House Takes Aim at Patriot Act Secret Searches

Reuters ^ | July 22, 2003 | Andrew Clark

[ellery]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to roll back a key provision, which allows the government to conduct secret "sneak and peek" searches of private property, of a sweeping anti-terrorism law passed soon after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The House voted 309-118 to attach the provision to a $37.9 billion bill funding the departments of Commerce, State and Justice. It would be the first change in the controversial USA Patriot Act since the law was enacted in October, 2001.

The move would block the Justice Department from using any funds to take advantage of the section of the act that allows it to secretly search the homes of suspects and only inform them later that a warrant had been issued to do so.

Supporters of the change say that violates both the U.S. Constitution and the long-standing common law "knock and announce" principle -- which states the government cannot enter or search private property without first notifying the owner.

"Not only does this provision allow the seizure of personal and business records without notification, but it also opens the door to nationwide search warrants and allowing the CIA and NSA to operate domestically," said the amendment's sponsor, Idaho Republican Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter.

The Justice Department recently told Congress that it had already executed 47 "sneak and peek" searches and had sought to delay notification of search warrants in a total of 250 cases, said Ohio Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

"I would suggest to you that just one would constitute a threat to our Bill of Rights," he said.

The Patriot Act, which granted broad new powers to U.S. law enforcers, was passed by Congress with little debate in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 and signed into law by President Bush just six weeks after the attacks.

Since then, it has come under increasing criticism from lawmakers and civil liberties advocates from both ends of the political spectrum. The House is now expected to pass the broader spending bill on Wednesday.

"Given its overwhelming passage this evening, the amendment is highly significant and a herald of more fix-Patriot measures to come," said Laura Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft -- who has become a lightning rod for concerns over the possible erosion of U.S. civil liberties -- defended the Patriot Act on Monday, saying criticism of it was based on exaggerations and falsehoods.

[Oztrich Boy]

"Our business is to secure liberty," [Ashcroft] added

I wmnder what he meant by that

If you tell the Navy to secure a building, they will lock all the doors, turn off the lights, and leave.

If you tell the Army to secure a building, they will set up barricades and not allow anyone in or out of the building.

If you tell the Air Force to secure a building, they will sign a three year lease with an option to buy.

But, if you tell the Marines to secure a building, they will go in with a full tactical assault team, kill everyone inside and disperse defensive fire at anyone who approaches.

[Tauzero]

Excellent news!

[steveegg]

Without the text of that amendment, I can't say for certain whether the amendment covers simply what the article claims it covers (the lack of notification) or also the "don't have to get individual warrants each time a subject of a warrant buys a new cell phone part". If it's merely the former, then it is a good thing. If it also covers the latter, that's troublesome.

[Smile-n-Win]

Not too much chance of an attack on Idaho, which is why this idiot chooses to play games with national security.

National security means protecting the Constitutional rule of law in America--not circumventing it.

Of course, an essential part of that protection is to treat potential terrorists (i.e. all Muslims) with utter suspicion. But there are Constitutional ways of doing that.

[Churchjack]

I dunno, it seems like it's just going "unfunded" as opposed to repealed or stricken from the Act. Perhaps I'm reading something into it that's not there, but it sounds to me as if DOJ just needs to find the money somewhere else in it's budget, but the unconstitutional state police powers are still there.

[George W. Bush]

Patriot will sunset in 2 years, as I recall. I expect more nibbling at it before it expires. Nobody likes it except Ashcroft and the neo-cons.

[Brian S]

Once again, Thank God for the "People's House"!

My GOP rep, Mike Rogers will be hearing my displeasure for his vote, loud and clear just as soon as I get "jacked up" with enough caffine.

[Huck]

Garrett's mine, too. Guess I'll have to call the office as well.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"If the FBI wants to investigate a suspected terrroist cell at a mosque,they can do it without having to get individual warrants every time the guy buys a new throwaway cellphone."

