Posted on 08/21/2002 9:25:21 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
In a letter sent to the Judiciary Committee last week, Bush administration officials refused to detail how often they have used the new powers under the USA Patriot Act.
Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said Tuesday the information would be sent to the House Intelligence Committee. Other House members could request it from there, she said.
The Judiciary chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., noting that his committee is responsible for monitoring the Justice Department, said he expects to receive the information by Sept. 1.
"I've never signed a subpoena in my 5 years as chairman," Sensenbrenner said in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "I guess there's a first time for everything."
Comstock said the Justice Department has an army of lawyers working to answer many of the questions asked by Sensenbrenner's committee, which are complicated and require research.
The USA Patriot Act, signed by President Bush last year, gave the government broad new powers to monitor people in the United States if they are suspected to have ties with terrorists. The Patriot Act expands the FBI's power to tap telephone calls, demand records from bookstores and libraries and enter places of worship.
In early June, Sensenbrenner and Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, sent Bush officials 50 questions seeking details on how often law enforcement agents have used the new powers.
The Justice Department sent replies to some of the questions in late July but left many of the most important unanswered, according to Jeff Lungren, a Judiciary Committee spokesman.
Very little is known about how often the government relies on the Patriot Act in its terrorism investigations. In July, several libraries across the nation said FBI agents had demanded information on reading records.
The process by which the FBI gains access to records under the Patriot Act is quick and mostly secret.
First, the FBI must obtain a search warrant from a court, meeting in secret to hear the agency's plea. The FBI must show it has reason to suspect that a person is involved with a terrorist or a terrorist plot. That is a far less difficult requirement than meeting the tougher legal standard, probable cause, required for traditional search warrants.
With the warrant, FBI investigators can visit a library and gain immediate access to the records.
On the Net: House Judiciary Committee: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
Justice Department: http://www.usdoj.gov
| Attorney General John Ashcroft speaks at a news conference at the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, Pa., Tuesday, Aug. 20, 2002. Ashcroft said that technology now being used to combat illicit drugs has also proven useful in tracking the movement of terrorist groups. (AP Photo/Gary Tramontina) |
The Patriot Act is surely something the Congress should monitor very closely.
I do believe, however, that Ashcroft should be watched very closely so he doesn't 'stretch' the intent of the Patriot Act, which is what I think most civil libertarians fear.
Does this demonstrate the precept that patroitism is the last refuge of the scoundrel or what?
Didn't Ashcroft say that anyone who criticizes the govt is disloyal? I guess he would be first in line to sic the DOJ on Patrick Henry.
It was simply brought over here...
Welcome to the new Amerika comrade...
Disgusting!
All of you! You infuriate me!
They have to place blame on the person that has be chosen to enforce it.
Remember the people who are responible for this act are the ones selected by your peers.
Con'greased this mess so let em fix it NOW or we are going to be subjected to someone even worse than ashcroft's use of it in the future.
Stay Safe
Without reading it. I think some members have since come to see that they may not want to trust the DOJ with these powers - especialy when the DOJ refuses to say what its doing with the powers.
Dinh's speech reveals that he is an advocate of government in opposition to freedom. His speech opens with the words "Fundamental to the rule of law is the concept of ordered liberty," and that is a false premise.
Fundamental to the rule of law -- in America -- is the concept of ordered government, a limited government so to speak, where a wide degree of individual freedom was preserved and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
A major question in my mind is why this man -- Dinh -- is within the Bush administration.
This is dangerous legislation. Do not give the Federal Government any power you do not want Hillary to have some day.
Yup, I'm certain. Been here a while, now. So far as your ostensible hero, Mr. Ashcroft, the facts are the facts:
Ashcroft, while presenting himself as a moral person of faith who will always do the right thing and seek justice,disbanded the campaign finance task force...which means Chinagate...which means our national security. Or, does Ashcroft just get top pick which aspects of national security he will sanctify with his blessing.
Ashcroft sent away Robert Conrad, the head of the task force. It was Conrad, you may recall, who told JReno to appoint an IC to investigate Gore.
Still wearing his righteous hat, Ashcroft signed off on the deal that fined the shareholders of Loral $millions while agreeing to let the criminals go free.
Ashcroft, snactimonious as always, chose to ignore government corruption in the matters of the lynx fur scandal and the BIA backdating scandals....though one would expect a truely moral, righteous, dedicated public servant to pursue corruption in the government he has swore to serve, 'so help me God'.
Moving along, he decided to overturn the will of the people of a sovereign state by his own fiat, even though that will had been clearly expressed in referendum, dangerously to the concept of liberty. (I'm speaking about Oregon, for those who may not have been paying attention.) He decided to block release of information of the abuses in the Boston FBI office, where the criminals are protected and the innocent incarcerated.
His current plan would allow him to incarcerate you at his whim. Oh, yes, he is a both a sanctimonious fraud and a dangerous man, alright.
They never have before -- why should they start now? They're in DC to raise money and retain power, not represent their constituents.
Carolyn
And you are a loud mouthed malcontent who bashes a good person trying to get the job done in a dangerous world despite the ad hominem sniping from people like you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.