Wants you to keep pushing for him to continue to have these "powers" in the Patriot Act.
Nice going Ace...
Posted on 02/15/2011 11:11:02 AM PST by broken_arrow1
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Rand Paul (Ky.) released the following Dear Colleague letter to his fellow Senators this morning regarding the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act. (2/15/2011)
Dear Colleague:
James Otis argued against general warrants and writs of assistance that were issued by British soldiers without judicial review and that did not name the subject or items to be searched.
He condemned these general warrants as "the worst instrument[s] of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever w[ere] found in an English law book." Otis objected to these writs of assistance because they "placed the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." The Fourth Amendment was intended to guarantee that only judges-not soldiers or policemen-would issue warrants. Otis' battle against warrantless searches led to our Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable government intrusion.
My main objection to the PATRIOT Act is that searches that should require a judge's warrant are performed with a letter from an FBI agent-a National Security Letter ("NSL").
I object to these warrantless searches being performed on United States citizens. I object to the 200,000 NSL searches that have been performed without a judge's warrant.
I object to over 2 million searches of bank records, called Suspicious Activity Reports, performed on U.S. citizens without a judge's warrant.
As February 28th approaches, with three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act set to expire, it is time to re-consider this question: Do the many provisions of this bill, which were enacted in such haste after 9/11, have an actual basis in our Constitution, and are they even necessary to achieve valid law-enforcement goals?
The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the wake of the worst act of terrorism in U.S. history, is no doubt well-intentioned. However, rather than examine what went wrong, and fix the problems, Congress instead hastily passed a long-standing wish list of power grabs like warrantless searches and roving wiretaps. The government greatly expanded its own power, ignoring obvious answers in favor of the permanent expansion of a police state.
It is not acceptable to willfully ignore the most basic provisions of our Constitution-in this case-the Fourth and First Amendments-in the name of "security."
For example, one of the three provisions set to expire on February 28th-the "library provision," section 215 of the PATRIOT Act-allows the government to obtain records from a person or entity by making only the minimal showing of "relevance" to an international terrorism or espionage investigation. This provision also imposes a year-long nondisclosure, or "gag" order. "Relevance" is a far cry from the Fourth Amendment's requirement of probable cause. Likewise, the "roving wiretap" provision, section 206 of the PATRIOT Act, which is also scheduled to expire on the 28th, does not comply with the Fourth Amendment. This provision makes possible "John Doe roving wiretaps," which do not require the government to name the target of the wiretap, nor to identify the specific place or facility to be monitored. This bears an uncanny resemblance to the Writs of Assistance fought against by Otis and the American colonists.
Other provisions of the PATRIOT Act previously made permanent and not scheduled to expire present even greater concerns. These include the use and abuse by the FBI of so-called National Security Letters. These secret demand letters, which allow the government to obtain financial records and other sensitive information held by Internet Service Providers, banks, credit companies, and telephone carriers-all without appropriate judicial oversight-also impose a gag order on recipients.
NSL abuse has been and likely continues to be rampant. The widely-circulated 2007 report issued by the Inspector General from the Department of Justice documents "widespread and serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities. In many instances, the FBI's misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or the FBI's own internal policies." Another audit released in 2008 revealed similar abuses, including the fact that the FBI had issued inappropriate "blanket NSLs" that did not comply with FBI policy, and which allowed the FBI to obtain data on 3,860 telephone numbers by issuing only eleven "blanket NSLs." The 2008 audit also confirmed that the FBI increasingly used NSLs to seek information on U.S. citizens. From 2003 to 2006, almost 200,000 NSL requests were issued. In 2006 alone, almost 60% of the 49,425 requests were issued specifically for investigations of U.S. citizens or legal aliens.
In addition, First Amendment advocates should be concerned about an especially troubling aspect of the 2008 audit, which documented a situation in which the FBI applied to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to obtain a section 215 order. The Court denied the order on First Amendment grounds. Not to be deterred, the FBI simply used an NSL to obtain the same information.
A recent report released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF") entitled, "Patterns of Misconduct: FBI Intelligence Violations from 2001-2008," documents further NSL abuse. EFF estimates that, based on the proportion of violations reported to the Intelligence Oversight Board and the FBI's own statements regarding NSL violations, the actual number of violations that may have occurred since 2001 could approach 40,000 violations of law, Executive Order, and other regulations.
Yet another troublesome (and now permanent) provision of the PATRIOT Act is the expansion of Suspicious Activity Reports. Sections 356 and 359 expanded the types of financial institutions required to file reports under the Bank Secrecy Act. The personal and account information required by the reports is turned over to the Treasury Department and the FBI. In 2000, there were only 163,184 reports filed. By 2007, this had increased to 1,250,439. Again, as with NSLs, there is a complete lack of judicial oversight for SARs.