So if instead of enacting a police-state law that applies to all Americans (consider the braod definition of terrorism), why not a law relating to different disposable cell phones owned by the same suspect?

PS Where can I buy some disposable cell phones?

[Rome2000]

Best Buy

[sam_paine]

Theres no time to see a liberal judge and get denied a search warrant right before a nuke goes off in a major American city (and it aint gonna be in friggin Idaho).

Strawman. If the cops believe a felony is in progress, then they'll go in without a warrant. They can do that now.

By repealing this section, though, they won't be able to do it willy nilly and confiscate whatever they like without the invaded having the right to get it back if they were wrong.

[sam_paine]

So if instead of enacting a police-state law that applies to all Americans (consider the braod definition of terrorism), why not a law relating to different disposable cell phones owned by the same suspect?

Not even that. Why not have an "OOPS...not terrorism! My Bad!" clause backing up the whole Patriot Act.

That is, just stipulate that any evidence found in a "terrorism" investigation CANNOT and WILL NOT be used in any NON-TERRORIST prosecution.

• Break in looking for UBL, but find only potheads, the cops leave.
• Break in looking for terrorist videotapes, but find kiddie-porn, the cops leave.
• Break in looking for Saudi cash, but find prostitution cash, cops leave.

These are unpleasant alternatives that proponents of National Security MUST pass by if they are really only interested in national security.

The concerns of Patriot Act opponents is that this law is not JUST for terrorism, but to enhance Police Power across the board. Whether we need more domestic police powers or not should be debated OUTSIDE the argument about terrorism and national security.

[Atlas Sneezed]

""Our business is to secure liberty," [Ashcroft] added ... (I wonder what he meant by that)"

A fascinating choice of words: "to secure liberty".

That's about the same as "to secure freedom."

Which is the same as "the security of a free state."

So why isn't Ashcroft working to restore the 2nd Amendment, which has the security of a free state as its goal? (RKBA being necessary to a militia, which is necessary for such security.)

The big semantic problem is that "Security" is treated as the end. In fact security is based on a verb that takes an object. What do we wish to secure: freedom or safety?

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Strawman. If the cops believe a felony is in progress, then they'll go in without a warrant."

And more pertinent, if cops believe they can lie later without getting into trouble that they had reason to believe there was a felony in progress, they will go in.

[ellery]

If your argument is that we should modify the fourth amendment, there is a Constitutional process to do so. If Congress can just go willy-nilly abrogating the bill of rights without following that process, then our Constitution is merely a worthless piece of paper. And citing the many abuses that have happened up until now does not make the argument that we should blindly accept additional abuses.

[numberonepal]

For those of you who wish to thank your Copngresspeople go to http://www.capwiz.com and send them and the media an email with your thanks and opinion.

Sens and Reps at the state and federal levels are taking emails more and more seriously these days since they receive less and less actual snail mail letters from constituents.

[jmc813]

and the most dangerous weapon in the world was a cannon.

For what it's worth, many people use that same argument to justify the Assault Weapons Ban.

[jmc813]

Garrett's mine, too.

I may have asked you this in the past, but where are you from? Northern Passaic County here.

[jmc813]

Not even that. Why not have an "OOPS...not terrorism! My Bad!" clause backing up the whole Patriot Act. That is, just stipulate that any evidence found in a "terrorism" investigation CANNOT and WILL NOT be used in any NON-TERRORIST prosecution.

I personally think that is a great idea.

[Rome2000]

As a "Citizen" you tell the government every April 15th where you work, where you live,what your job title is, how much money you make, how much money you have in the bank and what bank that is, your marital status, how many kids you have and their ages, how much you spend on medical insurance, how much your mortgage is, what you pay or do not pay in alimony, how much you gave to charity, etc....

If you refuse to do so you will be jailed.

In light of that fact, objecting to a law that simply makes it easier to catch terrorists trying to massacre thousands of Americans seems rather silly.