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
The federal gubmint isn’t spying on you. Unless you’ve been talking to Osama on the phone or getting emqails from Al-Zawhiri. If not, and they are still spying on you, then it has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
Paul/Paul 2012. But more likely Rand Paul 2016 or 2020 or 2024.
Not sure about Keene. The Palinistas were calling him a RINO gay lover for the last few weeks, but I haven’t investigated their claims.
I’m not arguing that the Patriot Act is the single worse federal law on this subject. I don’t know every law and what each particular law allows fedgov to do.
I just want less government.
Considering your results re: Palin, I'm not holding out a lot of hope for you.
I want even less gov’t than libertarians do. But what I also want is highly efficient gubmint doing the tasks it is supposed to do. Defend against enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC, including counter-terrorism. I want a non-Politically correct, no rock unturned, absolute snuffing of domestic jihadis. And if roving wiretaps and secret warrants and bugging Mosques and voicemail intercepts are needed, then they are needed.
Considering fringe elements within the "libertarian" label want to do away with organized governments altogether, that is just more BS from you.
I’m not talking about fringe elements. There are fringe elements of conservatives that think Flouride in the drinking water was a government conspiracy and that Harry Truman & Ike were communist agents.
I’m not a Libertarian. I’m a Constitutional Conservative.
Libertarians can support Roe V Wade. I’m against Roe V Wade.
Constitutional Conservatives / Constitutionalists are more concerned about making sure that what the FedGov wants to do is authorized by the Constitution.
Libertarians are a little more concerned about state laws limiting freedom. I like the idea of different laws in different states. It makes evil Globalist plans harder to implement in the states.
The Libertarian Party and the Constitutionalist Party are both real (but small) political parties, and they agree on much but not all.
Ron Paul was obviously a Libertarian in 1988, when he ran against the first RINO Bush, who went on to raise taxes and then lose.
But his views are closer to Constitutional Conservatism now than Libertarianism.
At CPAC, Gary Johnson got 6% of the vote. He came in 3rd.
Gary Johnson is a libertarian. That’s 6% who voted for the Libertarian instead of the Constitutional Conservative Ron Paul. That 6% preferred the Libertarian (Johnson). 30% preferred the Constitutional Conservative (Paul), 4% preferred Bachmann, 3% preferred Palin. 6%, more than anybody but Paul and Romney, felt Ron Paul was not Libertarian enough to vote for.
Now, the reason why Ron Paul’s numbers and Gary Johnsons numbers were so high is due to efforts to get CFL (Campaign for Liberty) members to that event. That’s Ron Paul’s organization, but some members of that organization are pure Libertarians who prefer a pure Libertarian candidate. That pure Libertarian is not Ron Paul, it’s Gary Johnson.
Gary Johnson (6% of the vote at CPAC) is a Libertarian.
Ron Paul (30% of the vote at CPAC) is a Constitutional Conservative.
They don’t agree on everything.
Ron Paul is Pro-Life, I don’t think Johnson is.
Ron Paul wants to protect the borders. I’m not sure about Johnson.
l4l.org
Not all of them are pro-choice. Those like me see it as a human Rights issue. If it’s human and you kill it, it’s murder.
No idea who Gary is, but if he’s pro-choice... He won’t have my vote.
When I see Paul introduce bills to defund and sh*tcan the Dept of Ed, HUD, Fannie/Freddie, the DOE, BATF, FDA, EPA, OSHA, Agriculture, ACF, ANA, AoA, NEA, NEH, BPA, BLM, Reclamation, civil rights, BTTT, BCFP, BEA, BILA, BTS, Botanic Gardens, Centers for nutrition policy, Safety and Hazardous materials, and 1000 more worthless, unconstitutional departments, bureaus and agencies, then I’ll know he’s a constitutional conservative like me.
Instead, what are his latest attemps at legislation the last few years aside from some tax cuts and tax code tweaks(which I applaud)?
Prescription Drug Affordability Act
Identity Theft Protection Act
Make College Affordable Act
Industrial Hemp Farming Act
Hope Plus Scholarship Act
Enhanced Options for Rural Healthcare Act
The Police Security Protection Act
H.R.4829 : To authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey the surface estate of the San Jacinto Disposal Area to the city of Galveston, Texas.
Energy Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Automobile Tax Credit Act of 2008
Nursing Home Emergency Assistance Act
Parental Consent Act of 2005
H.R.579 : To lift the trade embargo on Cuba, and for other purposes.
Humanitarian Food and Medicine Export Act
H.R.2511 : To postpone the 2005 round of defense base closure and realignment until the completion of certain specified activities by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Cures Can Be Found Act of 2005
Texas Educator Retirement Equity Act
Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005
Help Hospitals Recover Act of 2005
Senior Citizen’s Improved Quality of Life Act
Steel Financing Fairness Act
Etc etc
The Paultards can’t find their ass with both hands, much less comprehend the constitution.
BTW, bunghole, you might want to be here a few weeks and absorb the fact that this is a conservative, not a liberaltarian, website before you spout off.
Right now he’s fighting to Audit the Fed.
I’d like to see links to Ron Paul voting for all those things.
Hey, maybe you’ll get me on this stuff. These are all new laws that Ron Paul voted for huh?
Not voted for; they are the bills he wrote and proposed to Congress. Some are just fine, as far as they go. But none take an axe to the hundreds upon hundreds of unconstitutional (and dare I say effin worthless) bureaus, agencies and departments. He complains alot, but manages to be one of the top earmarkers for his district, while claiming the moral highground of voting no on the overall bill, knowing it will pass anyway.
I’d give him alot more respect if he showed the kind of will power to sh*tcan agencies and bureaus he does for larding up his district.
Yeah, when you’re new, you don’t want to be attacking people who have been here a long time, even though the Palin supporters would like to see him banned.
Remember, Bush was a RINO.
There will be plenty of arguments on the merits of Ron Paul or Rand Paul. Being new and being in favor of the Pauls is not going to make friends. Hang out, stick around, focus on attacking Romney and the Bush RINO Kristol Rove candidates.
FR has moved away from the idea that we have to defend Israel by giving money to Israel and all of Israels enemies. It hasn’t moved away from that entirely, but some.
If the 3 front runners, the 3 top choices are Paul, Palin and Bachmann, we’re in pretty good shape. If they’re Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich, we’re in bad shape.
Palin and Bachmann should be far superior to Ron Paul supporters than Mitt Huckrich.
I haven’t the slightest idea what any of those bills did or were intended to do. For all I know those bills were intended to cut the size of the fedgov.
The way to test is to see what he voted for.
Not quite.
Some are tax credits, some are federal assistance programs, some are just local oddities. Nonetheless, he obviously is in favor of each and every one. He wrote and submitted them for law. ANd why don’t you have a slightest idea what they were intended for? You are making the claim that Paul is a Constitutional Conservative, so you should know what his record of not only voting, but more importantly, of introducing legislation.
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.