Finally, I wish to remind my colleagues that one of the many ironies of the rush to advance the PATRIOT Act following 9/11 is the well-documented fact that FBI incompetence caused the failure to search the computer of the alleged 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui. As FBI agent Coleen Rowley stated, "the FBI headquarters supervisory special agent handling the Moussaoui case 'seemed to have been consistently almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts" to meet the FISA standard for a search warrant, and therefore no request was ever made for a warrant. Why, then, was the FBI rewarded with such expansive new powers in the aftermath of this institutional failure?
In the words of former Senator Russ Feingold, the only "no" vote against the original version of the PATRIOT Act,
"[T]here is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America."
I call upon each of my Senate colleagues to seriously consider whether the time has come to re-evaluate many-if not all-provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Our oath to uphold the Constitution demands it.
Sincerely,
Rand Paul, M.D.
United States Senator
Way to go Rand!
I too do not want to live in a police state.
It's you who are full of crap.
I guess Bachmann is in favor of a police state.
-1 for Bachmann.
You’re doing a great job for Bachmann, keep it up.
In “many” instances, our Border Patrolmen act on a hunch and check immigration status despite their nannystate pole-smoking boss’ anti-racial profiling guidelines.
95% of conservatives support the Patriot Act. It is liberals and liberaltarians who don’t. OF course if you like the Kucinich/Paul view of the constitution, have at it.
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. Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House ("The Policies of War: Refocus the mission," San Francisco Chronicle, 11/11/03)
Funny. I thought he was a RINO.
The fact is: Supporters of the Patriot Act are just aiding and abetting Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder to Gate-Rape more Americans...and turn the US into some type of Police State.
Since no one wants to secure the Border....no one really wants to stop Islamic Terrorism anyway. You will not stop Islamic Terrorism with open borders and the Patriot Act
Source? Proof? Or is it more pissant butt-smoke?
And my preferred view of the Constitution is this:
Amendment the Fourth:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Yea, that pesky Constitution thingy.
Notice he didn’t say get rid of it. And I said 95% of conservatives, not RINOs.
Wants you to keep pushing for him to continue to have these "powers" in the Patriot Act.
Nice going Ace...
The funny thing is, the Patriot requires warrants.
I guess the tea party, who believes in limited consitutional government, is a tiny fraction, no more than 5%, of Conservatives.
What exactly was the Conservative message again?
Smaller Government except for a massive police state?
The Patriot Act makes it very difficult to explain why Republicans and Conservatives are actually the party of less Government.
Many political arguments between 2 people in a public space are not to try to persuade the person you’re arguing with, but to persuade the people listening. Democrats know full well that the Patriot Act is a very effective tool for them.
Democrats know to bring it up every single time we say we’re for limited government. And we have no answer for it. It really makes our lives difficult as political messengers.
And people who believe in limited constitutional government are not the people who want to reply “oh, you like Muslims and terrorism”. We’re trying to get the message of limited constitutional government out there, and the Republicans just tarnish the brand.
amen
The tea party is what? RINO?
Limited Constitutional Government. That’s what the tea party stands for.
What is the Republican message now?
1) Smaller government, limited constitutional government.
2) Ignore 1), we’re full of it
The federal goverment spying on you is not limited constitutional government.
How about David Keene?
"The Bush administration argues convincingly that roving wiretaps, reading people's e-mail, putting video cameras on every corner and perusing their library habits will make it easier to catch terrorists before they act?the problem is that once all this is in place, we will no longer be living in the same country we lived in prior to Sept. 11.". David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union ("Ashcroft: Good Intentions on a Bad Road" The Hill, 7/31/2002)
Or doesn't he count either?
Some would argue Keene sucks because of the gays at CPAC.
But it’s hard to argue that the guy in charge there (formerly) doesn’t count as a conservative.
I really don’t want to hear Bill Kristol’s talking points anywhere ever again.
I don’t think we’re allowed to discuss the details of that particular attack. TV cameras showed the 2nd plane hit live.
Too bad the cameraman didn’t have a missile instead of a camera. We just have to ignore that. It causes too much stress for the brain to handle.
Most people want the federal government to have less power in the area of drugs.
Most conservatives want the federal government to have less power. What is the tea party again?
What would be the problem with Obamacare again? I thought that giving the federal government more power was bad.
Would you agree with this statement
“I think most of people want the government to have as much power in the area of national security investigations as they do in the areas of drugs and organized crime and health care.”
We needed additional tools to fight Al Queda. Everyone on our side is ok with that. It's when this crap gets used against us that the BS flag needs to be thrown and those tools melted down and turned into something else.
It was bad law hastily written and needs to go away if it can't be brought back in-line with the Constitution.
Without the Constitution, we don't really have a government. Just a Thugocracy.
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.