe the man.

[MRS]

"I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me," she said.

Isn't that the whole point?

[Monte Smith]

Yup, that article pretty much sums up why the Democrats are my *second favorite* political party.

[MRS]

What I meant was. . .if there were ostensible abuses, how would anyone ever find out about them? Like I've previously asserted, the one good thing to come of the California gubernatorial election is that now, we get to hear the Patriot Act recited in its original German.

So agreeing with those who are destroying our Constituion (among other things) is to be relegated to "second best."

Coming from you, Monte, I am, again, not surprised. In your GOP-programmed mind, is true support of this country, as the founding fathers envisioned it, ever a good thing?

[Monte Smith]

[Gary Sisco]

What these nitwits don't understand (being members of the club that's been shitting all over the Constitution since 9/11 and before, in these two specific cases) is that the "patriot" act *is* an abuse of the Constitution.

Duh. Lawyers, probably.

[Uli]

Originally posted by Gary Sisco


Duh. Lawyers, probably.

As a lawyer (by education, not profession) a am getting a little bit pissed about your generalisations..
Your NRA influenced reading of the 2nd amendment show me that horsefarmers certainly don't have a better grip on the constitution.

heehee, git 'em Uli.............

[BFrank]

As much as I despise Newt Gingrich, he has some pretty good points about the "Patriot Act" in this recent OpEd:

+++

The Policies of War
Refocus the mission
Newt Gingrich
Tuesday, November 11, 2003

AMERICA IS AT WAR; a war that, so far, most Americans do not realize is bigger, harder and longer than any other conflict this nation has faced in its history. It is a war on international terrorism, which we as a nation must commit to use every available tool to defeat.

Since that tragic day two years ago, America has skillfully employed several legal capabilities to great effect. Overseas, our military force has successfully disrupted the al Qaeda network in Afghanistan and has removed the raping, looting and murdering regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Within the United States, the Department of Homeland Security has made great strides in securing our borders and preparing first responders in the case of another domestic attack.

Yet, while we have achieved great success in these areas, we must ensure that the legal tools provided are not abused, and indeed, that they do not undermine the very foundation our country was built upon.

The USA Patriot Act, enacted shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, gives intelligence and law enforcement agencies a significantly increased ability to combat terrorism. While I applaud the great successes of the Patriot Act in aiding law enforcement and intelligence agencies, agencies that have successfully disrupted terrorist plots and cells within the United States, I strongly believe the Patriot Act was not created to be used in crimes unrelated to terrorism.

Recent reports, including one from the General Accounting Office, however indicate that the Patriot Act has been employed in investigations unconnected to terrorism or national security.

In our battle against those that detest our free and prosperous society, we cannot sacrifice any of the pillars our nation stands upon, namely respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. Our enemies in the war against terrorism abuse the Islamic law known as the Sharia that they claim to value. It is perversely used as justification for their horrific and wanton acts of violence.

We must demonstrate to the world that America is the best example of what a solid Constitution with properly enforced laws can bring to those who desire freedom and safety. If we become hypocrites about our own legal system, how can we sell it abroad or question legal systems different than our own?

I strongly believe Congress must act now to rein in the Patriot Act, limit its use to national security concerns and prevent it from developing "mission creep" into areas outside of national security.

Similarly, if prosecutors lack the necessary legislation to combat other serious domestic crimes, crimes not connected to terrorism, then lawmakers should seek to give prosecutors separate legislation to provide them the tools they need, but again not at the expense of civil rights. But in no case should prosecutors of domestic crimes seek to use tools intended for national security purposes.

This war against terrorism requires Americans and American institutions to have the "courage to be safe," this courage must include keeping to the American principles that have made this country great for more than 200 years.

[Chris D]

Why don't they just dust off the Alien and Sedition Acts and be done with it?

[clinthopson]

I guess we've been misjudging Reichmarshall Ashcroft all these days.

He knows what's best for us doesn't he?

[jesus marion joseph]

That's what I love about political rhetoric: disprove the allegation that abuses are occurring, but nobody cares. It's more fun to think that the law is bad than to discuss the reality.

[Chris D]

But no one can TELL if abuses have occurred. All of the subpoenas are secret!
That's teh scary thing about granting this much power. There literally is no oversight.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Chris D
But no one can TELL if abuses have occurred. All of the subpoenas are secret!
That's teh scary thing about granting this much power. There literally is no oversight.

