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
No I don’t need to know every last thing about Ron Paul to call him a Constitutional Conservative.
You’re backing Bachmann. I don’t want to attack Bachmann, because Bachmann is better than most.
If I wanted to, I could attack her record. I could look through her record, which is much much shorter than Ron Pauls, and find things conservatives could use to imply that Bachmann is not conservative.
Let’s just stick to real votes on real legislation. The RINO Bush signed a bunch of legislation that was passed by a Republican controlled House and Senate.
How did Ron Paul vote on that legislation?
Let’s stick to that, instead of a broader set, because no one is doing the research on every last thing done by every last candidate.
Find things that Conservatives don’t like, things that you don’t like, that were passed into law, and tell me where Ron Paul voted wrong. I’m not saying you’ll fail. I’m just saying let’s focus.
H.R. 1: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
Sponsor: Rep. John Boehner [R-OH8]
Wow, ok, Boehner must go.
Co sponsors:
Richard Armey [R-TX26]
Spencer Bachus [R-AL6]
Richard Baker [R-LA6]
Cass Ballenger [R-NC10]
Bob Barr [R-GA7]
Judy Biggert [R-IL13]
Henry Bonilla [R-TX23]
Mary Bono Mack [R-CA44]
Henry Brown [R-SC1]
Richard Burr [R-NC5]
Ken Calvert [R-CA43]
David Camp [R-MI4]
Michael Castle [R-DE]
Saxby Chambliss [R-GA8]
Michael Collins [R-GA3]
Larry Combest [R-TX19]
John Cooksey [R-LA5]
Ander Crenshaw [I-FL4]
John Culberson [R-TX7]
Randall Cunningham [R-CA51]
Nathan Deal [R-GA9]
Thomas DeLay [R-TX22]
Jim DeMint [R-SC4]
Lincoln Diaz-Balart [R-FL21]
David Dreier [R-CA28]
Vernon Ehlers [R-MI3]
Robert Ehrlich [R-MD2]
Ernest Fletcher [R-KY6]
Vito Fossella [R-NY13]
Rodney Frelinghuysen [R-NJ11]
George Gekas [R-PA17]
Paul Gillmor [R-OH5]
Porter Goss [R-FL14]
Lindsey Graham [R-SC3]
Kay Granger [R-TX12]
Mark Green [R-WI8]
James Greenwood [R-PA8]
Melissa Hart [R-PA4]
Dennis Hastert [R-IL14]
Robin Hayes [R-NC8]
Van Hilleary [R-TN4]
David Hobson [R-OH7]
Stephen Horn [R-CA38]
John Isakson [R-GA6]
Darrell Issa [R-CA48]
Samuel Johnson [R-TX3]
Ric Keller [R-FL8]
Jack Kingston [R-GA1]
James Kolbe [R-AZ5]
Steven LaTourette [R-OH19]
John Linder [R-GA11]
Scott McInnis [R-CO3]
Howard McKeon [R-CA25]
John Mica [R-FL7]
Dan Miller [R-FL13]
Gary Miller [R-CA41]
Anne Northup [R-KY3]
Charles Norwood [R-GA10]
James Nussle [R-IA2]
Thomas Osborne [R-NE3]
Doug Ose [R-CA3]
Michael Oxley [R-OH4]
John Peterson [R-PA5]
Thomas Petri [R-WI6]
Charles Pickering [R-MS3]
Robert Portman [R-OH2]
Deborah Pryce [R-OH15]
Adam Putnam [R-FL12]
George Radanovich [R-CA19]
Marge Roukema [R-NJ5]
Edward Royce [R-CA39]
Bob Schaffer [R-CO4]
Edward Schrock [R-VA2]
Christopher Shays [R-CT4]
John Shimkus [R-IL20]
John Sununu [R-NH1]
John Sweeney [R-NY22]
Todd Tiahrt [R-KS4]
Patrick Tiberi [R-OH12]
James Traficant [D-OH17]
Frederick Upton [R-MI6]
Watts [R-OK4]
Curtis Weldon [R-PA7]
Frank Wolf [R-VA10]
Wow, look at all of those “Conservative” Republicans expanding Federal Control over Education. Not conservative at all.
Not many Republicans voted no. But Ron Paul voted No. So did Jim DeMint. Paul and DeMint are Constitutional Conservatives that vote right.
Here are some Republicans who are RINOs and voted Yes.
Boehner (mentioned before), Eric Cantor, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, John Thune, Lindsey Graham, Pat Toomey, Robert Portman, Richard Burr, Roy Blunt, David Vitter, Dan Burton,
Mark Kirk, Saxby Chambliss, Mike Castle, JD Hayworth.
You get the idea.
Here’s the vote on the
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act - another huge FedGov program.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll669.xml
Ron Paul was one of only 25 Republicans to vote no.
DeMint also voted no.
I want the US government to live within the US Constitutional bounds whether it is national defense, organized crime or drug. However I am least concerned about due process etc in the area of national defense.
But not surprisingly our new RINO from KY makes his stand with the Dims in an area to weaken our national defense while standing silent about the government having similar powers in other areas. But what can you expect from Mr. MS-NBC RINO.
Rand Paul most certainly is concerned about those other areas.
Is Rand not for ending the war on drugs? I know Ron is, but I really don’t know. I think Rand wants less FedGov spying pretty much anywhere.
Civil Liberties I guess aren’t the kind of Liberties you care about too much?
Limited Constitutional Government is RINO? Tea Party is RINO?
Less Government. Not more goverment, bigger government, more intrusive government.
Too bad you did not bother to read what I wrote. Not understanding what is going on leads to RINOs like Paul fooling people like you.
Rand Paul I guess is just too conservative for you.
No I am a big advocate of reading and reading comprehension. That is a conservative stance.
Conservative stances are pretty much unknown to RINOS and I guess RINO followers. But I am sure you and Rand Paul will still be welcome at MS-NBC. I have read your slogan is “Lean Forward.” So lean forward.
You like the police state? You’re from the RINO/Bush/Big Government wing of the Republican Party?
Lean forward as you watch your RINO buddy on MS-NBC.
Rand Paul is just too conservative for you, from the RINO/Bush/Big Government wing of the Republican Party.
We did not declare war
Anything else is just namby-pamby BS thrown up by anti-war douche-bags because the legislation didn't have the word "declare" right in front of the word "war".
If you want to argue that the War Powers Act is itself unConstitutional, then we can find agreement. To say stomping on a Dictator was somehow "wrong" because you didn't like the wording is idiotic.
I do think the War Powers Act is un-Constitutional.
“Stomping on a Dictator” sure was fun to watch on TV. Its too bad my son had his legs blown off so that so we could “Stomp on a Dictator”. We should definitely do more of that.
Sure Mr. Lean Forward.
Our worst enemies are within.
Indeed they are. One tried to kill hundreds with a car bomb in NY recently, and another murdered a bunch of soldiers at Ft Hood. Tip of an ugly iceberg.
Indeed they are. One tried to kill hundreds with a car bomb in NY recently, and another murdered a bunch of soldiers at Ft Hood. Tip of an ugly iceberg.
And yes. We should do more of that. People who attack us should be destroyed. Period.
Keep in mind that the "Patriot" Act did nothing to interdict those attempts, and even if it did, it would not be justified.
Also, our worst enemies are not trying to blow a few of us up, they are enslaving all of us and our posterity. At least, those of us that are not ripped apart in the womb.
Freegards!
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.