Well, minus the actual judicial oversight and the free press and the sunshine clause in 2005, you're right.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally posted by Chris D
But no one can TELL if abuses have occurred. All of the subpoenas are secret!
That's teh scary thing about granting this much power. There literally is no oversight.

Since when is a subpoena available to the public anyway? Certainly not *before* it issues. Same thing with search warrants. Nobody knows about them until they're executed, for obvious reasons. If the Act does away with the right to challenge their validity, then there's a problem, but I doubt anyone knows enough about the Act (including me, so far) to make a genuine determination that there are, in fact, constitutional flaws that render it invalid. And that would be for a court to decide, anyway.

Like I said, it's easy to make an argument when you ignore the reality. I'm not suggesting that the Patriot Act is perfect, or that there are no foreseeable instances when some boundary may be crossed, but by and large it appears that the hysteria surrounding the Act is just that-hysteria. The frustrating thing is that its detractors won't even validate the fact that they might be wrong. If you read it in the newspaper it must be true, right?

It's the same thing with the ACLU coming out against Judge Brown as "outside the mainstream", then ignoring the fact (when confronted) that she is not only an *elected* judge, but one who won three quarters of the votes in her last election. The retort: "How could all those people have voted the wrong way??" They don't care about her judicial abilities (or even with her, when you really get down to it), they're more concerned with politics. (As I'm typing this, a Ted Kennedy bloviation blurb is coming over the radio about not "rubber-stamping" Bush's judicial nominations in order to make the judiciary "their sandbox", or something equally stupid. Hey Ted-have another drink.)

It just makes the argument look ill-informed, is all.

[BFrank]

All I'm pointing out is that if Newt-y is concerned about the Patiot Act, then I think we have a problem.

But no one can TELL if abuses have occurred.

Oh my, it's all so frightening!

C'mon Chris, thats a wee bit on the paranoid side, don't you think?

Ah, what the hell. I'm gonna throw all the paranoids out there a serious bone, from the Drudge Report:




Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

PATRIOT ACT: Law's use causing concerns

Use of statute in corruption case unprecedented, attorneys contend

By J.M. KALIL and
STEVE TETREAULT
REVIEW-JOURNAL



The investigation of strip club owner Michael Galardi and numerous politicians appears to be the first time federal authorities have used the Patriot Act in a public corruption probe.

Government officials said Tuesday they knew of no other instances in which federal agents investigating allegations such as racketeering and bribery of politicians have employed the act.

"I don't know that it's been used in a public corruption case before this," said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department.

An attorney for one of the defendants in the Galardi case said he researched the matter for hours Tuesday and came to the same conclusion.

"I have discussed this with lawyers all over the country, and if the government has done this before, then this is definitely the first time it has come to light," said Las Vegas attorney Dominic Gentile, who represents former Clark County Commissioner Lance Malone, Galardi's lobbyist.

Two of Nevada's lawmakers blasted the FBI for employing the act in the Galardi probe, saying the agency overstepped its bounds.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Congress intended the Patriot Act to help federal authorities root out threats from terrorists and spies after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"The law was intended for activities related to terrorism and not to naked women," said Reid, who as minority whip is the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate.

"Let me say, with Galardi and his whole gang, I don't condone, appreciate or support all their nakedness. But having said that, I haven't heard anyone say at any time he was involved with terrorism."

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said she was preparing an inquiry to the FBI about its guidelines for using the Patriot Act in cases that don't involve terrorism. The law makes it easy for citizens' rights to be abused, she said.

"It was never my intention that the Patriot Act be used for garden-variety crimes and investigations," Berkley said.

But Corallo insisted lawmakers were fully aware the Patriot Act had far-reaching implications beyond fighting terrorism when the legislation was adopted in October 2001.

"I think probably a lot of members (of Congress) were only interested in the anti-terrorism measures," Corallo said. "But when the Judiciary Committee sat down, both Republicans and Democrats, they obviously discussed the applications, that certain provisions could be used in regular criminal investigations."

Federal authorities confirmed Monday the FBI used the Patriot Act to get financial information in its probe of Galardi and his dealings with current and former politicians in Southern Nevada.

"It was used appropriately by the FBI and was clearly within the legal parameters of the statute," said Special Agent Jim Stern of the Las Vegas field office of the FBI.

One source said two Las Vegas stockbrokers were faxed subpoenas Oct. 28 asking for records for many of those identified as either a target or subject of the investigation.

That list includes Galardi, owner of Jaguars and Cheetah's topless clubs; Malone; former Commissioner Erin Kenny; County Commission Chairwoman Mary Kincaid-Chauncey; former County Commission Chairman Dario Herrera; and former Las Vegas City Councilman Michael McDonald, defeated for re-election in June.

A second source confirmed that stockbrokers had been faxed subpoenas asking for information on Galardi, Malone, Kenny, Kincaid-Chauncey, Herrera, McDonald and at least one of the former politicians' spouses.

That source said the subpoena appeared to be a search for hidden proceeds that could be used as evidence of bribery. A source also indicated that records on Las Vegas City Councilman Michael Mack were sought.

Sources said the FBI sought the records under Section 314 of the act. That section allows federal investigators to obtain information from any financial institution regarding the accounts of people "engaged in or reasonably suspected, based on credible evidence, of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering activities."

Gentile, Malone's attorney, said he plans to mount a legal challenge once he confirms the Patriot Act was used to investigate his client. "My research today indicates that this is the first time the government has used Section 314 in a purely white-collar criminal investigation."

Attorney General John Ashcroft has touted the law as an effective homeland security tool, but coalitions of civil libertarians and conservatives concerned about a too-powerful federal government have led criticism against it.

Corallo said federal law enforcement officials have no qualms about using the act to pursue an array of criminal investigations that have nothing to do with terrorism, such as child pornography, drug trafficking and money laundering.

"I think most of the American people think the Patriot Act is a good thing and it's not affecting their civil liberties at all, and that the government should use any constitutional and legal tools it can, whether it's going after garden-variety criminals or terrorists."

But Gary Peck, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, expressed outrage at Corallo's suggestion that lawmakers were largely aware the Patriot Act's provisions would equip the FBI with new investigative tools beyond the scope of terrorism investigations.

"Those comments are disingenuous at best and do little to inspire confidence that the act won't be systematically abused," Peck said.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said it may be too soon to weigh its application to a Nevada investigation that still is largely under wraps. Prosecutors have announced no indictments.

Citing the ongoing investigation, Sen. John Ensign and Rep. Jon Porter, both R-Nev., declined to be interviewed.

Porter was not in Congress when lawmakers approved the Patriot Act, but the other four Nevada lawmakers voted as part of large majorities in favor of the measure.

The Patriot Act will expire in 2005 unless Congress renews it. "More activity like this is going to cause us to take a close look at what was passed," Reid said of the law being invoked in the Galardi probe.

[Gary Sisco]

The Constitution and the principles it reflects either exist or they don't. War time, schmar time. The US was at war all over the world in the 40s and somehow it wasn't necessary to suspend the constitution, or to treat prisoners like poorly cared-for beasts, either, for that matter. The US was much more at war in Vietnam than it is in Iraq -- no comparison, really, in terms of the levels of violence employed, on either side -- but then the breaches of constitutionality by various administrations and both parties (when in power) were viewed as such and denounced as such, not only in the streets but also in the courts and in congress. Two FBI guys in fact did time for breaking into my mentor's apartment and searching the place for "evidence" -- of what, they couldn't say, even in court, where they were made to look as ridiculous, stupid, and criminal as they actually were. They had him down in the files as being a supporter of Weather when in fact he was their most vociferous opponent in the New Left, as all of the evidence in the trial made abundantly clear. The FBI has never been known for being awfully smart.

But in those days, breaking-and-entering, never mind "searching" without any form of warrant or judicial permission or control, were still recognized as the felonies and civil-rights violations that they continue to be today. Governments can't suspend rights; they can only violate them. Rights exist pre-state and always have. People have them because they have them. No government can give them to people, or take them away either.

[jesus marion joseph]

Abe Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (and other Constitutional protections) during the Civil War. Turned out to be pretty effective, and the Constitution chugged right along.

The Patriot Act, as I understand it, has a "sunset clause", meaning that it expires in 2005 without legislation to extend it further. I don't see this Act as the downfall of the Constitution that others have made it out to be, at least not to this point. I'm willing to have someone change my mind, though, if they've got a factual basis for their argument.

I'm really one of the *last* guys to encourage further governmental intrusion into private affairs, or to further erode Constitutional protections. I'm not waving pom-poms and cheering for the Act, either.